Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The yellow cake was not discovered by US troops in 2003, the UN's IAEA already had it safeguarded
The yellow cake was not discovered by US troops in 2003, the UN's IAEA already had it safeguarded
Senior Defense Official: As you know, the United States government has invited the IAEA to conduct a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards inspection at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility at Tuwaitha, more commonly known as Location C. This inspection will be under the protection and auspices of coalition forces. The safeguard inspection will begin on or about June 7th. And I'm sure the next person will speak to the actual logistics, but for planning purposes, we and the IAEA expect that this process will likely take a couple weeks. The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium. Typically, the IAEA would conduct an NPT safeguards inspection at this location annually. The last inspection was conducted in December of 2002. Given the changed circumstances, the United States has determined it would be helpful to have the IAEA reinventory this location. "
Also see: "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Senior Defense Official: As you know, the United States government has invited the IAEA to conduct a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards inspection at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility at Tuwaitha, more commonly known as Location C. This inspection will be under the protection and auspices of coalition forces. The safeguard inspection will begin on or about June 7th. And I'm sure the next person will speak to the actual logistics, but for planning purposes, we and the IAEA expect that this process will likely take a couple weeks. The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium. Typically, the IAEA would conduct an NPT safeguards inspection at this location annually. The last inspection was conducted in December of 2002. Given the changed circumstances, the United States has determined it would be helpful to have the IAEA reinventory this location. "
Also see: "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
SEE VIDEO and pass it on. Show your solidarity with Representative Press:
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
I have a question for youtube partners, is there anyone not listed as a partner besides me? representativepress is not listed as a current content partner in Youtube's alphebetical listing of partners? ... (see video for more)
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
I have a question for youtube partners, is there anyone not listed as a partner besides me? representativepress is not listed as a current content partner in Youtube's alphebetical listing of partners? ... (see video for more)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Fair Use and YouTube
Fair Use and YouTube
YouTube has a Copyright Tips page where they talk about "using some copyrighted content in your videos."
"While videos that are direct copies of someone else's content are clear copyright violations, there are certain very limited circumstances in which the use of very short clips of a copyrighted video or song may be legal even without permission. This is known as the "fair use" principle of copyright law.
To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or song qualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in the U.S. copyright statute."
On YouTube's Copyright Tips page, they provide Fair Use Links on the Web:
See the video: In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA Pt. 2
Zizzle Zoundz! This is the toy at the heart of the biggest YouTube drama of all time!
also see In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA
and Lady, you've just been Zizzled! "Renetto's Toy" gets DMCA'd! See Video
See videos here:
YouTube has a Copyright Tips page where they talk about "using some copyrighted content in your videos."
"While videos that are direct copies of someone else's content are clear copyright violations, there are certain very limited circumstances in which the use of very short clips of a copyrighted video or song may be legal even without permission. This is known as the "fair use" principle of copyright law.
To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or song qualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in the U.S. copyright statute."
On YouTube's Copyright Tips page, they provide Fair Use Links on the Web:
- http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
- http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/
- http://www.copyrightwebsite.com/Info/Law/FairUse.aspx
- http://chillingeffects.org/fairuse/
See the video: In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA Pt. 2
Zizzle Zoundz! This is the toy at the heart of the biggest YouTube drama of all time!
also see In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCAand Lady, you've just been Zizzled! "Renetto's Toy" gets DMCA'd! See Video
See videos here:
- Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace
- 550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it?
- Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
- Apologize to the World Mr. Wallace and Return that Emmy
- Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings!
- Tell Congress Bush and Israel Have No Legal Justification to Attack Iran
- War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!
Monday, July 14, 2008
A little entertainment, a little promotion
A little entertainment, a little promotion:
In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA (SEE VIDEO)
In this multi-part video series, we will examine a pillar of free speech rights, the right of "Fair Use." It's going to be a hell of a ride, make sure you are well rested and ready, and I mean good and ready for this. This is going to be quite possibly the most intense exploration of one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, YouTube dramas off all time. Get yourself well rested for it. Go to bed for a few hours and get some really good sleep. See you back here in a few hours for part 2 of "In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA"
Zizzle Zoundz! The toy in this YouTube drama and DMCA controversy!
In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA (SEE VIDEO)
In this multi-part video series, we will examine a pillar of free speech rights, the right of "Fair Use." It's going to be a hell of a ride, make sure you are well rested and ready, and I mean good and ready for this. This is going to be quite possibly the most intense exploration of one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, YouTube dramas off all time. Get yourself well rested for it. Go to bed for a few hours and get some really good sleep. See you back here in a few hours for part 2 of "In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA"
Zizzle Zoundz! The toy in this YouTube drama and DMCA controversy!
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace
Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace, PROOF Bush Lied about excuse for Iraq War: 'Saddam didn't let UN weapons inspectors in' is a LIE! See Video
see video
Pass it on: http://Tinyurl.com/LiarsCriminals
"United Nations weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq today to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction. The findings of the inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, could determine whether or not Iraq will face the wrath of the US military in the coming months. The arrival of about 30 inspectors who flew into Baghdad from Cyprus marked the first visit by UN arms monitors to Iraq for four years." - November 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors arrive in Iraq
"A team of 17 United Nations weapons inspectors has arrived in Iraq, supported by a sweeping mandate to search sites that were off limits during seven years of inspections in the 1990s." - November 25, 2002 UN inspectors arrive in Iraq
see video
Pass it on: http://Tinyurl.com/LiarsCriminals
"United Nations weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq today to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction. The findings of the inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, could determine whether or not Iraq will face the wrath of the US military in the coming months. The arrival of about 30 inspectors who flew into Baghdad from Cyprus marked the first visit by UN arms monitors to Iraq for four years." - November 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors arrive in Iraq
"A team of 17 United Nations weapons inspectors has arrived in Iraq, supported by a sweeping mandate to search sites that were off limits during seven years of inspections in the 1990s." - November 25, 2002 UN inspectors arrive in Iraq
550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it?
