Obama a 'criminal' according to Ahmadinejad

This was an interesting article on the Gaza Strip, but one paragraph in particular caught my attention:

"We can see the hands of (US George W.) Bush and (president-elect Barack) Obama in these crimes," [Ahmadinejad] said.

So in his rant of accusing several nations of inaction in this matter, I found it interesting that he singled out Bush AND Obama, lumping them together in the blame-game. This should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks that all is going to be roses once Obama takes the office of POTUS. I wonder if that means Ahmadinejad is still willing to meet with Obama now that he's called Obama a 'criminal'?

www.jpost.com...

Why would he sit down with Ahmadinejad? He has limited control in foreign policy.

The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has the final say in all foreign and domestic policies in Iran and is the commander in chief of their armed forces.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by davion]

reply to post by sos37


Wow... it's good to know whose word you're willing to take if it fits your agenda... :shk:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sos37

 

Wow... it's good to know whose word you're willing to take if it fits your agenda... :shk:

*Edit* - Okay your're questioning why I'm taking Ahmadinejad's word. I'm not. What I'm saying is, Ahmadinejad clearly regards Obama the same way that he does Bush - as a criminal. The take away indicates that foreign relations with Iran through Ahmadinejad are going to be strained, no matter is in office, even Barack Obama. From the campaigns and the elections, it appeared that many of Obama's supporters thought that he was going to heal foreign relations ties with countries openly-hostile to the U.S., particularly Iran.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


exactly...right on schedule as usual.
off topic though, love your avatar bh.
what a beautiful animal.

Originally posted by heather65
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

exactly...right on schedule as usual.
off topic though, love your avatar bh.
what a beautiful animal.

Oh I see. So any thread posted from now on that contains a link to a news posting, as required by ATS, that says anything negative about Obama now has an agenda linked to it and should not be taken seriously.

reply to post by sos37


I have found this problem too whenever I post about Obama, they attack you or the source, but can not attack the POINT.

We need to watch ALL of our Representatives and Judges and speak LOUDLY when they go off course of the will of the People...

As for the links not being good no more that talk about Obama in a bad light, we are seeing the change over to the other side, now the Sheeple left will make any excuse for Obama's actions no mater what he does just as some did for Bush.

I put it this way, there are "Republicans", "Democrats" and "Americans" which category do you all think you fit into?

I wonder what I'madamnnutjob means b Barack is a Criminal???

[edit on 12/12/2008 by theindependentjournal]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by sos37

 

I have found this problem too whenever I post about Obama, they attack you or the source, but can not attack the POINT.

We need to watch ALL of our Representatives and Judges and speak LOUDLY when they go off course of the will of the People...

I wonder what I'madamnnutjob means b Barack is a Criminal???

*Edit - there was miscommunication as to what was being criticized. Additional news source provided:

ca.news.yahoo.com...


[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37


you're free to post. have no problems with it.
i'm free to call you on it.
welcome to america.

reply to post by sos37


i'm comfortable with my brand of intelligence as you are with your agenda.
see? you see one way, and i see it in an entirely different way.
i actually didn't assume your level of comprehension, just your reasons for getting out of bed in the morning.
back to topic, whatever that man has to say about anyone i take with a grain of salt.
but, you seem to hang on to his words as being the truth.
maybe you should wonder why he supposedly says these things.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


I wonder what I'madamnnutjob means b Barack is a Criminal???

perhaps he wishes to start a fight to further his ultimate goals?
why does a child poke another child in the chest and say " are you chicken?"
use logical thinking instead of "jumping on the bandwagon" as you say and try to figure what is motivating him to make such a statement.

Originally posted by sos37
I found it interesting that he singled out Bush AND Obama, lumping them together in the blame-game. This should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks that all is going to be roses once Obama takes the office of POTUS.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss.



You know he just might know something we dont.

Originally posted by davion
Why would he sit down with Ahmadinejad? He has limited control in foreign policy.

