Senior Iranian cleric calls regime “illegitimate”
posted at 8:46 am on June 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Iranian crisis took a promising turn overnight as the senior ayatollah in Iran blasted the regime and its machinations over the election. Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, at one time under consideration to replace Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as Supreme Leader, wrote on his website that the official results were so ludicrous that no one could believe them. He attacked the Guardian Council itself, saying that they had proved themselves illegitimate through their clumsy attempt to grasp power:
Supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main rival in the disputed presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, massed in competing rallies Tuesday as the country’s most senior Islamic cleric threw his weight behind opposition charges that Ahmadinejad’s re-election was rigged.
“No one in their right mind can believe” the official results from Friday’s contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi’s charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers “in the worst way possible.”
“A government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy,” he declared in comments on his official Web site. “I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to ’sell their religion,’ and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God.”
Montazeri had fallen out of grace with the Guardian Council years ago. He had the temerity (and bad timing) to criticize the human-rights abuses of the Khomeini regime while Khomeini was alive, which prompted Khomeini to push Montazeri out and put Ali Khamenei in his place. The Guardian Council had him placed under house arrest for his dissent a few years ago, but it has not kept Montazeri from speaking his mind, nor has the Guardian Council taken steps to strip him of his status as an eminence grise.
His dissent at this time would not be unexpected, but perhaps the strength of his argument might be. Montazeri certainly doesn’t hold much back in this statement, accusing the Guardian Council and the regime of stupidity, illegitimacy, and un-Islamic practice. About the only way he could make it worse is by accusing them of having pork luaus in Tehran.
The protestors will certainly take heart from Montazeri’s words, but we will see whether his exhortation to the police and the Revolutionary Guard “not to sell their religion” and to refrain from oppression have any real effect. Those who agreed with Montazeri before now probably no longer work in those jobs, and those who remained likely are the “true believers” in the regime. At this point, though, Montazeri’s statement at least gives dissenters some religious basis, which could boost morale and keep the movement in motion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
It’s a good start.
Well, more like, a nice continuance on a hopeful beginning.
Bob's Kid on June 17, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Isn’t this Moussavi guy just another America-hating, pro-nuke, pro-Hamas, “Wipe Israel off the map,” revolutionary nutjob?
Won’t a bloody regime change merely result in a “Meet the new boss…” scenario as far as the US is concerned?
mankai on June 17, 2009 at 8:50 AM
RUH-ROW Shaggy!
conservnut on June 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Well, well, well… Now we will see if the not-so-knowledgeable-one will make a decision, and actually CHOOSE a side?
singlemalt_18 on June 17, 2009 at 8:52 AM
The choice of either of these Iranian leaders is like which kind of poison do you prefer? Mullahs rule and which puppet they use is inconsequential. Very similar to our system.
volsense on June 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM
I suppose we will find out the hard way whether statements like these will have any effect; there is a gigantic rally being called today in Iran and the mullah-gov has said it will crack down on dissent.
What is the over/under for the corpse count once the two sides directly confront one another?
Bishop on June 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Whats missing is a spark!
canopfor on June 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM
I don’t know. It’s possible. But remember that there is much to rejoice in lesser evils. Have you forgot our own recent election? I voted for the lesser evil.
shick on June 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM
It’s a big tug of war.
Different factions with different angles of power — hard to figure out who will come out on top.
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Yea…. Now the Iranian on Iranian killing will get started in earnest. And best of all… Hezbollah is coming to help in the killing. In case you havent figured it out I’m still pissed off because Iran was sending weapons and fighters into Iraq to kill US military personal.
The protests in Iran are not over freedom, liberty or democracy, they are over which merciless ruthless murdering thug gets the right to nuke Israel. These protesters want someone with a proven track record, a man who killed 7000 student for opposing him when he was elected prime minister in 1981, who killed another 30,000 to please the Ayatollah and who founded Hezbollah for the express purpose of destroying Israel, not to mention the father of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
doriangrey on June 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Something good may happen there yet…..?
DL13 on June 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM
It’s too bad that Obama is letting this crisis go to waste. Too bad he has no experience. Too bad he is so unwise. Too bad he is so self-centered. Too bad he has idiots surrouonding him. Too bad he cannot see the big picture. Too bad he is our President.
BetseyRoss on June 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM
The revolution will be “Twittered”!
Geezer on June 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Too few killed and not enough dead…
doriangrey on June 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM
It’s true that they voted for him but the only options the Iranians could vote for was ones given them by the clerics.
shick on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
A preview of 2012 in the US, minus the violence.
