Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

“the world has heard so much about duck houses and lame duck prime ministers that they must think we are all completely quackers

If the BBC’s chiefs have an ounce of common sense they will seize the moment, cut Jonathan Ross’s salary in half and use the money to hire another 20 Farsi-speaking analysts. […]

There is a good reason why the ayatollah bashed Britain with such singular ferocity, and it is to do with the Iranians’ changing view of America. We have been co-opted to play the role of Great Satan, because America is now led by Barack Obama, or Barack Hussein Obama, as Fox News always calls him, and it is obvious that the mullahs don’t know quite how to handle him.

Obama’s intelligent speech in Cairo has had a big impact in the Muslim world, and it is obvious that it is his presence in the White House – far more than any BBC broadcast – that is giving hope to the demonstrators in Tehran.

I don’t know whether this election was rigged. Even if there were as many irregularities as the protesters claim, it seems sadly possible that Mr Ahmedinejad retained a majority of the votes, if not 63 per cent. Indeed, I saw one BBC television report that scrupulously portrayed the messianic reception he received in parts of the country, with weeping women queuing to touch the hem of his raiment.


Nor do I know whether the demonstrators will succeed in their demands, or whether they will peter out over the next few days, overwhelmed by the brutality of the official response.

But there is one thing we can say for certain: that in the 30 years since the fundamentalist revolution, this is the nearest the mullahs have come to feeling the anger of the people. This is the nearest Iran has come, in our lifetimes, to a true brush with democracy.

The key point is that I do not believe it could possibly have happened had John McCain been elected. Why? Because McCain entertained American journalists by singing, to a Beach Boys’ tune: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” If you want a population to abandon a hardline leadership, you don’t threaten them with nuclear war.

Barack Obama has shown the Iranian bourgeoisie that America is willing to engage, to treat their country with respect, and it is that sudden hope – of a new role and status for Iran – that is driving the protesters to see if they can be rid of their crazy regime.

Who knows whether they will succeed, but we can safely say that the BBC and Barack Obama have done more to change Iran than Fox News and George W Bush.


[This article is in The Daily Telegraph] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/

51 thoughts on “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei”

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/

    Let’s all think positive and look on the bright side.

    a) at least we are first in something!

    b) maybe the Ayatollah read Boris’s article on how the Labour couldn’t even organise a decent political assassination and he agrees with him and us that the “wolves” in government need to go. It is not the British people he is calling evil, only the men in power, Mandelson, Miliband, Brown, etc. The Ayatollah could in fact, be reaching out to us, with a show of support for what we are suffering. Miliband and Mandelson would get up anyone’s nose and as for Gordon, well……

  2. The elections were rigged and the Iranian people know through several factors. First of all during the election campaign there were parades and many more people wearing the green band supporting Massavi could be seen than the other side, we don’t even what colour. There were more votes than electors, some voting centres were closed and would not let people come in to vote and the greatest proof was that Ahmadinejad was in Russia at the time of the election results to avoid being questioned.
    If women in the country villages were queueing to touch the hem of his raiment it is because he was carrying a case with a silver handle full of gift vouchers /money to give out to those uneducated women unlike the educated people of Teheran who know about the corruption, the lack of investment from the oil , everything from the west is imported with the oil money , there are no oil refineries , there are no jobs for the young educated people,( at least 65% of the population). The Iranians are not well-informed about the situation at the moment because of the TV radios internet being blocked. We know more than they do.

  3. “and here’s this top mullah who seems to think that the Tehran protests are being staffed by swarms of burka-wearing Bonds, and that the whole thing is being orchestrated by Dame Judi Dench from her lair on the South Bank. ”

    Classic Boris.

  4. Well said Boris Quote :-

    “Nor do I know whether the demonstrators will succeed in their demands, or whether they will peter out over the next few days, overwhelmed by the brutality of the official response.”

    I was trawling through blogs last night and I came across a respectable blog that brought home what these protests mean via a youtube Video.