550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it? (see video)
see video
"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." - AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq By BRIAN MURPHY Associated Press Writer
see video
"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." - AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq By BRIAN MURPHY Associated Press Writer
Friday, July 04, 2008
WTC7 & the BBC
Mike,
You have done good work against Israeli crimes but your 9/11 arguments hurt the cause. What you are saying about the BBC and WTC7 makes no sense AT ALL. The reason it was reported that the building collapsed is because the fact that it was expected to collapse had been communicated to many people because firemen were telling people that is exactly what they expected. Someone miscommunicated the "going to collapse" with "had collapsed." No mystery.
Foreknowledge indicates the structural integrity was failing well before the building collapsed. You can read the firemen's statements and see a firemen saying it was going to collapse, so what is the mystery?
You try so hard to dismiss the logical prediction of the collapse that you go to extremely illogical lengths. To argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell media outlets that they should report that WTC7 had collapsed is so illogical - have you ever tried to think this through? Never in this reality would secret agents ever tell a media outlet that they should report "the building has collapsed." It is mind-numbingly illogical to even think that makes sense! You are suffering cognizant dissidence because you are confronted with the fact that firemen could see the condition of the building and were telling the media that the building was going to collapse and apparently you can't accept what that means. You have emotionally invested in a theory so you concoct an off the wall scenario to explain the fact that it was expected by people that it was going to collapse. You have latched onto something that could only exist in a poorly written comic book with no internal logic, NO ONE EVER would tell a media outlet "report that the building had collapsed." If you don't understand something about what I have written, please tell me what it is. Otherwise can we declare out independence from illogical theories which hurt the cause? Please, this needs to be resolved.
-Tom
You have done good work against Israeli crimes but your 9/11 arguments hurt the cause. What you are saying about the BBC and WTC7 makes no sense AT ALL. The reason it was reported that the building collapsed is because the fact that it was expected to collapse had been communicated to many people because firemen were telling people that is exactly what they expected. Someone miscommunicated the "going to collapse" with "had collapsed." No mystery.
Foreknowledge indicates the structural integrity was failing well before the building collapsed. You can read the firemen's statements and see a firemen saying it was going to collapse, so what is the mystery?
You try so hard to dismiss the logical prediction of the collapse that you go to extremely illogical lengths. To argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell media outlets that they should report that WTC7 had collapsed is so illogical - have you ever tried to think this through? Never in this reality would secret agents ever tell a media outlet that they should report "the building has collapsed." It is mind-numbingly illogical to even think that makes sense! You are suffering cognizant dissidence because you are confronted with the fact that firemen could see the condition of the building and were telling the media that the building was going to collapse and apparently you can't accept what that means. You have emotionally invested in a theory so you concoct an off the wall scenario to explain the fact that it was expected by people that it was going to collapse. You have latched onto something that could only exist in a poorly written comic book with no internal logic, NO ONE EVER would tell a media outlet "report that the building had collapsed." If you don't understand something about what I have written, please tell me what it is. Otherwise can we declare out independence from illogical theories which hurt the cause? Please, this needs to be resolved.
-Tom
Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
See Video:
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/
We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.
Also you can Write a letter to Congress A message from Ramsey Clark:
If we let Bush be the "decider," he'll decide on WAR!
Excerpts come from a June 11, 2008 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show
OLBERMANN: Time now to call in George Washington University law professor and constitutional law expert: Jonathan Turley.
Good evening, Jon.
JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.
TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.
But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.
OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?
TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.
What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.
And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.
But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean that at least one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.
OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.
Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.
TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.
The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.
And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.
OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?
TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.
One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.
What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.
OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
See Video:
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/
We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.
Also you can Write a letter to Congress A message from Ramsey Clark:
If we let Bush be the "decider," he'll decide on WAR!
Excerpts come from a June 11, 2008 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show
OLBERMANN: Time now to call in George Washington University law professor and constitutional law expert: Jonathan Turley.
Good evening, Jon.
JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.
TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.
But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.
OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?
TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.
What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.
And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.
But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean that at least one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.
OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.
Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.
TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.
The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.
And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.
OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?
TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.
One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.
What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.
OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts
Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all."
Are we a banana republic or are we a nation of laws? What the hell is going on in this country? Demand that our representatives impeach President Bush and Vice-president Cheney immediately.
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all."
Are we a banana republic or are we a nation of laws? What the hell is going on in this country? Demand that our representatives impeach President Bush and Vice-president Cheney immediately.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Please make a correction regarding Iran
Sent: 6/27/08 12:38 PM (no reply yet)
Dear Ms. Alexander:
You wrote, "the Iranian government, which has threatened to destroy Israel." That is false, Iran has made no such threat. Please make a correction. In this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, stated: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."
Please look at these three videos and the links in the video descriptions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd5uq1AGxPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Dear Ms. Alexander:
You wrote, "the Iranian government, which has threatened to destroy Israel." That is false, Iran has made no such threat. Please make a correction. In this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, stated: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."
Please look at these three videos and the links in the video descriptions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd5uq1AGxPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