Good Lt on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
+1000
Up kinda early huh dorian?
conservnut on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
The thug with the most weapons wins.
thomasaur on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
This would have been a golden opportunity to get rid of the Khomenei regime under any President except this foolish one.
promachus on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
..were ones..
shick on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Good point.
ladyingray on June 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM
The British had more weapons during the American Revolution.
That didn’t stop us. :)
shick on June 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM
A preview of 2012 in the US, minus the violence.
Good Lt on June 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Not when Ogabe loses. Conspiratorial, hyperbolic leftists will not take his defeat well.
Bishop on June 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Yes. The big difference is that Moussavi is in favor of greater economic liberalization (a la China) and would probably get rid of (or at least mute) the very restrictive cultural codes (stop beating up women for showing too much hair).
Pretty much. And Obama wants to “meet the new boss”, whoever it is, without having had ‘interfered’ in Iran’s internal affairs so that he can pretend that he’s doing everything possible to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. This is why he doesn’t want to make waves by saying too much.
ProfessorMiao on June 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Being the skeptic that I am, I have to wonder if Montazeri sees a giant opportunity in which to finally attain that title of Supreme after all.
katy on June 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Yes, but we had outside help, too.
ladyingray on June 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Somebody has to go to work to pay for Obama’s health care reforms. Besides those weapons the US Military uses wont make themselves you know… ;)
doriangrey on June 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Word.
I’m guessing Rafsanjani doesn’t have a sizable amount of friends in the Majlis Khob to actually push down hard on Ayat’allah into demonstrable action
“just words”
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM
You are correct. Mr. A. firmly believes that one nuke for Isreal, one for Rome, and one for NYC will do the job, while Mr. M. supports the theory that many more nukes and targets are needed to accomplish their collective goals.
Friendly21 on June 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Yes we did. Thank you France!
shick on June 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Sadly, we report that Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was found to have died in his sleep of natural causes.
/clairvoyant
hoosiermama on June 17, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Correct! The media will not cover the violence, so the peacefull transition from President O. to Supreme Ruler for life O. will go largely unremarked.
Friendly21 on June 17, 2009 at 9:06 AM
I wonder if Montazeri has heard of Trotsky.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2009 at 9:06 AM
And even though you may disagree with me the Birtish did not really have the will to use their overwhelming military superiority.
TrueBrit on June 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM
This old man will go out on a limb to do the right thing; and all Obama can do is kill a fly to impress “Gibbs.”
RedSoxNation on June 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM
or pulled pork sandwiches
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM
This popular uprising is much better than if Moussavi had won the election out rightly. This has weakened the mullahs and gives the young people courage and their movement legitimacy!
Excellent!
Geezer on June 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Interesting choice of words, and in quotations even. According to the story of Abraham, Isaac, etc., they are all “illegitimate”.
A Lee Marvin line from the movie “The Professionals” comes to mind here. “Yes sir; I am a bastard. You and I are both bastards; with me, it was an accident of birth. But you, sir, are a self-made man!”
Just sayin….
MikeA on June 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Sadly, we report that Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was found to have died in his sleep of natural causes.
Yes, it was very sad. Montazeri somehow handcuffed his own hands behind his back, shot himself in the head three times, dragged himself behind a truck for two miles and then flung himself into a metal shredder where he died peacefully in his sleep.
Bishop on June 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM
What a horrible, totally accidentally, unintentional, freak event, tragedy.
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 9:12 AM
pulled pork sandwiches? That got my attention…
ladyingray on June 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Loves em
Gimme a jihadist, a poorly lit room, chair, and a pulled pork sandwich, and I’ll make him talk.
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Yes, his wife/ves said repeatedly over the years that his penchant for walking in his sleep would end in a tragedy such as this one.
hoosiermama on June 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Now that a government that has caused so many problems for our country the past three decades is teetering on the brink, would it be to much to ask of this clown act of an “administration”, to not prop it up?
Giving a push is too much to ask of our unqualified Commander in Queef, but can he not refrain from screwing this up?
NoDonkey on June 17, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Will they get to hear them?
tree hugging sister on June 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM
good question, sistah
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Players making their final stab at power mongering, using “best intentions” such as sympathy for the population to gain support for their own ultimate ascent into the seat as Supreme Leader.
