LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis is interesting if true, anyone got any more details on the Iranian soc-called opposition leader?
CQ Politics | SpyTalk - Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut
This is interesting if true, anyone got any more details on the Iranian soc-called opposition leader?
CQ Politics | SpyTalk - Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut
Google Reader great for following blogs
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Excuse me, could you point out -
What is a neocon and who notable examples are?
And how exactly they are cheering for Mousavi?
Actually, hardline neo-cons would prefer to have Admedinejhad remain in power.Originally Posted by cd27
P.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
Yes, utterly believable. Way up there with the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!
Anyway, the terrorists in Beirut at that time were the Americans that Ronald Reagan had sent there, supported by the US Navy that was just off the coast and lobbing hundreds of shells into the densely populated areas around Beirut.
Fortunately, the Lebanese found a chink in the terrorist invaders' armour and 240 Marines were eliminated in a single attack, whereupon the Americans went home with their tails between their legs.
I think that that was a UN operation and that a lot of French soldiers also lost their lives.Yes, utterly believable. Way up there with the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!
Anyway, the terrorists in Beirut at that time were the Americans that Ronald Reagan had sent there, supported by the US Navy that was just off the coast and lobbing hundreds of shells into the densely populated areas around Beirut.
Fortunately, the Lebanese found a chink in the terrorist invaders' armour and 240 Marines were eliminated in a single attack, whereupon the Americans went home with their tails between their legs.
Good question about the Americans in Beirut. Look up the answer.
Anyone who would express a wish of the kind that you do is a sick, cowardly thug. I have reported your disgusting comment to the Moderators. It is easily the most despicable comment I have seen on politics.ie to date.
On the other hand, it's good when your ilk reveal their true nature.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
I asked you since you seemed to be in the know.Seems like all you are is a troll.
Fine about my moderators. I'm sure they'll look upon your comments of 299 people dying when they were part of a multinational peacekeeping mission with equal scrunity.
Again, a cancer on you and your family.
"Terrorist invaders"? It was a UN peace keeping force. It was that UN force that oversaw the withdrawal (and hence survival) of the PLO from Beirut when they were at the mercy of the IDF. Your revisionism is way off the mark as is your blood lust.Yes, utterly believable. Way up there with the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!
Anyway, the terrorists in Beirut at that time were the Americans that Ronald Reagan had sent there, supported by the US Navy that was just off the coast and lobbing hundreds of shells into the densely populated areas around Beirut.
Fortunately, the Lebanese found a chink in the terrorist invaders' armour and 240 Marines were eliminated in a single attack, whereupon the Americans went home with their tails between their legs.
Well over 50 years ago. The republicans were generally just a conservative party. Pro-low taxes and anti-government spending. Generally they were infavour of a non-interventionist policy. But after the Democrats Truman, going to war to make some cash became a popular in American. The new neo-cons started to rise in the Republicans, who were socially conservative and pro-war. They would be infavour of social spending if it was cheap, and government occasionally intervening in business affairs to suit their supporters.
Nixon would have been the first moderate neo-con. Ronald Reagan gain support because he had support from the traditional conservatives, neo-cons, and conservative libertarians. The Bush's would be examples of full neo-cons.
Thac0man
It was a UN-sanctioned operation in the same way as the Iraq one was after the USA had strongarmed the UN into accepting it."Terrorist invaders"? It was a UN peace keeping force. It was that UN force that oversaw the withdrawal (and hence survival) of the PLO from Beirut when they were at the mercy of the IDF. Your revisionism is way off the mark as is your blood lust.
A few days before the US Marines were blown up, there was an article in Newsweek about the US Navy's bombardment of villages around Beirut. Battleships were firing shells up to a tonne in weight into Muslim villages in densely populated areas where they suspected the Amal and other Lebanese militias had positions. An officer quoted said he didn't know what they were hitting, but that those "babies" made "a crater the size of a tennis court".
The Americans are very good at dishing it out, but when they get it in the snout, what a lot of whinging we hear!
Have a look at your own revisionism.
Reply With Quote