Home› A Moving Train

Nice Ahmadinejad suits for the Brits...

hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
edited April 2007 in A Moving Train
It appears that Ahmadinejad and Co. thought that the Brits would look rather dashing in a signature "Ahmadinejad" suit. Apparently they couldn't find a jacket that would fit the short guy.

http://www.cnn.com/

And yes, how nice of Ahmadinejad to not dress the Brits up in black sack cloth with accompanying hood and electrical wires. :rolleyes:
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    hailhailkc wrote:
    It appears that Ahmadinejad and Co. thought that the Brits would look rather dashing in a signature "Ahmadinejad" suit. Apparently they couldn't find a jacket that would fit the short guy.

    http://www.cnn.com/

    And yes, how nice of Ahmadinejad to not dress the Brits up in black sack cloth with accompanying hood and electrical wires. :rolleyes:
    Well, it is quite nice for the soldiers, isn't it?

    Sucks that we might lose a PR battle with fucking Iran - but that looks like what will happen. So, who do we blame? Iran for not torturing the British soldiers, the U.S. media for reporting on U.S. torture, the U.S. media for reporting on U.S. torture as a bad thing, or the U.S. government for allowing a place like Gitmo to exist in the first place?
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    RainDog wrote:
    Well, it is quite nice for the soldiers, isn't it?

    Sucks that we might lose a PR battle with fucking Iran - but that looks like what will happen. So, who do we blame? Iran for not torturing the British soldiers, the U.S. media for reporting on U.S. torture, the U.S. media for reporting on U.S. torture as a bad thing, or the U.S. government for allowing a place like Gitmo to exist in the first place?

    Yeah, but if you actually believe the Iranian military treats prisoners of war better than the U.S....then I think you're quite naive. It's propaganda. I highly doubt any captured special forces soldiers caught on the ground in Iran get the same red carpet treatment that these British paws in a PR game received.

    And I have no problem with Gitmo, it's Abu Grahib that was the cluster fuck. And I blame the people in charge of that facility.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Yeah, but if you actually believe the Iranian military treats prisoners of war better than the U.S....then I think you're quite naive. It's propaganda. I highly doubt any captured special forces soldiers caught on the ground in Iran get the same red carpet treatment that these British paws in a PR game received.

    And I have no problem with Gitmo, it's Abu Grahib that was the cluster fuck. And I blame the people in charge of that facility.
    No, I don't believe they treat prisoners any better than we do. Likely we're on the same level. But, we all know that as far as media cycles go, the best evidence is the most recent evidence. You can call it a PR victory, a propaganda victory, or a victory acheived through outright lies, but that one "v" word still remains.

    And I blame the whole damn administration for what's happened at Abu Grahib AND Gitmo - from those in charge of the facility all the way up to the president. Why? Because whether the president was personally involved or not, that's where the blame sticks. And now we look bad compared to fucking Iran. That's some bad leadership right there.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Yeah, but if you actually believe the Iranian military treats prisoners of war better than the U.S....then I think you're quite naive. It's propaganda. I highly doubt any captured special forces soldiers caught on the ground in Iran get the same red carpet treatment that these British paws in a PR game received.

    And I have no problem with Gitmo, it's Abu Grahib that was the cluster fuck. And I blame the people in charge of that facility.
    Shawn, I wish, I wish, you would stop being an apologist for this regime. I know you know what self-defense is, and Iraq is in no way, shape, or form an example of America defending itself.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    RainDog wrote:
    No, I don't believe they treat prisoners any better than we do. Likely we're on the same level. But, we all know that as far as media cycles go, the best evidence is the most recent evidence. You can call it a PR victory, a propaganda victory, or a victory acheived through outright lies, but that one "v" word still remains.

    Then Bush's speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier was just as legit as the shit we're seeing on tv now...right? Look, I understand your point, and I agree to a certain extent...I'm just saying...take it for what's it worth. A PR move to make themselves look good set up by a bunch of ass hats at Abu Grahib who decided that filming their sadistic acts would be a good idea.
    RainDog wrote:
    And I blame the whole damn administration for what's happened at Abu Grahib AND Gitmo - from those in charge of the facility all the way up to the president. Why? Because whether the president was personally involved or not, that's where the blame sticks. And now we look bad compared to fucking Iran. That's some bad leadership right there.

    You can't blame Bush when the shit happened half way around the world and he didn't know it was going on. Unless, of course, you believe that HE DID KNOW it was happening...and allowed it to happen. Is that what you believe?

    I mean honestly, is the teacher to blame when a student brings a gun to class and caps 5 kids in the head during the math test?
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    gue_barium wrote:
    Shawn, I wish, I wish, you would stop being an apologist for this regime. I know you know what self-defense is, and Iraq is in no way, shape, or form an example of America defending itself.

    Bush said we were going after those who support and harbor terrorists, not just Afghanistan. In my mind, Saddam was a terrorist. Case closed for me.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Bush said we were going after those who support and harbor terrorists, not just Afghanistan. In my mind, Saddam was a terrorist. Case closed for me.
    "I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • mca47mca47 Posts: 13,297
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Bush said we were going after those who support and harbor terrorists, not just Afghanistan. In my mind, Saddam was a terrorist. Case closed for me.