    I will not name the blog or the you tube video I watched because it is something I wished I did not watch and I would not inflict it on anyone reading this. I also suggest that you do not go looking for that youtube video.

    The video showed a young lady dying after being shot in the protests (Yes very sick I know and I did not watch it out of some dark voyeurism). This is happening now and these people need help….its not a hypothetical game these are people’s lives. We should break all relations with Iran with with immediate effect until there is a proper election.

    We forget that Iran is quite a unique country with a rich culture history that rivals our own….most Iranians I have met have been above average in their cultural awareness and artistic prowess they deserve whatever help we can give them….WE owe it to them if you do your research into the way we manipulated the regional Khans in Iran for oil….it seems little has changed there.

    There will always be a motivation to manipulate the middle east as long as there is a barrel of oil there.

  5. Received the following e-mail from Amnesty International.

    Dear Supporter,

    I’m sure you will be aware of the disturbing news coming out of Iran over the last week or so.

    Getting this information is becoming increasingly difficult as the Iranian authorities are attempting to suppress information by blocking websites and severely restricting foreign media – but we can show them that the world is still watching.

    After the disputed election results of 12 June, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets of Tehran and other cities to protest. But in Iran, expressing your opinions can be dangerous – dozens were arrested and by the end of last week Amnesty had recorded at least 10 deaths. On Friday, the situation was further inflamed when, rather than appealing for the security forces to exercise restraint, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that further protest would not be tolerated – effectively condoning the violent actions of the security forces.

    This did not deter more demonstrations on Saturday – defiant and courageous people are continuing to exercise their right to peacefully assemble and express their dissent. As we have seen, they are doing so despite great personal risk.

    Amnesty has issued an Urgent Action appeal in support for the people of Iran and the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression – please email the Iranian Ambassador in the UK.

    Thank you.

  6. Boris, we need an Obama of our own, to reach out and unite as he is doing. We are waiting for you to step up. Much as we love Mr. Cameron, only you have the brilliant powers of communication, the wit, the brains and the compassion to fill the role.

    The country is waiting.

  7. What you say makes great sense. I hope Obama doesn’t give in to the pressure from McCain and the other hawks in the US.

  8. BBC is the finest hypocrite. They have never stop pointing fingers at Chinese media’s censorship. But then they removed my comments many time from their “Have your say” or other blogs on their website because I had critiqued their authors. Oh I could not even mentioning why Britain still keep the “Emperor Icon” the Queen. By doing that they told me I had broke their rules. Can you believe that?

    BBC never stops pocking their nose at other countries’ politics in a way as if they are still the throat of the former British Empire. BBC is helping the Empire to manage HER affairs.


    Because of my flippant remarks about the Ayatollah, I have offended someone I truly respect, hammeruk14 on twitter. He also writes here.

    Hammer please forgive me for my thoughtless, ridiculous humour. Because the Ayatollah made such harsh remarks about this country, I was flippant back.

    I have talked with you in the past, and we agree that one of the main problems is not enough dialogue between our nations, lack of understanding. It is a British thing, when attacked or criticised to be flippant.

    This does not excuse the insensitivity I showed, although I am deeply upset by the situation in Iran. I apologise most sincerely and hope you will accept it.


    Iran believes that the UK wishes to destabilise the country from the inside, and they have believe this has been happening for decades.

    They say that journalism from the west is stoking up the anger. Gordon Brown has expelled two Iranian diplomats in a tit for tat reaction, after two British diplomats were expelled from the British Embassy.

    President Obama has defused some of the anger against the US. That anger is now focussed on Britain and it gives Iran a common enemy to fight against.

  11. Angela you have not offended me and there is no need for apologising I was merely raising a point of double standards which so frequently done subconciously. Ayatollah Khamanie himself is victim of a terrorist attack which left 80 people dead.

    No doubt the Iranians have voted and 80% voted compared to a pathetic percentage in the recently European Elections. The truth is Ahmedinejad and Mousavi are both relgiously conservative ; they have the same views just different words.

