3

ThreatDown


 

Speaking with reporters today in Peterborough, the Prime Minister commented as follows on the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

Let me just say with regards once again to this specific plot, we condemn this in the strongest possible terms, and it only reiterates the position that our government has been expressing for several years now, that the regime in Tehran – we have no quarrel with the Iranian people, but the regime in Tehran represents probably the most significant threat in the world to global peace and security. And so we take these matters very, very seriously, and we will be working with our allies.

Back in June, Mr. Harper implied that something threatened the existence of the country. Paul subsequently considered the conditional country here. I noted the rhetoric again here.

In an interview with this magazine, the Prime Minister was asked about the threat and identified “Islamic extremist terrorism,” but also an increasingly complex world. Roland Paris read that interview and came away wanting the Prime Minister to be more specific.

In an interview with Peter Mansbridge this fall, Mr. Harper identified “Islamicism” as the greatest terrorist threat to Canada, but here he seems to elevate Iran to the most significant global threat. It’s unclear whether that makes Iran the threat to Canada that he has vaguely referred to in the past.


 

ThreatDown

  1. The latest in a long line of increasingly unbelievable  ‘scare-the-peasants’ routines.

  2. Not a serious enough threat that he can’t take the time to  to celebrate the building of a new runway in Peterborough. 

  3. Dear MSM:

    Please stop covering those raggamuffins making us uncomfortable on Wall Street.  Here is the story we would prefer to see on CNN 24/7.  Please do not try to verify any of the allegations made before running with this story.  When have we ever lied to you before?

    Signed,
    The Establishment

    PS – I hear there’s a celebrity couple breaking up in Hollywood. Why not cover that instead of the aforementioned raggamuffins?

Sign in to comment.