I hope some of you heard Bill Bennett’s last interview this morning with a Persian-American citizen who was born in Iran, 1956 and immigrated when the Shah was overthrown. He reminded us that the Shah in Iran was still popular (despite his faults), unlike the propaganda Jimmy Carter espoused, and that even the CIA Operation Ajax has been blown out of proportion in the modern retelling, recalling that the Prime Minister who was taken from office by revolt was elected with too high a percentage to be realistic (98%) because it was the people of Iran who revolted to reinstate the Shah, not troops from abroad; that playing the blame game at this point is stupid because the world WAS in the grips of the Cold War then. American youth today just do not have the understanding from experience to appreciate the context of reality behind the Iron Curtain 1950-60s. The Russians (USSR) were extremely intent upon having Iran, just as they had since 1812 as a vessel state under Russian control. The same is true today. The man reminded us that Iran WAS the most modern and Western of all countries in the Middle East until the Arabs invaded to force the Islamic Revolution upon the Persians with Jimmy Carter’s administrations’ full force. Today it is Iran that meddles and exports terrorism. The man asked Obama to make a firm statement to the government of Iran for the sake of the Iranian people as bloodshed is inevitable even if this “revolt” fails, executions are coming.
As Bennett pointed out, Obama’s willing to meddle with private enterprise (Wall Street, GM, Chrysler, Health Care, EVERYTHING), and with Israel and Europe. But Obama refuses to even make a statement, afraid of meddling with the Iranian Supreme Leader.
John Bolton voiced his opinion last week, not about Iranian revolution now, but whether ultimately for the USA there’s any difference to expect from the Iranian government regardless of the candidates in question, since all is determined by the Supreme Leader, not any presidential puppet. The main differentiation would be whether the Iranian president is up front or subtle in rhetoric, because the government would not alter course either way on Israel and on the Nuclear trigger.
maverick muse on June 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
If Ayatollah Montazeri is not only claiming the election to be fraudulent, but also the ruling council to be illegitimate, doesn’t that open a whole new possibility for elections with entirely new candidates selected by an entirely new ruling council? Might not that be at least better than Moussavi vs. Ahmadinejad?
Loxodonta on June 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Has this appeared on
ABCOBC?MikeA on June 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Lots of people liked the shah
He brought voting rights to women
various other reforms
and kept the boot on the necks of the communists and islamists.
blatantblue on June 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM
This is why I can’t get too excited about what’s going on over there. In the end, I doubt much is going to change.
holygoat on June 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Statements like his keep the fires going and it may bring even more people into the streets.
patrick neid on June 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM
As we now know in our own country,the promise of “change” is not necessarily a good thing. Change can be for the worse.
MikeA on June 17, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Iran wants nuclear weapon technology: ElBaradei
Reuters
artist on June 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM
If Ayatollah Montazeri is not only claiming the election to be fraudulent, but also the ruling council to be illegitimate, doesn’t that open a whole new possibility for elections with entirely new candidates selected by an entirely new ruling council? Might not that be at least better than Moussavi vs. Ahmadinejad?
Loxodonta on June 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Only if Ahmadinejad was not successful in consolidating control. Interesting bit by Michael Totten on Commentary on that. The question might be whether Ahmadinejad and Khatami have succeeded in transforming Iran from a theocracy into a military dictatorship.
ProfessorMiao on June 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Twittered for how long?
Doesn’t the Iranian government have the technology to stop the signals?
maverick muse on June 17, 2009 at 9:29 AM
I think it’s very likely, but I think the idea is that any upheaval weakens the mullahcracy, possibly significantly. And the new players may feel vulnerable enough that they have to take a decidedly different path in terms of both governing and diplomacy.
Tonus on June 17, 2009 at 9:31 AM
The question is, why aren’t there millions in the streets here in the U.S. protesting an illegitimate government that continues to spend us into financial ruin? Where’s “our” fire?
Rovin on June 17, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Not many “junior” jihadists in this bunch Ed. So “senior” is a given.
RMR on June 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Too bad Obama can’t be so asertive. He’s too afraid of offending anyone with our “meddling”.
loudmouth883 on June 17, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Iran from a Constitutional Monarchy to Constitutional Parliament with Prime Minister, back to Constitutional Monarchy into barbaric Theocracy.
I’ll join my best regards to the good Persian people along with yours, Loxodonta. But the power players involved here are the bloodiest and most vicious with no powers or even flimsy laws prohibiting their massacres of people. The intelligent Persians of Iran have had decades to dream and plan how to go about regaining independence from Islamic torment. Given Jimmy Carter and B.H.Obama stoking the powers that be, they only have themselves.