    Ahmedinejad has the vote of the poor (majority) and Mousavi those who are well off (liberals).

    There is no way that I as a blogger can gain any information in which I can verify that we had a clean set of elections so how can external agencies or european media have access to information that can say that Iranian elections were rigged.

    We look at the protestors who have been maltreated in Tehran but we perhaps forget the tactics used by our own Police against Protestors demonstrating against the siege of gaza (we were tear gassed and baton charged ; but I suppose thats ok because it was the Met Police were doing a good job) not to mention the innocent bystander who died as a result of police brutality.

    Paul Bremner and Ayat Seestani met in Najaf Paul Bremner was eager to discuss the security of Iraq with the Ayatollah ; the Ayatollah simply replied “I am Iranian and you are American let the Iraqis decide a future for Iraq themselves”

    I suggest ; Let the Iranians decide their own future.

  12. In my last job (18 months ago) I had to visit Iran on a regular basis (largely Tehran). At that time many Iranians privately expressed intense disatisfaction with the current government (but in general not the regime/order itself interestingly). The reasons were the economic incompetence, the waste of the petroleum fund and the petty restrictions of a semi-police state. I feel opinion in Tehran (especially amongst the educated young and the middle classes)is strongly against Ahmadinejad – they have access to internet, satellite TV etc. In rural areas (and that is still where the bulk of the population live) they only see state TV and therefore think he is doing a great job – rather like Gordon, he claims credit for anything good while any of the many problems are the fault of XXX (Isreal, USA, UK, Salman Rushdie, Micky Mouse etc) fill in your choice. I think he did fix the election but that in a real count he would have probably come out ahead in the first round but I am not sure whether he would have got to 50%. The fear was that in the second round between the two top names, his foes would have united against him.

  13. You cant base your argument on Tehran alone. To say that London is representative of the UK ; I think alot of people would disagree. Similarly basing an opinion based on Tehranis would upset a lot of Iranians. There are people who didnt vote for either.

  14. Hammeruk – what a true gentleman you are!
    >Angela you have not offended me and there is no need for apologising I was merely raising a point of double standards which so frequently done subconciously.

  15. Hammer, you know how upset I would be if I offended you, not just because I enjoy our chats on twitter, but because I appreciate the way you are prepared to come on this website and discuss your religion and things about Islam that have puzzled us, or that we have misunderstood, with total courage and sincerity.

    I need to read your posts above over and over to get all the info. clear, but one point jumped out and you are so right. We have a so called democracy here, and how many people bother to go out and vote? It is truly shameful and something I do not understand, but it is not to the credit of this country that such apathy exists.

    Another way we could learn from Islam I believe, is in the way we punish people who hurt or kill children. This may sound shocking, but I believe that the death penalty should apply.

    Hammer, tell me, while I have got you here, what do you think about President Sarkozy’s remarks about the wearing of the Burkha?

  16. Well yes the Death Penalty has its advantages especially for eradicting the menaces in society (rapists etc) but if the people of a country want change they need to lobby hard.

    As far as Sarkozy comments ; I dont agree with Burqa but I do agree with the Hijab. The only thing I would like clarifying is that whether he agrees / disagrees with the Hijab. I do believe that people have a right to wear what they choose and that choice must be respected. If someone wants to wear next to nothing we say nothing to them.

    The Burqa has severe affects on social cohesion and it is difficult to establish and relationship (business , friends etc) with the Burqa.

    There is no evidence of the burqa being used during Prophet Muhammeds time but for the Hijab there is.

    Some think its great to be ultra “pious” and some think its just adding more onto the religion. You speak to different people you will get different views.

    But the Schools in France have banned the headscarf and have alienated the French morroccan/algerian/tunisian communites I am glad the UK has not taken that step.

  17. No this is not the first time in 30 years the people of Iran have challenged the mullahs, its the first time citizen journalists and cyber technology have managed to relay the news to the outside world so people outside can really find out we dont want the mullahs.