    There are a lot of people in a lot of countries we should be going after then.
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Yes Iranians are sub human.... bomb them... :rolleyes:

    ahh...the logic
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Then Bush's speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier was just as legit as the shit we're seeing on tv now...right? Look, I understand your point, and I agree to a certain extent...I'm just saying...take it for what's it worth. A PR move to make themselves look good set up by a bunch of ass hats at Abu Grahib who decided that filming their sadistic acts would be a good idea.
    Yes, what Bush did was just as legit. The problem for him is it didn't work. Like I said about media cycles - after Bush gave his speech, the war continued. So the speech became less and less believable as time went by.
    hailhailkc wrote:
    You can't blame Bush when the shit happened half way around the world and he didn't know it was going on. Unless, of course, you believe that HE DID KNOW it was happening...and allowed it to happen. Is that what you believe?

    I mean honestly, is the teacher to blame when a student brings a gun to class and caps 5 kids in the head during the math test?
    I can blame Bush for starting the war that led to it happening. I also believe he knew about it before we did. How long, I'm not sure - and his actual involvement, again not sure. As for your analogy, yeah if the teacher gave the kid the gun and turned his back, he'd share in the blame.

    And for the record, I never said the blame "should" stick to Bush. I said it does stick to Bush. We can go back and forth on whether it should or not; but the fact remains that it does. So, like Iran's play here, perception means quite a bit.
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Bush said we were going after those who support and harbor terrorists, not just Afghanistan. In my mind, Saddam was a terrorist. Case closed for me.

    Saddam did not support or even like Osama Bin Laden. Quite the opposite from what I've heard.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Saddam did not support or even like Osama Bin Laden. Quite the opposite from what I've heard.

    Who said anything about Bin Laden? I said Saddam was a terrorist.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Who said anything about Bin Laden? I said Saddam was a terrorist.

    so are a lot of other people terrorists....however.... Osama was responsible for 9/11 and that dude was/is not associated with Iraq.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Saddam did not support or even like Osama Bin Laden. Quite the opposite from what I've heard.

    saddam like bin laden like the U.S. loves the saudi royal family
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    macgyver06 wrote:
    saddam like bin laden like the U.S. loves the saudi royal family

    sweet Saudi milk...suckled fresh from the cash teat...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    so are a lot of other people terrorists....however.... Osama was responsible for 9/11 and that dude was/is not associated with Iraq.

    Get off the Osama rant. I never said one word about Osama. I said...and read carefully...that Bush stated the U.S. would be going after people who support, fund or participate in terrorist activities. In other words...listen closely...that means OTHER people or nation states...BESIDES AFGHANISTAN...regardless of involvement with 9/11 or OSAMA.

    He made that very clear.

    IT'S A WAR ON TERROR.

    TERROR resides in more places than just Afghanistan.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Get off the Osama rant. I never said one word about Osama. I said...and read carefully...that Bush stated the U.S. would be going after people who support, fund or participate in terrorist activities. In other words...listen closely...that means OTHER people or nation states...BESIDES AFGHANISTAN...regardless of involvement with 9/11 or OSAMA.

    He made that very clear.

    IT'S A WAR ON TERROR.

    TERROR resides in more places than just Afghanistan.

    Ya ok but what exactly started us into this whole "war on terror" warpath....9/11 and Osama...

    :rolleyes:

    I guess it's just a hate the entire middle east kinda of thing you're talking about...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Get off the Osama rant. I never said one word about Osama. I said...and read carefully...that Bush stated the U.S. would be going after people who support, fund or participate in terrorist activities. In other words...listen closely...that means OTHER people or nation states...BESIDES AFGHANISTAN...regardless of involvement with 9/11 or OSAMA.

    He made that very clear.

    IT'S A WAR ON TERROR.

    TERROR resides in more places than just Afghanistan.
    And perhaps the biggest problem for Bush right now is people are starting to realize exactly what his vision would entail. And, not only are they starting to see the futility of his goals, but also his inability to acheive them and the negligible benefit were he capable.

    Finally.

    .
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    hailhailkc wrote:
    It appears that Ahmadinejad and Co. thought that the Brits would look rather dashing in a signature "Ahmadinejad" suit. Apparently they couldn't find a jacket that would fit the short guy.

    http://www.cnn.com/

    And yes, how nice of Ahmadinejad to not dress the Brits up in black sack cloth with accompanying hood and electrical wires. :rolleyes:
    ...
    actually... the suits probably aren't that bad. Looks like they are off the rack and didn't have time to fit them.
    That poor gal, though. Talk about making her look like a peasant.
    ...
    And are these really British Marines? I don't know... when I'm down Oceanside way and see them 1st Expeditionary or Fox 2-5 Marines from Pendelton... some of those dudes look like real bad-asses.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    hailhailkc wrote:

    IT'S A WAR ON TERROR.

    what the heck does this mean, anyway...?

    how does one fight "terror"...? I mean some are terrorized by the dark...when do we invade...?
Sign In or Register to comment.