Obama’s Afghan War will fail because Obama failed to purge the ultimate source of terrorism that infests Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon: purge terrorists from Iran, the merchants of terror meddling throughout the globe. Obama should REALLY listen to the experts, not his own cronies with the Marxist agenda. But he won’t. Maybe the TOTUS will.
maverick muse on June 17, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Rich…
Upstater85 on June 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM
That awesome speech by Obama demanding freedom and fairness really lit a fire with the Iranian masses. What if he hadn’t stepped up to the plate to tell the Iranian people that he stands with them?
What? He didn’t?
Nevermind.
%$#&@&!!!
hillbillyjim on June 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM
I think there’s some truth to that.
shick on June 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM
The Iranians were the first major Empire to be forced into the Islamic fold, Mohammed sent his accept Islam or else letter to the Persians and to the Byzantiums who had been fighting an exhausting war that left both too weak to deal with the sudden arrival of fanatics who were not afraid to die against men in both Empires that had suvivied so much and did not want to die in a new war. It was this fact alone that enabled Islam to conquer the entire Persian Empire and much of Byantium in that initial period. If only those two Empire had not been fighting each other to the death, Islam could have been strangled at birth…
I think that the Iranians could be the catalyst to bring about the end of Islam, at least I hope so…
TrueBrit on June 17, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Isn’t this Moussavi guy just another America-hating, pro-nuke, pro-Hamas, “Wipe Israel off the map,” revolutionary nutjob?
Won’t a bloody regime change merely result in a “Meet the new boss…” scenario as far as the US is concerned?
mankai on June 17, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Yup.
Moussavi is NOT a reformist on foreign policy; of course not, he was HAND PICKED by the mullahs for this “election” to begin with.
They’d never pick someone to run that did not mirror them on these issues.
It’s still good to know SilentBob, aka Obamuhammed, refuses to back the people (like Reagan backed Poles) and would rather “hurry up, get Ahmadinejad sworn in” fast so he could broker a GRAND BARGAIN ‘YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR NUCLEAR PROGRAM’ PEACE IN OUR TIME moment for the Chrissy Matthews types out there.
H8Caliph8 on June 17, 2009 at 10:11 AM
“Bush, you magnificent bastard!”
Iranian revolution made possible by George W. Bush. Thank you sir!
Simonsez on June 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Anyone who criticised the happily-late Ayatollah Khomeini [I remember smiling when his corpse was knocked out of its coffin as his raving sycophants paraded it through the streets] is at least better than the current maniacs.
Khomeini was a total psycho killer, and his Achmadinejad-supporting spawn are just the poisonous fruit of a totally-diseased tree.
Let the dissent rise and rub out the mullah mafia in control.
And maybe the poor people suffering under these madmen may get some of their power back from the theocratic crazies.
Long Live Persia!
profitsbeard on June 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM
The Supreme Council has ruled that there are too many irregularities that a new election that is controlled better is essential to prevent a coupe of those that support Mousavi.
Yes, Mousavi was a supporter or the initiator of Iran’s nuclear program, but his goal was to harness the nuclear force for beneficial reasons. More important, a majority of the population supported this man over the others.
Move on and ACORN should not meddle with U.S. or others because they are giving U.S. a bad name spreading misinformation.
MSGTAS on June 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Worse. Obviously, it doesn’t seem to bother many people here, but this guy was behind the murder of 241 US Marines among others. He can burn in hell with his supporters.
At the time, they reported that the driver of the truck loaded with explosives driven into the barracks where are Marines slept, had a *smile* on his face. That was American’s first exposure to suicide bombers.
Blake on June 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM
are = our
Blake on June 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
True, as long as one omits the Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Roman Empire.
Friendly21 on June 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM
It reminded me of the end of Fellini’s Satyricon.
Who do you think was doing the actual killing? Mousavi.
F*** Persia!
Blake on June 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Umm, sure. Mr. A is just following in Mr. M’s footsteps, so what’s the fuss? Hussein O. also has the best interests of the American people in mind, and He’s doing it all peacefully for the obvious beneficial reasons.
Friendly21 on June 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The Byzantium Empire finally fell in 1453, well a few settlements to the north called Trebizond lasted a couple of years after that. Persia was fully conqured long before the Byzantium Empire fell.
And Profitsbeard is right to say long live Persia, Persia has a great pre-Islamic history and many Iranians know that.
TrueBrit on June 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM
And Moussavi was an official candidate approved by the Supreme Council that Ayatollah Montazeri has said is iligitimate. And Ayatollah Montazeri also criticized Ayatollah Khomeini.
Therefore, there might be an opening for greater reform than just changing one terrorist for another.
