Does Petraeus read Jihad Watch? It was I who many years ago dubbed Ahmadinejad the "Thug-In-Chief."
But of course he doesn't, or he wouldn't be pursuing the policies that he is pursuing.
"Iran officials lash out at 'thug' Petraeus," from AFP, March 9:
TEHRAN -- Top Iranian officials lashed out on Tuesday at US General David Petraeus for his comments asserting the Islamic republic is becoming a "thugocracy", saying such terms are only used by "thugs.""The murderous government of the United States is a government of thugs which has killed thousands of Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians," parliament speaker Ali Larijani said in the assembly.
"This exhausted general has insulted the Iranian government by calling it a government of thugocracy. It is understandable why you (Petraeus) utter such comments because the people of the region hate you," the official IRNA news agency quoted Larijani as saying.
Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said on Sunday that Iran is becoming a "thugocracy" given its attempts to suppress popular anger over last year's contested presidential vote results.
"I think you've heard it said by pundits that Iran has gone from being a theocracy to a thugocracy," Petraeus, whose command stretches from Egypt to Pakistan and includes Iran, said on CNN....
Foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast too hit out at Petraeus.
"Such language is used by thugs... this attitude is of thugs," Mehmanparast said at his weekly press conference.
"We feel officials in the United States are furious. We don't know why they are furious... maybe due to their failure in launching a soft war (against Iran) or that the role of their intelligence services has been revealed in the case of (Abdolmalek) Rigi," he said.
Iran captured top Sunni militant Rigi last month and accused US, Britain and Israel of supporting him in carrying out attacks against the Islamic republic.
"I think you've heard it said by pundits that Iran has gone from being a theocracy to a thugocracy,
When was the last time Iran was not a thugacracy?
The term thugocracy coined Robert could not be anymore appropriate.
The word thug's etymology and origins are from Persia and India and thus the Islamic world knows the word quite well without any translation.
Thugs?
Yeah. And cry babies too, at the same time.
Top Iranian officials lashed out on Tuesday at US General David Petraeus for his comments asserting the Islamic republic is becoming a "thugocracy", saying such terms are only used by "thugs."
..................
More "Islamic logic" at work.
Ali Larijani said that General Petraeus has "insulted" the Iranian government.
Remember, this is the "Islamic" Republic of Iran.
Not long until it becomes "US general insults Islam and Muslims".
Then the Qur'an requires ALL Muslims to defend Islam and Muslims.
"Saddle up the camels and clean the RPG-7s, Abdullah, there's some jihad to be done. Oh, and the nukes as well if they're ready."
The thug cult originated in India. An evil off shoot from hinduisim. They waylaid travelers, stole all their possesions and often killed them. The british eradicated this cult when they ruled India.
Wait a minute, raiding travelers, stealing property, and killing the travelers .. doesn't that sound familiar? Why thats what muhammed used to do too. Damn and i thought this evil cult was gone but it exists in a new form...islam.
It's rough when you get in to a name calling match with the Moslems.
*** 8:39 ***
That's cuz they are the Kings-of-All-Name-Calling. After all, these dudes are so exclusionary that everybody who fails to follow their belief system is a criminal to be slandered by epithet Infidel and sooner or later executed for their capital crime.
Perhaps the word "thug" could be used with the correct address -- the current rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- embedded in a longer statement, one that deliberately appeals to Iranian pride, but pride in everything that is non-Islamic about Iran. The appeal would include mention of Persepolis (the palce the Shah chose for his expensive international gala), and other cities or monuments associated with Iran’s long pre-Islamic history. It would include passing reference – it doesn’t matter if Petraeus is intimately familiar with Persian literature, only that he mention the cleverness and finesse of “the great poet Firdowsi, a linguistic and cultural patriot whose Shahnameh helped to preserve the Persian language, and Persian literature, from those who would, if they had their away, erased both.” No need to say that those “who would have erased both” were the Arabs who brought their “gift of Islam” and who would have naturally wished islamization of Persia to be followed by arabization; everyone in Iran will understand. And then, if you contrast this world, of Firdowsi, Sa’adi, Hafiz, Omar Khayyam, and if you mention the pride of contemporary Iran, its movie-makers, and list a few, such as Abbas Kierostami, and being careful to include those who are in exile, or who, in Iran, are being persecuted for their political views, that too will be telling. And the implied contrast with those now running Iran, who can be described as offering an “advanced and sophisticated people” (that is to say: people far more advanced and sophisticated than the “desert Arabs”) as a guide simple-minded formulas, mental and other kinds of submission, and a collectivism that should frighten all those who believe in the worth of the individual. That will be enough. That will be more than enough.
More detail on this strategy of appeal to Iranians over the heads of their despots can be found in an article posted here in January: “We Are Not Arabs.”
"Thugs?
Yeah. And cry babies too, at the same time."