    As for Ahmadinejad having won the elections! Just shut up Boris and educate yourself about Iran before commenting. Good starting point will be my blog. Oh and stop the Press TV ads on the back of London buses, with their motto ‘We Give Voice to the Voiceless’ – The only people who are voiceless now are the Iranian people being shot and beaten to death by the one of the most repressive repressions ever seen.

  18. I agree with Sarkozy banning the hijab and the burkha in public places including schools. When I used to go to school there was a thing called “school uniform,” and everyone adhered to it. Sarkozy has banned the hijab in public places/hospitals/schools etc. The UK and the rest of the free world should follow France. The reason for the ban is because of the fact that so many girls have been FORCED to wear the hijab – in the case of an Iranian-American, the 13 year old girl refused to wear one, so her father killed her.

    Islam is the most sexist and barbaric of religions – the only reason Britain does not follow the French example is because it would lose trade. And the same goes for letting in all the asylum seekers from Muslim countries – eg Abu Qatada et al.

  19. Of course the Iranian elections were FIXED – how else could he have got the results of his victory declared after 2 HOURS of the polling stations closing, whereas, normally, it would take 3 days?

  20. Hi Mistress nice of you to join the discussion. Well the truth is Mistress the reason why France banned the Hijab is because they insist on the seperation of state and religion.

    If you ban something how do you still claim to be free; Freedom is about choice ; Surely people should make that choice themselves. Parenting is difficult especially when people define their identity be it based on ethnicity or religion.

    But I do have to say that when you ban something thats the very thing that people would want to do. Turkey banned the headscarf an overwhelming majority now want to wear; Iran enforced the Hijab a large number of people dont want to wear it because it is forced on them. I dont agree with forcing people do anything but I do want people to have the choice to choose. Surely that is the essence of democracy!

  21. was anyone able to clarify whether the French ban is proposed to apply to both the burka and the hijab being worn in pubic places? I’ve gone to look and all I can find is reference to it covering the burka. Hammer (above) makes the differentiation between the two and I must say, I agree with him. The two are not the same.

    I also agree no one should be forced to wear something against their will and though I don’t know anyone who wears a burka, I do know several women who wear the hijab quite happily. I assume they aren’t alone in this and that they must have their French counterparts. Are those womens’ rights to wear it not to be taken into account?

    I don’t know how such a proposal would play here in the States. Probably not very well. A private school might get away with it – being a private institution and therefore permitted to propose whatever institutional guidelines they like (such as school uniforms, membership restrictions etc.). But an attempt to ban the wearing the hijab in public (which has happened in small ways over the years here – in regards to driver’s license pictures and the like) would doubtless become a freedom of expression and religion issues.

    Finally, it would present what my law lecturer in college always called ‘slippery slope issues’ – where would the line be drawn and what religious headcoverings and items of apparel get banned next?

  22. The French have ALREADY banned the hijab – there were a LOT of Muslim girls in France who were forced to wear it by pressure from their family/community, which is the reason why Sarkozy did the ban on the Hijab, the turban, the skull cap and and wearing of crosses (unless it was tucked inside) in public places. France has not had any backlash, and people are happy. The French are currently proposing to ban the burkha & niqab.

    Remember, there is a seperation between state and religion – at least in Europe.

    There are many girls who are forced into wearing the hijab against their will, but for fear of violence by men, they have to wear it.

  23. ….here is a perfect summing up of the whole hijab issue:

    Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
    Well, In This Case, the Hijab Is Oppressive

    Tracy Clark Flory’s video, defending her recent post taking a “maybe it’s oppressive, maybe it isn’t” line on the alleged hijab-inspired honor killing in Canada is fairly weak. Her argument is, on some level, almost obviously true. The hijab can be oppressive, and it could not be oppressive, and she would rather not make a judgment in this particular case because she’s a “shades of gray” type of girl.

