Apparently, the state of affairs in Iran is creating paranoia…
So says an article in Time – Paranoid in Tehran.
I started to read it with some interest, looking for the political slant.
I didn’t have to get any further than the opening line.
” The U.S. talks about regime change and promoting democracy, but all it’s done is turned Iran into an even more oppressive police state.”
So… what be the difference between a regime and a government – barr the emotional connotations?
The following comes from the same article!
Blair promises ‘more for troops ‘
(What is ‘more‘?)
Addressing military personnel on the fifth anniversary of operations in the country, Tony Blair pledged “every support and every protection“.
Thank you, Prime Minister.
Now, please qualify ‘every’.
Those overdue body armour jackets, per chance?
More support from other Nato Nations, maybe?
The commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler, responded to the prime minister’s offer of more resources by requesting helicopters.
and just a paragraph or two further down….
Kim Howells,Foreign Office Minister responsible for Afganistan: –
.” said that while British commanders felt they had all of the equipment they needed, they would like more support from some other Nato countries which were not “punching their weight”.
Oh. Cancel the helicopters then…
We must have misunderstood.
Politicians are masters of verbal fallacy.
When I start my day, I don’t sit back as many do and just let the news wash over me.
Instead, I listen and within moments I am nigh assured of an opportunity of mirth.
Today, one of the BBC Top 10 World Headlines is an interview of Nigel Farage – newly elected leader of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party)
He is quoted as saying,
Mr Farage told the BBC: “We’ve got three social democratic parties in Britain – Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are virtually indistinguishable from each other on nearly all the main issues,” he said.
“Frankly, you can’t put a cigarette paper between them and that is why there are nine million people who don’t vote now in general elections that did back in 1992.”
Let’s just look at that for a moment – especially the three pieces I’ve placed in bold.
What on earth does ‘nearly’ mean?
And how can Nigel be assured that it is because of this – alledged – lack of difference between the three main parties that 9 million people chose not to vote?
As to the cigarette paper comment – now there’s a fallacy but an effective one! 🙂
In fact, Nigel is such an empath that he knows this: –
He said that “a lot of people… feel like me that we’re not being given a choice, we’re being given no opportunity, that there is no real voice of opposition in British politics – that is what UKIP is here to provide”.
What is ‘alot’, Nigel?
7 people, maybe?