The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has the final say in all foreign and domestic policies in Iran and is the commander in chief of their armed forces.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by davion]

But obama does not run america either when he becomes president.

I see colbert had hass on last nights show, talking about the cfr, and the geezer looked really serious, and would not joke at all with colbert.

Originally posted by heather65
reply to post by sos37

 

i'm comfortable with my brand of intelligence as you are with your agenda.
see? you see one way, and i see it in an entirely different way.
i actually didn't assume your level of comprehension, just your reasons for getting out of bed in the morning.
back to topic, whatever that man has to say about anyone i take with a grain of salt.
but, you seem to hang on to his words as being the truth.
maybe you should wonder why he supposedly says these things.

The point of posting this is not to take Ahmadinejad's word that he is a criminal, it is to convey Ahmadinejad's opinion of Barack Obama, contrary to what people thought when they elected him as president. I believe reading on here that a lot of people thought that Obama would be able to bridge foreign relations ties with countries that would not talk with Bush, INCLUDING Iran, but that does not appear to be the case, judging by this comment.

And as for getting out of bed in the morning, one of these days, sometime soon I believe, the vast majority of people who voted for Barack Obama are going to wake up and realize that Obama isn't the "messiah" that they thought he was. The spell is going to break and people will realize that BHO is nothing more than a typical, sleazy politician. THAT's the day I'm waiting for and when it comes, you had better believe I'm going to relish it!

[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by andy1033


We're talking about foreign relations here, not running a whole country. Why go to Ahmadinejad when he's not the one that has the final say on all foreign policy?

The President of the United States directs foreign policy and the armed forces as commander in chief, the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad), does not. So there's very little reason to meet with Ahmadinejad because he'd have to go through the Supreme Leader anyway.

Originally posted by sos37
Whose word? It's a legitimate posting from an online newspaper!

I mean you're willing to take Ahmadinejad's word!

Chill out, will ya?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
Whose word? It's a legitimate posting from an online newspaper!

I mean you're willing to take Ahmadinejad's word!

Chill out, will ya?

Okay, we really have got to get this communication thing straight. I think this is the second or third time a misunderstanding of you were talking about has happened. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you're attacking the source of the article or the content of the article or what-not.

I'll edit the above response post since it was a mis-communicado. It did seem uncharacteristic of you to attack a news source.

Don't hold your breath my friend, there are Republicans, Democrats and Americans. Many Bush supporters threw away all their moral foundations and Conservative Ideology to stand with Bush. I don't think it will be any different now except now it's the Dems turn to stand with Barack no matter how much they disagree with his policies.

I want to direct you all to a link, this link is an editorial a friend of mine wrote for the site it's on, think it speaks clearly to the way America is today.

Changed my mind, I don't want to post that link as some may think I am advertising my own site so I will post it here in quotes...

reply to post by sos37


i'm actually wide awake.
you seem to relish the idea of obama failing at creating "civility" between nations who do not agree.
in my opinion, you seem to be rooting for armed conflict.

Originally posted by sos37
Okay, we really have got to get this communication thing straight.
...
It did seem uncharacteristic of you to attack a news source.

If something doesn't seem right, perhaps you should ask about it instead of attacking like a guard dog. I'm just sayin'. Consider that you MAY be mistaken in your perception. All this stuff about ignorance and making you sick and stuff doesn't do anything for our relationship, if you know what I mean. I try to be cool, even if we totally disagree, but sometimes you make it really hard with your attacks.

As regards Ahmadinejad and his opinion, my first thought is... "So what"? I mean, who really cares what he says or thinks? He's a whack job as far as I can tell. And something tells me that if Ahmadinejad LOVED Obama, you'd be just as happy because it would reflect badly on Obama. Frankly, I DON'T CARE what the crazy man thinks or says because he'll say whatever will get him noticed. Why do you give it any legitimacy at all?