Mark - TheBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 3,605
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmCtci6cen8[/youtube]
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Matthew Syed Hits Out At Roman Abramovich
- Thread starter Mark - TheBlue
- Start date
laserblue
Well-Known Member
He's very bold in accusing Abramovich of accumulating his wealth with "stolen money". If he's not careful he'll end up sleeping with the fishes with his bollocks in his mouth.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
I wouldn't say he is bold, he is just stating the truth.laserblue said:He's very bold in accusing Abramovich of accumulating his wealth with "stolen money". If he's not careful he'll end up sleeping with the fishes with his bollocks in his mouth.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
I don't think he's intimating its false, just that its brave to speak unpalatable truths of the likes of AbromovichSWP's back said:I wouldn't say he is bold, he is just stating the truth.laserblue said:He's very bold in accusing Abramovich of accumulating his wealth with "stolen money". If he's not careful he'll end up sleeping with the fishes with his bollocks in his mouth.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
SWP's back said:I wouldn't say he is bold, he is just stating the truth.laserblue said:He's very bold in accusing Abramovich of accumulating his wealth with "stolen money". If he's not careful he'll end up sleeping with the fishes with his bollocks in his mouth.
I agree but my point is that accusing a ruthless Russian oligarch of criminal activity on TV might be a health hazard.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
Tsk tsk, are you insinuating that Roman can be nasty?laserblue said:SWP's back said:I wouldn't say he is bold, he is just stating the truth.laserblue said:He's very bold in accusing Abramovich of accumulating his wealth with "stolen money". If he's not careful he'll end up sleeping with the fishes with his bollocks in his mouth.
I agree but my point is that accusing a ruthless Russian oligarch of criminal activity on TV might be a health hazard.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Why is no-one commenting on what this idiot said about Sheikh Mansour? What a steaming pile of turd. Sheikh Mansour bought City to protect himself from the fallout of a war between Iran and Israel? That is an unimaginably stupid statement.
1. Firstly, no-one needs protection from Iran anyway. Iran has not invaded anyone in hundreds of years. If it's the nuclear threat, there's no protection possible. A missile-launched nuke from Iran could hit Abu Dhabi in thirty seconds.
2. Secondly, it's bizarre to talk of fallout anyway as if they'd just happen to be affected by events that have nothing to do with them, because the UAE are one of the nations pushing (or have in the recent past pushed) for an attack on Iran, as revealed by the Wikileaks embassy cables. Moreover, they're going to the US for that, NOT Britain. If a conflict did happen (which is thankfully far less likely now Ahmadinejad has gone), and the UAE had to defend itself, it is armed with plenty of the most modern western equipment, as is Saudi Arabia, indeed more so, who likewise would respond in full-force to highly unlikely Iranian conventional aggression.
3. Thirdly, if they did want British protection they'd already have it. The UAE buys billions in British-manufactured arms on a regular basis. You think the British establishment aren't going to be more protective of billions of pounds of arms deals (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/</a>) and tens of thousands of British jobs, than a football club? Really?
What an utter moron. Wrong on every single possible count. I can only presume that to be a journalist you are required either to be ignorant, or a liar, because knowledgeable truthfulness is not something I associate with any publication bar Private Eye.
1. Firstly, no-one needs protection from Iran anyway. Iran has not invaded anyone in hundreds of years. If it's the nuclear threat, there's no protection possible. A missile-launched nuke from Iran could hit Abu Dhabi in thirty seconds.
2. Secondly, it's bizarre to talk of fallout anyway as if they'd just happen to be affected by events that have nothing to do with them, because the UAE are one of the nations pushing (or have in the recent past pushed) for an attack on Iran, as revealed by the Wikileaks embassy cables. Moreover, they're going to the US for that, NOT Britain. If a conflict did happen (which is thankfully far less likely now Ahmadinejad has gone), and the UAE had to defend itself, it is armed with plenty of the most modern western equipment, as is Saudi Arabia, indeed more so, who likewise would respond in full-force to highly unlikely Iranian conventional aggression.
3. Thirdly, if they did want British protection they'd already have it. The UAE buys billions in British-manufactured arms on a regular basis. You think the British establishment aren't going to be more protective of billions of pounds of arms deals (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/</a>) and tens of thousands of British jobs, than a football club? Really?
What an utter moron. Wrong on every single possible count. I can only presume that to be a journalist you are required either to be ignorant, or a liar, because knowledgeable truthfulness is not something I associate with any publication bar Private Eye.
NipHolmes
Well-Known Member
Great post.Skashion said:Why is no-one commenting on what this idiot said about Sheikh Mansour? What a steaming pile of turd. Sheikh Mansour bought City to protect himself from the fallout of a war between Iran and Israel? That is an unimaginably stupid statement.
1. Firstly, no-one needs protection from Iran anyway. Iran has not invaded anyone in hundreds of years. If it's the nuclear threat, there's no protection possible. A missile-launched nuke from Iran could hit Abu Dhabi in thirty seconds.
2. Secondly, it's bizarre to talk of fallout anyway as if they'd just happen to be affected by events that have nothing to do with them, because the UAE are one of the nations pushing (or have in the recent past pushed) for an attack on Iran, as revealed by the Wikileaks embassy cables. Moreover, they're going to the US for that, NOT Britain. If a conflict did happen (which is thankfully far less likely now Ahmadinejad has gone), and the UAE had to defend itself, it is armed with plenty of the most modern western equipment, as is Saudi Arabia, indeed more so, who likewise would respond in full-force to highly unlikely Iranian conventional aggression.
3. Thirdly, if they did want British protection they'd already have it. The UAE buys billions in British-manufactured arms on a regular basis. You think the British establishment aren't going to be more protective of billions of pounds of arms deals (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/</a>) and tens of thousands of British jobs, than a football club? Really?
What an utter moron. Wrong on every single possible count. I can only presume that to be a journalist you are required either to be ignorant, or a liar, because knowledgeable truthfulness is not something I associate with any publication bar Private Eye.