    But let’s take it as a given that this 16 year old was killed because she refused to wear a hijab, and more generally, refused to follow her families cultural strictures on proper dress and behavior for a young woman. Then, we could perfectly confident in making the argument that the hijab is oppressive, as is the whole host of cultural mores that deem women to be the property of their family, and that their sexuality is dangerous. I don’t really see why we need to recognize any shades of gray or why we need to hold out the possibility that the hijab could be empowering in some instances. In instances where not wearing it leads to murder at the hands of one’s own father, it’s pretty unambiguous that, indeed, clothing mandates with the purpose of expressing ownership over women’s sexuality are, in fact, horribly oppressive.

    Written by Matt Zeitlin

    December 17, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    Source: http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/well-in-this-case-the-hijab-is-oppressive/

    Have you also noticed that since Iraq was invaded, and the new government took over, ALL women have to wear a hijab, whether they like it or not? THAT is oppression.

  24. Yes, I knew France had banned the wearing of the hijab as part of a ban religious dress and signs being worn in public schools. But I thought it applied ONLY to the realm of public schools and the proposed ban of burkas was wider ranging, encompassing “in public” in general which was why I asked whether the hijab was part of the current discussion.

    Was I misreading the article? Surely, if the hijab (the cross and the yarmulke) are already banned from being worn in public generally in France – which seems very excessive in my happily secular opinion – then why do they are even need to having the burka discussion? Surely it would fall under the same category of “religious dress” and thus already be covered by the existing restriction.

    No. Come to think of it, last time I was in France (not so long ago) I was at an event hosted by one of the large Jewish educational philanthropies (hosted in a public space) and there were plenty of men in yarmulkes, modern orthodox women with their heads covered, etc. So, surely the current ban on religious dress and signs is still public school specific. All those people couldn’t have been thumbing their noses as the rules….

    And as I recall there was some dissent from the Jewish community in France at the time of the school ban (2004 wasn’t it?) – though yes, most of the debate was concerning the hijab.

    There is a separation of church and state here in the United States as well, Mistress but – by and large – it isn’t permitted to trump individual rights and we aren’t quite a rabidly secularist as the French, who have made rather an art form out of it.

  25. The meeting you described was at a private event. A public place means a school/bank/hospital etc. Frankly, secularism is the right way.

  26. at mdsp the dissent not only came from Jewish communities but also Sikh communities. There was one famous case of a secular Jewish lawyer who had married a lady of Moroccon origin and their daughters both decided to become practicing muslims wishing to observe the hijab in and out of school. This lawyer took their case and took the issue to court citing his daughters had a human right to practice which ever faith they wanted to.

  27. so by your logic, Mistress – the fact that they lost makes the decision the right one? Some might call it the tyranny of the majority.

    By the way – I agree that secularism is the way to go – a religious beliefs have no place in the running of government and – and this is the key point – the government has no role in the dictation of religous practices and beliefs. Such as telling someone they cannot wear a cross or a yarmulke or a hijab. Such a restriction is also a dicatation of how one is allowed to practice – so France is not as secular as it makes out.

    If we all accept – and I assume that we do – that oppressing others is wrong and that forcing someone to adopt a particular piece of clothing against their will is – in the same vein – wrong (presuming it doens’t conflict with public decency laws). But forbidding those who WISH to wear it is also wrong. And those women do exist. Why should they be denied their rights? Blaming the hijab for the oppression of those women who are forced to wear it is backwards. It’s the people FORCING them that need to be targeted – not the article of clothing.

    The Canadian case you cite is a perfect example – do you imagine that a man willing to kill his own daughter over such an issue will take any notice of a law that says she cannot wear a hijab? Don’t be naive. The writer of the piece blames the hijab for the situation – not for the clearly unbalanced man who valued being obeyed over the life of his own daughter.

    Clearly, Mistress, you don’t agree that a secular society should foster freedom of religion as much as freedom FROM religon. Which in and of itself is a belief. I imagine you count yourself lucky that you live somewhere that allows you to publicly espouse that belief. A shame you don’t feel others – who wish to wear a cross, a kippah, a hijab as an expression of their beliefs – deserve the same courtesy.

    I believe a truly secular society makes room for people regardless of race, religion of creed. It respects and allows people to either worship or not. It is tolerant enough to withstand the outward manifestations adopted by those who choose to worship and tolerant enough to host and foster debate from those who choose not to.

    Maybe that sounds idealist and like a pipe dream. But it most definitely doesn’t sound like what France is trying to accomplish, no matter how loudly they bray about secularism and fraternity. France has never been a guiding light of tolerance – no matter what their official line may be.

  28. France did not have slaves, and they counted Africans/African origin as French citizens, unlike the USA which had segregation until the 1960’s. France also became a Republic and fought for equality. So where exactly can you pinpoint France as being non-tolerant?

    France does not recognise religious law, nor does it recognise religious beliefs or morality as a motivation for the enactment of prohibitions.

  29. Well kudos to them for not having participated directly in the American slave trade. They can totally have a gold star. Did their colonialism bring nothing but happiness and sunshine to the people whose lands they took? No, I didn’t think so. And it’s great that they have no official segregation policies on the books. But theory and practice are rarely the same.

    Where would you like the pinpointing to start? We’ll stick to the modern era, if you like.

    Quite apart from the almost insane xenophobia they exhibit, the French government themselves admitted as late as Dec 2008 – in the form of Labor Minister Jean-Louis Borloo – that ‘discrimination is considerable, especially against those of African origin.’ He conceded that it will take years before government efforts to redress this failure. Did you think all those car burnings and demonstrations a few years back were random acts of hooliganism?

    But let’s widen the playing field – it’s not all about the color of the skin, after all. It’s also religious discrimination. French anti-Semitism ebbs and flows but it has been ever present in France for over a century. I don’t just mean the the big events in the anti-Semetic timeline like the Dreyfus affair or the Vichy government’s collaboration with the Nazis but every day stuff and it has been steadily, sharply on the rise for the past decade.

    In 2002 synagogues in Strasbourg and Lyon were set on fire. The synagogues in Marseilles – one burnt to the ground on Easter Sunday, the other had Molotov cocktails pitched at two days later. The pavilion at a Jewish cemetery in Alsace was destroyed. Except where the insurance company insisted in the case of the Lyon synagogue – no official investigation was done. In 2004 alone – over 400 Jewish graves in a dozen cemeteries were desecrated. Action was not taken on any of those incidents for over a year. Even the French government admits to having looked the other way on this for too long – though having admitted it, they have done precious little to address it.

    In fact, this lack of action has the Jewish community in France feeling so abandoned by both the French authorities, misrepresented by an openly bias media and worried by the complacency of the surrounding society that a survey a couple of years ago indicated that 20-25% of the community were making plans to leave France.

    All this doesn’t happen just because some individual has time on his hands and the ingredients for a homemade bomb. It trickles down from the top. The support for minority discrimination is actually woven INTO the French Constitution – Article 2 – which states that there ARE no minorities in France. This allows them to ignore the reality of what is happening on the ground. It means that they can point to their piece of paper and declare that they can’t be mistreating people who don’t exist. Their logic is: “We can’t be mistreating minorities – we don’t have any.” This official ‘color-blindness’ allows them to remain blind and do nothing to address the fact that non-white French rarely enjoy the same educational and employment opportunities as their white counterparts and that their fellow Frenchmen are being terrorized for merely being Jewish.

    Is there racial discrimination in other countries? Yes. It is wrong – no matter where it is? Yes. But none of that changes the fact that France isn’t the utopia of brotherhood and equality it likes to pretend that it is.

  30. The Anti-Semtism in France was purportrated mainly by the 5 million Muslim community in France, and the same for the UK too.

  31. You have the right to believe and say but I cannot let such an ignorant statement stand unchallenged. Yes, not just untrue. Ignorant.

    The anti-Muslim filter through which you see the world – which is abundantly clear to anyone who spends any time reading this site – has either blinded you to the truth or it allows you to hide from it.

    The anti-Semitism in the UK and France – indeed in Europe at large – is not a campaign of Muslim violence against Jews.

    Have there been anti-Semitic actions taken by Muslims. Sure there have. But it is far more prevalent in the population at large. When did the people of Europe ever need the Muslims to do their dirty work for them? They’ve had centuries – no, MILLENNIA – to perfect it on their own.

    I don’t know what your personal experience of anti-Semitism is, Mistress and frankly at this point I don’t much care. My personal experience of it has been deep and wide-ranging and I know FAR more about anti-Semitism, its causes, its effects and how it manifests itself than you can ever imagine. I have seen the results up close, have tended to the traumatized and injured, have had swastikas burned into the front yard of my home, have picked up the pieces of a shattered toy after gunfire into a Jewish nursery school caused the child to drop it as she ran in fear. I have seen it in London and Cambridge, Strasbourg, Rome, Valencia and Madrid. I have seen it in the Ukraine and the United States, in Argentina and in the Caribbean. I have seen it committed by men and women, the old, the young and everyone in between.

    And I have seen the ways in which local and national authorities have chosen to deal with it – or not.

    In Britain, such incidents are treated with the seriousness they deserve – admittedly they aren’t hugely pro-active about it but once it is presented to them they take it on and follow through. In Italy, traditionally very protective of its Jewish population, the government is very pro-active in working against anti-Semitism becoming entrenched in the first place, is quick to stamp it out when it occurs, and punished it accordingly, thus illustrating for future potential perpetrators that action will be quick and severe. France barely acknowledges the problem exists.

    Are there Muslims in Europe committed anti-Semitic acts? Doubtless there are. But that in no way shape or form changes the fact that by and large, anti-Semitism in Europe can be laid squarely and largely at the feet of the Europeans.

  32. For a religion of peace..Islamic countries spend a lot of time fighting wars and killing each other.The world would be a better place without it.

  33. Thats a valid point but Muslim countries are not the only places where wars occur ; the wars which receieve no/little media coverage ie in African nations. The source supply of the weaponry for these wars is usually countries which have no links with Islam; so would the world also be a better place without those countries and then we would be left with no place

  34. @ Maureen “Islamic countries spend a lot of time fighting wars and killing each other” How many Islamic countries are involved in fighting in some form or another other than Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Taking that there are 55 countries which are predominately Muslim doesnt mean all 55 nations are involved in acts of war. Please put some perspective on your comments.

  35. A crazy regime you rightly say – yet you are happy to take the islamofascist’s money to advertise their propaganda tv station on London buses. Yet another example of craven capitulation to the jihadi lobby.

  36. This topic of conversation is somewhat uncomprehendable to the majority of bloggers.
    Iran is a country ment to be run as a democracy and yet freedom of speach leads to death. As we have cleverly not been shown by the news there have been significant number deaths on the streets of Tehran this month.
    Doesn’t this make you think?
    What the hell is going on in Iran?
    People being Murdered on the streets, by the public services.
    What are we doing sitting back here doing nothing.
    We were quick enough to jump on ‘Saddam’s’ case.

  37. Saddam did commit genocide and the UK and Western Powers that be waited for nearly 13 years before taking any action. Going after Saddam has not solved the problems in Iraq. Iran has waged no war with any country unlike Saddam did. Britain has had its fair share of problems in Northern Ireland. I do agree however the deaths in Iran have left the current Iranian regime looking very bad indeed, they should be ashamed given what they stand for.

  38. ‘hammeruk14’
    Yes that is the gratest problem.
    That if we did ever invade Iran we would actualy be facing a country WITH weapons of mass distrucion.

  39. Yes arguably they have these “weapons of mass destruction” but please remind me when Iran actively went to war apart from the Iran – Iraq war which many now agree that Iraq was the provacator.

    I dont see the same people jumping up and down to support the cause of the oppressed Tamils in Sri Lanka. What the Tamils have gone through recently has been horrendeous.

  40. Officials said Sayyed Ali Khamenei’s father has been a Dildo and his mother has been a scruff working in Brothel.

Comments are closed.