November 4, 2005

SETTLE DOWN, JUNIOR:

No attack plans, says Iran leader (BBC, 11/04/05)

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has insisted Iran does not intend to attack any foreign state.

He spoke after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Following those comments, Iran's foreign ministry said it had never used or threatened to use force.

On Friday, in a live broadcast to mark Eid al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan, Ayatollah Khamenei said: "We will not commit aggression towards any nations."

He went on: "We will not breach any nation's rights anywhere in the world. "


We can't say the same.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2005 7:50 PM
Comments

Neither can Iran, but that didn't stop Khamenei.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 4, 2005 8:39 PM

"We can't say the same."

Ain't that the truth....we really can't can we? Not if we want to live.

Posted by: NC3 at November 4, 2005 8:54 PM

From what?

Posted by: oj at November 4, 2005 9:18 PM

We can say the same. We just think that a dictatorship has fewer "rights" than a democracy.

Posted by: pj at November 4, 2005 9:50 PM

Never believe what they say in English.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 5, 2005 1:18 AM

So it has come to this: relativism to the point of asserted moral equivalency between the Islamic Republic and the United States of America. You leftists have no shame.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 5, 2005 2:49 AM

David, It is not only that that have no shame, but that they mock the very notion of shame: bourgiose morality, don't you know?. Only bullets matter to a Marxist--so be it!

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 5, 2005 4:46 AM

David:

What equivalency? They announced they won't breach any other nation's rights but we're going to keep right on doing so. We don't believe nation's have rights, only their people.

Posted by: oj at November 5, 2005 6:17 AM

And Iran is going to keep right on doing so to, through being the number one sponsor of terrorism and interfering in Iraq. So both countries will continue to breach other nation's rights, the only difference being the mullahocracy claim it won't. I fail to grasp your point. Is it just that we're more honest?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 5, 2005 9:10 AM

AOG: It's probably that we don't even feel the need to make such a statement in the first place.

Posted by: Mikey at November 5, 2005 10:54 AM

Iraq is going to have a greater impact on Iran than vice versa--it illustrates the heresy of Khomeinism.

Posted by: oj at November 6, 2005 10:43 PM

A strong, dynamic, and free Iraq will be a big challenge for Iran, which is becoming a husk of a country. And the mullahocracy can't do a thing about it.

Of course, if they get the bomb, it won't matter (to them). We will probably have to pry the button from their cold, dead fingers. Pakistan is more stable with the bomb than Iran. And that's saying something.

I suppose it has been a hypothetical for a long time - what should the US do if we 'cannot' accept a nation developing nuclear weapons. We accepted Russia, we accepted France, we accepted Red China. What now?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 6, 2005 10:56 PM
« EVER NOTICE...? | Main | NEXT UP? (via obc): »