Whaaaaah! You hurt our Barbarian Mass-Murdering feelings! BOO-HOO! WHAAAAAAH!
Eh, Loopy Hooper?!
Hum, Thugocracy combined with Iranimals ™ (2005)
Did I mention Iran is in the Arabian gulf?
"I think you've heard it said by pundits that Iran has gone from being a theocracy to a thugocracy," Petraeus, whose command stretches from Egypt to Pakistan and includes Iran, said on CNN....
Now where has Petraeus been for these last 31 years? Funny how I have seen it as a thugocracy since 1979.
Not that a theocracy is all that hot................ what's the problem with a democracy? Oh, yes, the thugs would have to run for office and win elections. It was so much better when Mohammed was around.
"Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said on Sunday that Iran is becoming a "thugocracy" given its attempts to suppress popular anger over last year's contested presidential vote results."--from the article.
How popular is that popular anger? A recent presentation of poll and survey data from multiple sources by World Public Opinion (Feb 3, 2010; available online) indicates that the majority of Iranians approve of Ahmedinejad and the Islamic regime.
From the World Public Opinion report:
"On the question of whether Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election, in the week before the election and after the election, in all polls a majority said they planned to or did vote for Ahmadinejad. These numbers ranged from 52 to 57% immediately before the election and 55 to 66% after the election."
In addition, of what does that popular anger consist? The popular anger of those who support Mousavi (Ahmedinejad's main rival) should not be mistaken as opposition to sharia rule per se.
From the World Public Opinion report:
"However none of the polls found indications of support for regime change. Large majorities, including majorities of Mousavi supporters, endorse the Islamist character of the regime such as having a body of Islamic scholars with the power to veto laws they see as contrary to sharia."
p.s. In citing the above statistics, I don't intend to convey pessimism or a fatalistic attitude about Iran. Rather, I'm trying to point out that we need a realistic perspective on what the large majority of Iranians believes. Iranians in large majorities will willingly vote in and maintain Islamic theocracy--of whatever stripe--at this point in their history.
"It was so much better when Mohammed was around."
Right, because the sociopath Barbarian just beheaded his opponents. Which is what would happen if "cair" and other diabolical islamic groups in America had their way.
They said, "takes one to know one." That...is not a denial.
I cannot think of an islamic crapistan that is not a thugocracy. It is the nature of islam.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
Did the general just come to this brilliant conclusion? Gotta' give him credit for speaking-up, though. He's risking disapproval & censure from our muslim-in-chief...
I used to get upset with the Pope before Benedict when he treated Yasser Arafat like he was some type of legitimate dignitary, instead of the murderous little bastard that he was. Granted, I have no idea what was said behind closed doors.
I am upset with Petraeus for similar reasons.
Both approaches are way too soft, and look at the iceburg from the surface only.
Iran is every bit the focal point of a disease threatening western democracy, the way Nazi Germany was in WWII.
We had no problems bombing Germany, who you history students will remember, was hotly pursuing "the bomb" also.
We all know that it is going to be squarely on Bibi's shoulders to do "the right thing" about Iran's nuclear program, because this administration has neither the gonads nor the will to step up to the plate.
"We all know that it is going to be squarely on Bibi's shoulders to do "the right thing" about Iran's nuclear program"
There are two assumptions here: 1) Israel actually has the physical capacity to stop Iran, and 2) Israel is still in fact a sovereign state, not a completely dependent U.S. client.
There are reasons to doubt both. First, Israel may simply be too small to mount the complex and expensive bombing campaign that would be needed, while waging a defensive ground war that will be forced on it by its local enemies. Does it have the required manpower or ability to replace materiel without direct U.S. assistance? Remember the Yom Kippur War. It certainly seems that the prospects of any Israeli military effort depend on timely U.S. intervention (and not in the way Mr. Brzezinski would prefer!).
Second, every action by successive Israeli governments for the past two decades show that Israel is unwilling to act contrary to U.S. preferences. Israel has for practical purposes already withdrawn to pre-1967 boundaries, her mortal enemies are being massively armed by the U.S., and Arabs within Israel's small borders are outbreeding Jews (spectacularly so if one discounts the primitive ultra-Orthodox who will not keep Israel afloat). Under these circumstances, it is understandably very hard for Israel to defy the U.S.
All effort should be made to influence American policy (of course, Jihad Watch is already contributing by educating the public). But placing any hopes on Israel is, I think, futile.
Stasic,
Israel has received shipments of bunker busting bombs from the Obama administration. Israel has, I am sure, their own pre-existing stockpile of these devices from the previous administration, and whatever other resources they utilize.
Comparisons to how Israel has acted in the past to any recent administrations are ludicrous because the current administration is as hostile to Israel's interests as the ant-semitic ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter.
Bibi will hardly wait for Obambi's "permission" to prevent another holocaust