Loxodonta on June 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Cudos. In one post, you show me a silver lining (first bolded) to the whole Iran mess, and (second bolded) remind us all that these phukks are frothing murder bent crazies.
Shadenfreud on the first bolded, and public service reminder on the second bolded.
Too many of the mind numbed masses forget that these “persians” have no real restraint on their desires to go whackjob. Nukes in their hands I think, is way worse than in the hands of the NORK Troll. At least that sawed off turd still has a fear of death. Not these goofballs.
44Magnum on June 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Well, from what I read, Mousavi was out of public life for 20 years. Why? Was he against the revolution, now turned into a dictatorship? His wife sounds like a true reformer. We can hope. It’s worth a chance.
PattyJ on June 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM
No need, they always F*** themselves by having the government they diserve. Allies with Hitler in WWII. Floating on a pool of oil and they are broke.
Stupid is what stupid does.
saiga on June 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM
+1
There is bad and there is worse. Sort of like there was McCain and there is Obama.
But this makes it look like in Iran there is a split in the RG and the mullahs. This means IF Imadinnerjacket comes back from Russia and IF he is fed up with this, he could get together with the head mullah and deaths could well escalate. If Obama and the world do not get behind making sure the election was legit, the violence could become horrific.
freeus on June 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Bluntly speaking this Mousavi is an enabler, his past record speaks for itself in terms of reform and change in Iran, however he is a pragmatist who was cheated by a fanatic. I do not think he is the right man, and the whole system needs to fall, by standing up to the fraud, he might set in motion real change…, we can only hope. In terms of Obamas reaction, in some ways because it is the reformists joining with the pragmatists then it is wise not to get them painted as being supported by uncle Sam, then the pragmatists might disengage. Obama is at least right in not seeing much difference between the two candidates. I would condemn the violence used against peaceful demonstrators and also also attack the fraud too which Obama has not the guts to do, because of his own ACORN…, illegal funding issues and questions over his real place of birth.
TrueBrit on June 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Careful what you wish for. Mousavi is both more ruthless and competant than Abudeenutjob.
OxyCon on June 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM
+2 if this movement has legs.
Hear, hear.
RD on June 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Snowballs gather mass as they roll downhill. You can quote me on that. The protesters are heartened by success and encouragement.
dogsoldier on June 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM
In chaos, all things are possible.
The previous status quo was unacceptable. The younger generation in Iran is much less religious than the group that runs the country now.
If the current regime falls, the new regime could be much better, or it could be about the same. It would be hard for it to be worse.
If the current regime survives, or if the new regime is similar to the current, much time and resources will have been spent on these uprisings.
MarkTheGreat on June 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM
We can only hope that Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri has the same effect that Ayatollah Sistani did in Iraq when he backed a representative government.
I still think it was the biggest mistake Musab Al-Zarqawi made was to condemn Sistani in public,thus opening the door for Zarqawi to be given up and eventually killed.
It does not appear that Montazeri has the same power in Iran that Sistani does in Iraq,but it could grow as this movement gains steam.
When one side does start to gain momentum and look to be in the driver’s seat,then Obama will come out and make some grand statement.
Until then,he will be voting “Present” and sitting on the fence.
How noble.
Baxter Greene on June 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Some of you guys are starting to sound like liberals from the Cold War days.
Yes, the guy is a b@st@rd. That’s not the question.
The question is, is he a b@st@rd that we can work with.
The current guy has proven to be a b@st@rd that we can’t work with.
In the real world, you rarely get to choose between the good guy and the bad guy. But rather between a bad guy and a worse guy.
Jimmy Carter forced the Shah of Iran from office because he didn’t live up to our standards, and Khomeni was the result.
MarkTheGreat on June 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Welesa’s goal was not the destruction of the Soviet Empire when he stood up to Jaruselki (very badly spelled) at Gdansk. But that was the result.
I’m not saying that Mousaki is in any way comparable to Welesa. I’m just saying that when the situation is intolerable, you never know where any instability will take you.
MarkTheGreat on June 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM
And never trust Wikipeda… :)
In fact, many of the Islamic “inventions and creativity” came from the Persian libraries they looted and burned – some works were saved and studdied – these ideas later were attributed to muslims, same for the zero and India.
Friendly21 on June 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM
mankai on June 17, 2009 at 8:50 AM
ALL BOWINGbuttsnifferz are NUTJOBS
AMERICAN VETERAN on June 17, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Ya, but; “Illegitimate” in the koran means “What’s up wid dat! Don’t worry; Be happy”!
Cybergeezer on June 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Comment pages: