Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 26, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

IRAN UPDATE....Far be it from me to be skeptical of an exclusive report from the world class journalists of the Sun, but even if I take its report of Iranian incursions into Iraq at face value, here's what it says:

Iranian forces are being choppered over the Iraqi border to bomb Our Boys, intelligence chiefs say.

....Our Boys picked up the Iranian helicopters on radar crossing into empty desert. The sightings have been confirmed to The Sun by very senior military sources.

At least two Brit squaddies are thought to have been killed by bombs planted during these incursions into Maysan province — Corporal Ben Leaning, 24, and Trooper Kristen Turton, 27.

Leaning and Turton were killed by an IED attack five weeks ago. So we're not talking about anything new here. No pitched battles or strafing runs. Just the same old allegations that Iranians are supplying IEDs to Iraqi militias.

Which they might well be doing. Still, we've been claiming this and then retracting it and then sort of claiming it again and then sort of retracting it again for months. Even if the Sun is right — and I wouldn't bet the ranch on that without confirmation in triplicate — I'm not quite sure what the breaking news is supposed to be here.

Kevin Drum 2:28 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (108)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The breaking news is that when Cheney decides to go nuts(er) and bomb himself of his corner, we won't be able to say we weren't warned.

Posted by: Kenji on June 26, 2007 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

...we've been claiming this and then retracting...

We?

Posted by: a on June 26, 2007 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Whether Iran is supplying components for IEDs is completely beside the point. Frankly, given this administration's pronounced bellicosity toward Tehran since first taking office in January 2001, I would be surprised if the Iranians weren't seeking to cause us a certain amount of discomfort in the region.

Still, we have no proof that Iran has done anything overtly belligerent toward our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, beyond this administration's own assurances -- and that, plus a$1.85, will get you a Grande-sized coffee at Starbuck's.

Therefore, we can have no war with Iran, without ourselves being the aggressor.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 26, 2007 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't the bigger story that this is the kind of story that 'military intelligence' is feeding the press? The story is derived exclusively from "intelligence chiefs".

Of course, they may or may not be telling the truth. However when you consider that the British troops were killed by IEDs (which almost anybody can plant or trigger), it makes you question the plausibility of the allegations.

Would the Iranians really transport their own troops across the border in such a highly visible means of transportations (helicopters visible to radar) in order to perform a fairly remedial task? Seems like a huge risk with little or no benefit.

Also, notice how the article supports the allegations entirely on the allegation that Iranian helicopters were spotted on radar crossing the border. The British soldiers "are thought to have been killed by bombs planted during these incursions into Maysan province".

That qualifies as evidence of what, other than specious reasoning? Reporting unsubstantiated rumors of hypothetical causality?

Even assuming it were true, it would still rank as a comparatively minor incident (and not even an especially recent incident) that normally wouldn't receive public attention... unless of course the military wanted to make a point of telling the press about the story.

A simpler way of putting it: generally the military controls this type of information. If you're hearing about it, it's because the military wants you to hear about it. Isn't that the bigger story here?

Posted by: Augustus on June 26, 2007 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

Augustus: Yep.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on June 26, 2007 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

This story is pure hog wash. As Augustus says, it makes no sense to use helicopters to to move personnel across the porous Iraq/Iran border. In fact, it would be suicide to even try -- as the Iranians are no doubt very aware.

We have air dominance over Iraq. Nothing larger than a buzzard can move through Iraqi air space without our instantly knowing it. The story even says that we tracked the helicopters on radar. It would be a trivial task to intercept and destroy the alleged helicopters -- if they really existed. A helicopter is no match for a F-15 or F-16.

Do the people feeding this garbage to press think we're all idiots? (Rhetorical question -- yes they do.)

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvark on June 26, 2007 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

Totally off topic, a Fred Thompson story in the L.A. Times that seems to have slipped under the blogosphere's radar:

I'd been hearing these radio commercials lately that Fred Thompson narrates, which struck me as really 'off.' They begin with a tale of battlefield heroism in Iraq, then follow it up by a plug for a company called LifeLock, which supposedly provides free identity theft protection to our troops. After saying that since our troops are protecting us, we need to have their backs, he urges us to patronize LifeLock.

I found it disturbing that a Presidential contender would have so little respect for our troops that he'd use their valor as just another tool to pitch a commercial product, but a little Googling showed that apparently the L.A. Times found it disturbing for even stronger reasons:

LifeLock was co-founded in 2005 by Robert J. Maynard Jr., whom the Federal Trade Commission accused in 1996 of deceiving consumers with advertisements that suggested his credit-repair company could remove records of bankruptcies and delinquent payments.
The FTC also alleged that Maynard and another executive at National Credit Foundation Inc. collected checking-account data from its customers for "verification" when the real purpose was to make unauthorized withdrawals from those accounts.
Maynard settled both allegations with the FTC in 1997 without admitting wrongdoing but agreed to be barred from "advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, performing or distributing any product or service relating to credit-improvement services."

It gets better:

Maynard has told reporters that he was inspired to start LifeLock after being wrongly jailed in 2003 for an unpaid secured casino debt known as a marker, which, under Nevada law, is treated as a bad check, a criminal offense.
Maynard said his identity had been stolen and the fraud cost him thousands of dollars.
But as first reported May 31 in Phoenix New Times, that media-friendly story may be misleading.
After his arrest, Maynard never told authorities he wasn't responsible for the $16,080 debt racked up at the Mirage in Las Vegas.
The funds were wired on his behalf to cover the debt, Maynard was released and the charges were dropped.
Maynard said Friday that he didn't tell Vegas authorities about his identity theft because a day after his arrest, his wife filed for sole custody of their children and the only way he could appear in court was to get out of jail quickly by paying the debt.
Clark County, Nev., Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Bernie Zadrowski, however, said in an interview this week that "we could show beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the one who committed the crime."
That's because the Mirage had on file two different drivers' licenses that had been supplied by the gambler at different times, suggesting that an identity thief would have had to steal each separately.
Both matched the photo from Maynard's arrest in Arizona, Zadrowski said.

Interesting people that Thompson's willing to front for.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) on June 26, 2007 at 5:00 AM | PERMALINK

Worth knowing that the Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

It's really our parallel to the New York Post. It's definitely aiming at a 'working class' reader.

AFAIK the journalists are all contractors, rather than employees per se. They get paid if they get their stuff published, rather than just a salary.

Although it is (generally) pretty right wing, it has supported Tony Blair from time to time. About 30% of its readers are Labour-voters.

Posted by: Valuethinker on June 26, 2007 at 5:20 AM | PERMALINK

Dateline a few months from now: In a new poll, 70% of American believe Iranian helicopters are bombing Coalition troops in Iraq...

Posted by: Max Power on June 26, 2007 at 5:43 AM | PERMALINK

Considering The Drudge Report linked prominently to this story, it must be true, right? Well, if we wouldn't have American soldiers in places they aren't wanted, this sort of crap wouldn't go on (if it ever did).

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 26, 2007 at 6:04 AM | PERMALINK

When we were backing the mujaheeden in Afghanistan against the USSR, would the USSR have been justified in attacking us?
Same thing, right?

Posted by: merlallen on June 26, 2007 at 6:25 AM | PERMALINK

Considering we declared war on terrorism, and given Iran's decades long support and active participation in terrorism (anyone here want to dispute THAT contention), I am a little confused as to why there is so much cynicism toward the idea that Iran is engaged in war against us, or that we may need to engage in war against them. Given the number of people killed by Iranian proxies since 1979, one can make the argument that Iran has been at war with us for a long time, no?

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

War on terror? I can't seem to locate terror on any of my maps or in the CIA Factbook. Iran I can find, terror not so much.

Considering the US supports the coalition Iraqi government and that government includes the SCI(R)I and Da'wa parties, which were funded, harbored and founded in Iran, is it a surprise that there is Iranian support for Iraqi Shiites? However, since the coalition forces are being attacked by insurgents, including ISI, which are Sunni, why would Iran directly or through proxies, attack Our Boys? (As an aside, is there a more jingoistic approach to a readership than the phrase Our Boys?)

I weary of this Iranian propaganda as a pretext for war.

Posted by: TJM on June 26, 2007 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

The administration is still trying to flog a dead dog. Explosively formed penetrators are about a thirty-year-old technology and can be built by anyone with a basement and access to the Semtex, C4, or equivalent.

Here is my description obtained from the internet Whiskey, Tango Foxtrot - over.

OK. So the casing is PVC pipe. That's the same stuff that is used in waste water drains from every house built in the U.S. [and most of the rest of the world] in the last thirty or more years. The pipe and the end caps to seal off the rear can be purchased in Home Depot, Lowes or any decently supplied hardware store in the U.S. or its equivalent anywhere in the world.

The explosive can be Viet Nam era C4. It's easily (and safely) placed inside the PVC pipe and shaped by hand. It's about like Playdough. Just don't forget to drill a hole in the cap on the PVC pipe and place the igniter at the bottom before placing the explosive in on top of it, with the wire leading out through the hole in the cap on the pipe.

The copper or aluminum top on the EFP can be machined to fit the pipe and formed into a bowl shape exactly like the metal of an automobile fender is shaped. Even the famed Trabant which was built for over 40 years in the USSR and east European Communist countries could do that machine work with little difficulty. India's automotive industry could easily do it. Making the EFP's is really that simple.

The only technologically difficult part of building an EFP is getting the copper cover machined to the correct tolerance. If you know the correct shape any good machine shop can build one of these things.

Take ten insurgents, send them to some neutral training location for two weeks, and they can be trained to build EFPs. Then send them back to Iraq and let them steal the materials from construction projects or Semtex that was left unguarded when the American troops first entered Baghdad and Voila! They can take out anything up to and including an Abrams tank.

Even if training is done in Iraq, there is no way of telling that the Iranian government even knows about it. Nor, if they are sensible, would they do the training in Iran.

The story of Iranian choppers sending in bombers is more propaganda by the wigged-out reich-wingers trying to manipulate American domestic politics by starting another war. That's what the Argentine Generals did when their government was threatened with removal. They attacked the Falklands. We all know how well that worked, but for the reich-wingers, hope and military power spring eternal.

Posted by: Rick B on June 26, 2007 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

"War on terror? I can't seem to locate terror on any of my maps or in the CIA Factbook. Iran I can find, terror not so much."

Snide, non-response/response. Is there not an international terrorist movement out there, or not? You might remember some buildings coming down, some trains being blown up and some buses exploding recently, along with cars and Mosques and some journalists being beheaded and, well, one would hope you would get the idea. Maybe not.

Gee, I wonder where the right gets the idea that the left does not take the threat of terrorism seriously?

"Considering the US supports the coalition Iraqi government and that government includes the SCI..."

This entirely ignores my point, and the fact, that Iran has been actively engaged in terrorism in general, and attacks against the US and it allies, since 1979. Bottom line, if you can't find a way to pin it on Bush and/or the US, it just isn't real, right?

So, just come out and write it:

"Iran had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists prior to January of 2001."

WG


Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

The Sun, are you kidding, why not write about defence articlesfrom the Weekly World News. Their lead story is:
(quote)

French Military Unveils New Weapon:‘AIR’ TANKS

PARIS, France — "Killing people breeds bad will," said French General Henri Petain. "So our plan for the future is to replace all our weapons with non-lethal versions to show the world that peace is our only goal."

(end quote)

Posted by: Neal on June 26, 2007 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Our Boys"? "Brit Squaddies"? Do Sun articles always read like this?

Posted by: keptsimple on June 26, 2007 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

WG
Terrorism I can find. Its in Darfur. Its in Afganistan. Its in Israel and "Palestine". The "War on Terror" I can not find. I see a lot of money being spent on a a vacuous strategy and I see a lot of people getting arrested. But arresting them doesn't seem to be helping. I see a "War for Terror" certainly. Our Iraq thingee is making plenty of terror. There will be more terror after this than before no matter what we do. You can't kill tens of thousands of people with no credible objective and hope they will forgive you. They won't.

Certainly Iran has been clamouring for our blood since the revolution. But if Iran has occupied Washington D.C. fifty years ago, put Eisenhower in jail and established a king in his place who systematically sold the country to his friends you would be a little peeved with them I guarantee it. Then, instead of trying to mend fences they sided with Canada when Canada invades and starts meat grinding the young men of your nation. You would be pissed. You would. Thats what happened. Thats why they hate us. And it is stupid. But it only looks stupid if you read history. But don't expect GW to read history. Hell no. He's a cowboy. Or he thinks he is. Or something.

Its not a liberal thing. Its blind stupidity. We have been arrogant and stupid and we have to be cunning and aware. But we are not. The world was the same on September 10th as it is today. Americans don't know it because they don't live in the world. They live in a dream. Thats why they elected George.

We have become a dumb nation. And Iran is taunting us. Because they know we can't think our way out of a wet paper bag. Of course they are on the border. What are we going to do about it? Open up a war in three countries across the most inaccessible part of asia? They think we're pretty stupid. I think maybe we are even stupider than they think. I think George is going surprise them with how stupid we can be.

Posted by: Trurl on June 26, 2007 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

WG
Terrorism I can find. Its in Darfur. Its in Afganistan. Its in Israel and "Palestine". The "War on Terror" I can not find. I see a lot of money being spent on a a vacuous strategy and I see a lot of people getting arrested. But arresting them doesn't seem to be helping. I see a "War for Terror" certainly. Our Iraq thingee is making plenty of terror. There will be more terror after this than before no matter what we do. You can't kill tens of thousands of people with no credible objective and hope they will forgive you. They won't.

Certainly Iran has been clamouring for our blood since the revolution. But if Iran has occupied Washington D.C. fifty years ago, put Eisenhower in jail and established a king in his place who systematically sold the country to his friends you would be a little peeved with them I guarantee it. Then, instead of trying to mend fences they sided with Canada when Canada invades and starts meat grinding the young men of your nation. You would be pissed. You would. Thats what happened. Thats why they hate us. And it is stupid. But it only looks stupid if you read history. But don't expect GW to read history. Hell no. He's a cowboy. Or he thinks he is. Or something.

Its not a liberal thing. Its blind stupidity. We have been arrogant and stupid and we have to be cunning and aware. But we are not. The world was the same on September 10th as it is today. Americans don't know it because they don't live in the world. They live in a dream. Thats why they elected George.

We have become a dumb nation. And Iran is taunting us. Because they know we can't think our way out of a wet paper bag. Of course they are on the border. What are we going to do about it? Open up a war in three countries across the most inaccessible part of asia? They think we're pretty stupid. I think maybe we are even stupider than they think. I think George is going surprise them with how stupid we can be.

Posted by: Trurl on June 26, 2007 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

Even if Iran is involved, so what!

I don't care if Russia, the Saudi's or anyone else is supply IED's and it matters little, because with those little "madrassa" are everywhere in the Mideast, Pakistan, Afghanistan, it doesn't matter, they all want the US out of Iraq.

The entire Mideast wants the US to leave Iraq, and I've got no problem with that. They don't want to do business with Western oil companies and I can certainly respect that.

The question is: Why is Kevin trying to make excuses for Dick Cheney of all people?

Nobody cares if Iran is involved in this war BECAUSE the whole Mideast is involved in this war.


Posted by: Me_again on June 26, 2007 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

Trurl:

Excellent response to Weary G's alarmist clamoring.

Posted by: skeg on June 26, 2007 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

Finding interesting international news in The Sun is always difficult.

As an alternative, I would suggest their coverage of the US justice bribery probe of BAE and the simultaneous approval of their takeover bid for a company that armors humvees. Granted, it's just a paraphrase of other press reports.

Posted by: B on June 26, 2007 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Die Sonne, Berlin, Germany

August 29, 1939.

Polish forces are riding over the German border to bomb Unsere Jungs, Abwehr intelligence chiefs say.

....Unsere Jungs picked up the Polish horsemen on crossing into empty German forests. The sightings have been confirmed to Die Sonne by very senior military sources.

At least two German landsers are thought to have been killed by bombs planted during these incursions into East Prussia — Feldwebel Benno Lehning, 24, and Gefreiter Karsten Turton, 27.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

C'mon, Kevin! The owner of The Sun is renowned for dictating policy to is editors and/or intimidating them so that they 'try to please'. That owner is The Dirty Digger, R Murdoch --- owner of Fox, in case some readers do not know.

The rag tabloid Sun is worse still because it does a great job of making its 'readers' even dumber than they already are.

Legitimating Murdoch by quoting The Sun is an exercise in futility and demeans your blog site.

Posted by: maunga on June 26, 2007 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

Trurl,

"The world was the same on September 10th as it is today."

No, its not, and that perhaps is the big fault line between the left and right that is tearing us apart.

The difference between September 10th and September 11th was that some of us woke up to fact we were at war, and that the enemy we ignored or dismissed had teeth large enough to devour 3,000 people in less than 2 hours. With that as a starting point, some of us realized that it was only going to get worse unless an enemy depraved enough to do that was confronted.

You can find all the excuses you want for the terrorists behavior, but at the end of the day, you still have to deal with their end objectives. You still have to deal with their intentions and their actions and the danger they represent. Examing root causes will not save you.

Germany had some very legit gripes at their treatment at the end of World War I, but did that justify starting the Second World War, the Holocaust, the murdering of millions of civilians? And no matter their gripes or the ways the war might have been averted by actions of the Allies, when it was on, it was on, and one had to win it.

Whatever injustices may or may not have been done to the US to Iran, for instance, they have paid it back with interest against their own people, and against people throughout the Middle East.

Please stop acting like the Mullahs are some poor innocent waifs in the region, merely acting in self-defense. They have their tentacles reaching around the region and around the globe and those tentacles draw blood in the tens of thousands. Their leader had openly threatened to wipe another nation off the map, even as he develops nuclear weapons. Spare me the notion that people are just "reading too much into it."

Me Again Acknowledges this, but he/she doesn't care:

"Even if Iran is involved, so what!

I don't care if Russia, the Saudi's or anyone else is supply IED's"

Even if they are used to kill US and British and Iraqi soldiers. Nope, not a concern for him. Nor, I assume, does he care that Iran or anyone else supplies the other explosives and cash and experts that have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in stores, market squares, Mosques, etc. How about the Lebanese leaders blown up over the years? Any concern there?

So even when Iran is an acknowledged threat and aggressor, it matters not, because, hey, at least they are not the United States. Or something like that.

So, let me ask you, past injustices taken into consideration, just as a hypothetical question:

Just imagine for a moment the possibility that Iran does develop a nuke, and they use it on Israel, or maybe on a western city via terrorist proxies. Given THAT scenario, can we call them an enemy and declare war with full agreement here, or are there some who will still think, "Well, you know, we had it coming..."

Come now, let's be honest with our answers.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Legitimating Murdoch by quoting The Sun is an exercise in futility and demeans your blog site.

Posted by: maunga on June 26, 2007 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

And just one more indication that Kevin is out of his element trying to write about Iraq / the Middle East. I mean, cripes, he was one of the loudest cheerleaders IN FAVOR of invading Iraq in the first place.

Posted by: Pat on June 26, 2007 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Given the number of people killed by Iranian proxies since 1979, one can make the argument that Iran has been at war with us for a long time, no?

So when Reagan, North, Weinberger, and the rest of their criminal Republican compatriots were arming the Iranian mullahs in the 1980s they were committing treason by providing arms to the enemy? Ok, if you say so.

In that case, though, shouldn't North and the others be arrested, charged with treason, and thrown into Guantanamo as enemy combatants?

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

I'll admit... I laughed at this. Why? Because they didn't merely cite senior military sources, they went all the way to the top and cited very senior military sources.

Posted by: Skail on June 26, 2007 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

I'll admit... I laughed at this. Why? Because they didn't merely cite senior military sources, they went all the way to the top and cited very senior military sources.

Posted by: Skail on June 26, 2007 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

No WG, with respect, you're still in the spin cycle. But its where most americans are.

What you say wise people realized on Sep 11, the rest of the world already knew.

The enemy has been there all along. Its the US that has been pissing these people off. So now they are angry. Was it necessary to piss them off? Of course not. But we did it anyway. Because we are not bright. Does that make them good? Is a crocadile good because it takes your head after you poked it? No. Does it matter if the crocadile is good or not? No.

What does the US do about it? We do exactly what has not worked for the last half century. We try to bomb them into submission. Why? Because we don't have the time or inclination to be imaginative.

You say conservatives care. i don't think they do. If they did they wouldn't have done the astonishly inane and frighteningly predictable things they have done.

Where have I made excuses for terrorists? This is not a world of good and bad. This is world of survival. Its a jungle out there and we are the sloths not the tigers. The sloths sleep and are stupid. The tigers are hungry and smart.

You seem to think it matter who is to blame for Iran's ire. There is no blame. No one cares. It doesn't matter. I am simply pointing out why the Iranians are doing what they are doing. Americans have no idea why the iranians hate us. But they are willing to go to war with them. Does that make any sense? No. It is stupid. As I said we are a stupid nation.

Why do we continue to behave as though we were right and they were wrong? When clearly there is no good and bad? No clear agressor or victim.

Our diplomacy is not clever or perceptive. It is dangerous. Do we recognize the past and try to build bridges with the only stable quasi/democratic moslem state in the world that also happens to be between the two wars we are fighting? Oh no. Let us not do the clever thing. Lets do the "right" thing. Which is of course attempt to bomb them into submission.

What the hell does it matter what Iran has done to the rest of the ME? Why did you bring that up? We aren't in the ME. What the hell do I care if they bomb Israel? Israel is part of the problem - another middle east nation based on religion that can't make friends with its neighbors. Its not my problem.

I never said Iran wasn't an enemy. I never said it was our friend. Thats not the point! ( sheesh ) The point is talk to them and place them in a situation in which they can not complain. Because we need a friend in the region. And you will say "But we can't agree with terrorists!" Well. We have agreed with dictators for decades that make any modern terrorist look like Santa Claus. Why can't we be pragmatic instead of stubborn? Stubborn hasn't worked.

I know GW hates antinuclear proliferation treaties. Hes scrapped his fair share and has given the Russians reason to make more nuclear bombs. But a truly international effort to stop proliferation is the only way to shame little countries into compliance. It also brings down the temperature. Calm is good. And the only way to enforce calm is by consensus. Clearly bombing has not worked.

So WG, as soon as you conservatives get serious about terrorism, the sooner the democrats will follow your lead - as they always do these days. It really is a serious problem, and I hope you realize that soon. You are the only ones who are doing anything at the moment. The democrats are apparently even more vague that you guys. It was serious before 9/11. And its worse now only because of the maniac YOU put in the white house.

Get him out.

Posted by: trurl on June 26, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Weary G:Their leader had openly threatened to wipe another nation off the map, even as he develops nuclear weapons.
Has it ever occurred to you that Ahmadinejad didn't say what you were told he said? Or did you translate the Persian yourself? Perhaps he said he wanted the Israeli regime to vanish? See here for another version of what he said.
Further, you have no evidence that Iran, an NNPT signatory, is doing anything other than what's permitted under that treaty in developing a domestic nuclear energy capacity. Sort of what the US has agreed to do for India, which along with Israel, is not an NNPT signatory.
Gullibility is wearying, so I can appreciate from whence you come.

Posted by: TJM on June 26, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

iraqi's don't need iranians selling them weapons..


Unsecured Munitions Responsible for Half of U.S. Casualties in Iraq - GAO 3/23/07

(half would be around 15,000)

who let that happen?

Posted by: mr. irony on June 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Just imagine for a moment the possibility that Iran does develop a nuke, and they use it on Israel...

Oooh. Just imagine!!!...

Just imagine that Israel makes an aerial attack on Iran provoked only by the same paranoia that you are spewing here. Given present capabilities and past history this is a far likelier scenario. So who would be the enemy then?

Dumbass. You're confusing skullduggery with war and you want the rest of us to be just as ignorant as you are.

Posted by: skeg on June 26, 2007 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

WG, another well written piece from the Hearst/Murdoch mode. The only thing you left out was that report of the Iranian yacht lying alee of the USS Maine.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 26, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK
No pitched battles or strafing runs. Just the same old allegations that Iranians are supplying IEDs to Iraqi militias.

No, actually, the claim here is that the Iranian military is flying troops over the border to plant the IEDs, cutting out the middleman entirely. It is directly contrasted, in the story, with the previous(ly claimed) practice of the Republican Guard "just training and arming Shia rebels in Iraq."

Best to criticize the credibility of the story, rather than its lack of novelty.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 26, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

The difference between September 10th and September 11th was that some of us woke up to fact we were at war, and that the enemy we ignored or dismissed had teeth large enough to devour 3,000 people in less than 2 hours.

No, the difference is that some of us became insane with fear and hysteria and some of us kept our heads.

Germany had some very legit gripes at their treatment at the end of World War I, but did that justify starting the Second World War, the Holocaust, the murdering of millions of civilians? And no matter their gripes or the ways the war might have been averted by actions of the Allies, when it was on, it was on, and one had to win it.

The mistake with your analogy above is that in this case we, the United States, are Germany. We're the country that attacked and invaded another country that had not attacked us, we're the aggressor who started the war and is occupying a foreign land and trying to suppress a resistance movement, we're the ones torturing prisoners and breaking international law. I might say "America had some legitimate gripes after September 11th, but that did justify starting the Iraq War, the murdering of hundreds of thousands of civilians?"

Please stop acting like the Mullahs are some poor innocent waifs in the region, merely acting in self-defense. They have their tentacles reaching around the region and around the globe and those tentacles draw blood in the tens of thousands. Their leader had openly threatened to wipe another nation off the map, even as he develops nuclear weapons. [no, he didn't. This is a lie -- Stefan] Spare me the notion that people are just "reading too much into it."

Then please stop acting like the United States is some poor innocent waif in the region, merely acting in self-defense. The Bush regime has its tentacles reaching around the region and around the globe and those tentacles draw blood in the tens of thousands. America's leaders have openly threatened to wipe another nation off the map, even by using nuclear weapons. Spare me the notion that people are just "reading too much into it."

Even if they are used to kill US and British and Iraqi soldiers. Nope, not a concern for him.

Even when our weapons have been used to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Nope,k not a concern for them.

Nor, I assume, does he care that Iran or anyone else supplies the other explosives and cash and experts that have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in stores, market squares, Mosques, etc. How about the Lebanese leaders blown up over the years? Any concern there?

Nor, I assume, do you care that America or anyone else supplies the other explosives and cash and experts that have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in stores, market squares, Mosques, etc. How about the Palestinian leaders blown up over the years? Any concern there?

So even when Iran is an acknowledged threat and aggressor, it matters not, because, hey, at least they are not the United States. Or something like that.

So even when America is an acknowledged threat and aggressor, it matters not, because, hey, at least they are not Iran. Or something like that.

So, let me ask you, past injustices taken into consideration, just as a hypothetical question: Just imagine for a moment the possibility that Iran does develop a nuke, and they use it on Israel, or maybe on a western city via terrorist proxies. Given THAT scenario, can we call them an enemy and declare war with full agreement here, or are there some who will still think, "Well, you know, we had it coming..."

So, let me ask you, past injustices taken into consideration, a non-hypothetical question: Just acknowledge for a moment the fact that America invaded one of Iran's neighbors with no provocation, causing millions of casualties, and now threatens to do the same to Iran, perhaps this time with nuclear weapons. Given THAT scenario, can Iran defend themselves?

Come now, let's be honest with your answers.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

some of us realized that it was only going to get worse unless an enemy depraved enough to do that was confronted.

Thus the validity of attacking Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iraq? Iran? Not so much.

They have their tentacles reaching around the region and around the globe and those tentacles draw blood in the tens of thousands.

Must have missed that! Nice panicky hyperbole though. The only blood in the tens of thousands I see is in Iraq courtesy of Bush's illegal war.

P.S. If you're so concerned about terror why not criticize your boy for not getting Bin Laden? You know, the real architect of 9/11.

Posted by: ckelly on June 26, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Just imagine for a moment the possibility that Iran does develop a nuke, and they use it on Israel

Just imagine Republican Presidential candidates openly advocating US unprovoked use of nukes in highly populated areas of Iran to try to destroy fucking centrifuges. Oh wait, they already did.

Posted by: ckelly on June 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

We have a knew troll, cast in the mold of ex-liberal, feigning civility and clutching his pearls at the rough language he has been subjected to here. (Someone call a wahhhhmbulance for Weary G. My language gives him the vapors. What the fuck ever. If I can't use profanity to describe an obscenity, when the fuck can I use it? The entire Bush presidency is an obscenity. Besides, I already told you on the other thread that I don't give a rats ass about you. I batter your lot bloody for the amusement of the lurkers.

The idiot prince you fellate declared war on a transitive adverb. A tactic, and then commenced to gutting the Constitution in the name of a semantic impossibility.

Their leader had openly threatened to wipe another nation off the map, even as he develops nuclear weapons.

That tells me where to put the pin on the stupid map. One more time: Nukes take time. As soon as we have a sane president, the Mullahs can the little guy, and the overtures start. Anyone who refers to "Iran's leader" and is talking about Ahmidinejad (oh good dog, spare me...) is a fucking moron at best.

By the way - you really need to read the white papers on Iran tht have been produced by The Century Foundation. Start with this one

Iran is ruled by the 86 Mullahs who comprise the Council of Experts. Google it.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Just imagine for a moment the possibility that Iran does develop a nuke, and they use it on Israel

What possibility? If they did, Israel's nuclear retaliation would turn Tehran into a puddle of glass, even if the US doesn't get in the game, which they would. And the government of Iran darn well knows it. All this hystyerical fearmongering -- going back to the war drums against Iraq, I might add -- pretends that the concept of "deterrence" doesn't exist. That kind of bedwetting fear was silly during the Cold War, when we were facing the Soviet Union -- it's laughably pathetic now. You're excusing yourself from serious consideration with this bloodthirsty paranoia.

Posted by: Gregory on June 26, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Apologies for the disjointed nature of that comment. Future posting will be better assembled. Off to make my coffee...

But before I go - Weary G - Fuck You.

(I'm obstreperous this morning. I might just make that my theme for the day...)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS,

Hate to nit, but, there may be "new" in WG, but, the "knew" part, as to know, is not apt. The poster appears not to Know anything.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 26, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, Kevin! The "breaking news" is not the happenings contained in the news report, but the news report itself! It's a signal, that certain interests want to make something of the Iran situation at this time. You do some solid work and can be entertaining, but the "Aw shucks, I'm a simple country blogger" act is wearing thin ...

Posted by: Neil B. on June 26, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Um, April 19 was when they were killed, which was 9 weeks ago, not 5.

Posted by: Meditative_Zebra on June 26, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Okay - I have my coffee. I hope to avoid more homonym offenses.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

The difference between September 10th and September 11th was that some of us woke up to fact we were at war, and that the enemy we ignored or dismissed had teeth large enough to devour 3,000 people in less than 2 hours.With that as a starting point, some of us realized that it was only going to get worse unless an enemy depraved enough to do that was confronted.

But then Bush decided to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, instead of confronting the enemy bin Laden and al Qaeda, and so things did indeed get worse....

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

With all the weapons caches our military left unprotected that were totally looted, it could be the Iraqi militas that are supplying weapons to the Iranians for if we ever attack them, and not vice versa.

Posted by: Swan on June 26, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Germany had some very legit gripes at their treatment at the end of World War I, but did that justify starting the Second World War, the Holocaust, the murdering of millions of civilians? And no matter their gripes or the ways the war might have been averted by actions of the Allies, when it was on, it was on, and one had to win it.

Sir, are you trying to be a conservative without first having the common decency to know anything about history?

The First World War, in which my grandfather, the great Wilson Norman Rogers III fought as a financier and a proud member of the Home Guards, sat me down one day and explained the Bocce to me.

He said that there was a tendency to worship the ability of the German to build machines of war and to want to emulate the fighting spirit of the German. No, you can meet individual Germans and they are like everyone else, he explained. There is nothing wrong with the German people. They are no different than you or I. But when some fool gets to the top of their pecking order and gets them organized, a groupthink takes over and they are not to be admired; they must be defeated. These are the proud people who threw three Roman legions into the swamp and wiped them out but couldn't figure out how to be a nation until well into the late 1800s.

My grandfather patiently explained to me--beating the Bocce in World War I meant stifling the tendency of the German people to organize armies and try to conquer the world. What was done to ensure they couldn't do that again was necessary. What the world failed to do was put the individual German back on his or her feet so they could make a living and become Europeans again. What Chamberlain failed to do was make certain Germany wasn't rearming for another attempt at world domination.

The war on Islamic Fundamentalists is not akin to any previous examination of history--this is new territory. Islamicists do not wage the war of nations with conventional armies in a chessmatch that involves the taking of territory and the destruction of other armies--they use the tactic of cowards to wage assymetrical warfare that has murky intentions and purposes. I support many of the things George W Bush has done to take the fight to these animals. I just wish he hadn't chosen to listen to the counsel of some of the most incompetent fools in the history of man.

As I change my thinking about how to fight these people, I am reminded of another saying that my grandfather had--hate the sin, love the sinner.

And get some help, sir. Your daddy's bare-assed whippings have left more than a few marks on your soul, haven't they?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

I mean, think about it: if you're a poor Iraqi with some weapons you looted, the first thing you're going to do is sell them to the Iranians to make some easy cash- They've got it, Iraqis don't. It's math. If you're a blood-thirsty Iranian, the first thing you're going to think of is buying weapons from an untraceable source, so no one will notice your weapons-buildup for when the Americans attack you- namely, smuggling weapons from Iraqi looters across the border- buying it on the black market.

Posted by: Swan on June 26, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Iranian forces are being choppered over the Iraqi border to bomb Our Boys . . .

"Our Boys"? I thought it was supposed to be "Our Wee Little Laddies."

And Norman, the cranky-old-coot-with-Alzheimers act is getting REALLY old.

Posted by: Peter Principle on June 26, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

And Norman, the cranky-old-coot-with-Alzheimers act is getting REALLY old.

Oh, come now. You can't possibly have been promoted to the level of your incompetence so early in the day already. That last thing I wrote was fairly lucid. A hint to you pantywaists--the criticisms of Senator Lugar have opened my eyes.

When Dick Lugar walks away from you, you have serious problems.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Here is a summary of the GAO report on unsecured munitions.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, old chap, which International Federation Bocce Tournament did your grand papa attend? The one at Somme, or at the Marne - Did not know that the rolling of the steel balls was played at that time - Thought there was a bit more of hurling the steel through the air.

Ah, if only they had used such comraderie as playing Bocce, instead of their altenative.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

No, you can meet individual Germans and they are like everyone else, he explained.

Well, like everyone else, but only more so.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Why, I bet by now every Shiite-Muslim household in east Iran has its own Stinger missle and a whopping pile of IEDs sitting on the living-room couch, next to Fido and a couple of turban-wearing kids lying on the floor playing al Nintendo.

Posted by: Swan on June 26, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

"I am a little confused as to why there is so much cynicism toward the idea that Iran is engaged in war against us"

Why should we not be cynical given the Bush administration's track record? It would be foolish to be otherwise. And even more foolish in this case, given that the reports from the Bush administration regarding Iranian involvement have been directly contradicted by other sources including, ironically enough, other Bush administration and U.S. military sources! Not to mention that their assertions about the technology required to build the explosives used against our troops have been flatly false. And even more foolish when you consider just who we are supposed to be fighting and who Iran is supposed to be supporting (free clue: they aren't the same people).

"or that we may need to engage in war against them."

"Need to?" Really? Feel free to make the case because, right now, an attack on Iran would be one of the dumbest things we could do.

"Given the number of people killed by Iranian proxies since 1979, one can make the argument that Iran has been at war with us for a long time, no?"

No.

Posted by: PaulB on June 26, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Amusing to see anyone taking an article in the Sun seriously. With respect, it makes the New York Post look staid. It's somewhere between the New York Post and the National Enquirer with added porn.

If similiar reports haven't sprung up in the Telegraph,Times, Express or Mail minus the sub-500 word-reading-literacy writing, the military sources aren't using their usual outlets, or more likely, the journalists and editors on those papers don't buy the ridiculous premise of the story.

Posted by: Alan de Bristol on June 26, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

"No, its not"

Yes, actually it is. The difference is that idiots like you were terrified out of your complacency (not to mention your reason). For the rest of us, who were already aware of global issues and were aware that people wanted to attack us, not so much.

"and that perhaps is the big fault line between the left and right that is tearing us apart."

That and idiotic support for an ill-advised war that has made matters worse, and even dumber support for a new war before we've even dealt with the consequences of the current war.

"With that as a starting point, some of us realized that it was only going to get worse unless an enemy depraved enough to do that was confronted."

So why did we not, in fact, go after that "depraved enemy?" Why are we wasting our time and resources in Iraq, thereby strengthening that "depraved enemy?"

"You can find all the excuses you want for the terrorists behavior"

Thanks for showing that we don't have to take you seriouly with this lovely little bit of ad hominem attack.

"Please stop acting like the Mullahs are some poor innocent waifs in the region"

ROFL... And even more stupidity. Do you really not have anything to add to this debate? Nothing but random attacks and silly appeals to emotion.

"They have their tentacles reaching around the region and around the globe and those tentacles draw blood in the tens of thousands."

Nice hype. Too bad it has no basis in reality.

"Their leader had openly threatened to wipe another nation off the map, even as he develops nuclear weapons."

Two false statements in one sentence. Nice.

"So even when Iran is an acknowledged threat and aggressor"

Well, except that they aren't an "acknowledged threat and aggresor." Since they aren't, your argument is moot.

"Come now, let's be honest with our answers."

Dear heart, considering that your questions are dishonest, why should we take this any more seriously than we do anything else you've said?

Posted by: PaulB on June 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Our Boys picked up the Iranian helicopters on radar crossing into empty desert.

How do we know that these supposed Iranians helicopters weren't in hot pursuit of some of the anti-Iranian terrorists equipped and trained by the US who are operating out of southern Iraq?

Posted by: Disputo on June 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

BG - I loves me some ad homonyms!

"Come now, let's be honest with our answers."
After you dear chap! Posted by: kenga on June 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

So, they saw the chopper on radar, but didn't take it out? Then they knew where it landed, but didn't take it out? And then they sent troops to the area, after the Iranians had had time to plant bombs? And I'm supposed to be upset about the Iranians?

Hmm.

Posted by: biggerbox on June 26, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Old news. Nothing to see here, move along now... Aren't you the same guys that are/were a little bit miffed that the WMDs weren't where we thought. So now if the intell people know they have to have iron-clad proof before you rip them a new one they're wrong, and if they take too long to provide the iron-clad proof they're wrong... I wish this were a good war, like WWII after the Soviet Union was attacked, and you avant guard types could give our guys a sintilla of hope. If only we were making the world safe for the gulag.

Posted by: minion on June 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

So now if the intell people know they have to have iron-clad proof before you rip them a new one they're wrong, and if they take too long to provide the iron-clad proof they're wrong... I wish this were a good war, like WWII after the Soviet Union was attacked, and you avant guard types could give our guys a sintilla of hope.

You numbskull. This report comes from a British newspaper which has the reputation of being fairly thuggish and foolish in the way that it operates. It is akin to reading the Washington Times for the journalistic excellence that is (not) found inside.

No one wants a return to the days of total war. Except a few uneducated twerps like yourself and the weary g noted above.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody needs to tell all those neocon scholars to do their duty and start reading up on Farsi so they can help out our troops when they get into another ill-advised war these guys provoked and the government leaves them without any translators.

Posted by: Swan on June 26, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Is there not an international terrorist movement out there, or not?

Is there an international terrorist movement that is a coordinated group with the same aims and beliefs? No. Not at all. Anyone who's been telling you that is lying to you.

Is there a group that's willing to provide funding to otherwise unrelated groups? Yes. But -- here's the important part -- they were not operating in Iraq until we overthrew the Iraqi government. Then they came swarming in like the rats they are to pick over the corpse.

The Tamil Tigers are not Hamas and Hamas is not al-Qaeda and al-Quaeda is not the Taliban. If you can't grasp something as elementary as, "Different groups using the same tactics," you probably shouldn't be trying to comment about international topics.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on June 26, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody needs to tell all those neocon scholars to do their duty and start reading up on Farsi so they can help out our troops when they get into another ill-advised war these guys provoked and the government leaves them without any translators.

I like it!

Seriously, I think one of the things we need to do is provide full scholarships for people to get degrees in Arabic or Farsi and/or Middle Eastern Studies/History. I have no idea how many Arabs and Iranians speak English vs. the number of Americans who speak either Arabic or Farsi, but the imbalance is certainly HUGE.

I would also advocate that Americans sent to our various embassies and consulates around the world be required to speak basic Arabic (or whatever the language might be), and to pass studies in the culture(s) of the country in question.

I would also be ok with highly targetted use of Special Forces to take out identified leaders of terrorists, but as an interim measure. One of the countless ways that WG is wrong is that it does no good to understand our opponents. Until we figure out the forces leading to development of terrorists, and do something to ameliorate those forces, and admit our role in creating those forces, terrorists will continue to arise. Fine, get rid of Osama, but realize that others are waiting in the wings to replace him.

In addition to having far more Americans who speak Arabic in its various flavors, we just need to get the hell out of the Middle East and let them solve their own problems. And start a "Manhattan Project" here in the U.S. to go all out on developing alternative renewable energy sources so we can get rid of our dependence on other countries' oil.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on June 26, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I thought about responding to minion's post above, but then I thought what is there to respond to? It's all bizarre nonsense, start to finish. It'd be like debating the crazy man who lives on my street corner.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting issue, the word "exclusive".

I would prefer "corroborated" for a change, and preferably by a non-Bush related hack.

Posted by: zit on June 26, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

It'd be like debating the crazy man who lives on my street corner.

On my neighborhood it's a greaser/rockabilly dude who walks back and forth between Main and Broadway all day long, cussing out some "sonofabitch" (possibly Clinton) who angered him years ago.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK


minion: I wish this were a good war


does that before or after the wish for a pony?

Posted by: mr. irony on June 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

you would be a little peeved with them I guarantee it.

No way. WG would have been a collaborator just like all his fellow keyboard commandos.

Posted by: Disputo on June 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Testing.

Just checking, because after posting no problems several times at this site, I was suddenly told that my comment would be reviewed by the blog owner before posting.

Hmmmm. I hope I did not offend anyone.

WG

[That would be because you exceeded the link limit. That offends the publishing platform.]

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, my previous post has not shown up. I'll wait to see if it does before I bother again. I'll give you a hint, though. It mentioned someone with the initials SR and QE.

In the interim, Ladies and Gentlemen, please return to your echo chamber activities!

WG

[I won't publish a link fest with no clickable links.]

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

It mentioned someone with the initials SR and QE.

What the devil are you blathering about? Sun Ra and Queen Elizabeth?

Daddy pulled your pants down in front of the whole town and whipped you with a belt because you couldn't stop wetting yourself every time someone let off a firecracker at the Fourth of July parade in whatever crappy town you're from, and now we must suffer your non-grasp of history and your incapable, amateurish posts?

Delightful.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Weary G:

Bullshit. Your unbalanced, history-averse warmongering gets roundly shredded by a variety of worthy commenters and the best you've got is "echo chamber"?

Instead of pausing and maybe learning something from the responses to your idiocy, you come back here and insult us. Go fuck yourself.

I don't agree with your comments being banned or even reviewed, but I probably won't miss you.

Posted by: skeg on June 26, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK
....If only we were making the world safe for the gulag. minion at 12:58 PM
Your itty bitty buddy Bush has made numerous iron-clad gulags safe from the world's scrutiny. Posted by: Mike on June 26, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

No need to wander the street corners when I can unburden myself on your comments section...and I take pride in my hygene. Blue Girl pointed out I'm not smart enough to be a liberal since I was just an SP [military policeman] when I was in the service, but I think it's important for you of the illuminati to know what we yaboos are thinking, now that there's no fairness doctrine to mussle our demogogue leaders.

Posted by: minion on June 26, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I wish this were a good war, like WWII after the Soviet Union was attacked, and you avant guard types could give our guys a sintilla of hope.

I'm giving more than hope. My Avant Guard unit is being mobilized for duty in Iraq for the next year.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, apparently I violated a link limit. Sorry, let me try again..

"The enemy has been there all along. Its the US that has been pissing these people off. So now they are angry. Was it necessary to piss them off? Of course not. But we did it anyway."

The US has been pissing them off? Huh, that's weird. Because then I can't figure out what the deal is with this guy, Salman Rushdie.

He is not an American, but an Indian by birth and I believe a British citizen. He writes books, mostly novels. He has at times been critical of the United States. Yet, one book he wrote a while ago apparently pissed so many people off in Iran, particularly the big cheese, that they issued a death decree against him, forcing the guy into hiding. Too bad some translators and publishers of his book did not do the same thing, because some other very pissed off people took the advice of the first group and shot them, killing several.

And another thing puzzles me. This woman, Queen Elizabeth.

Apparently she gave some sort of honor to the author, and a whole lot of new pissed off people as well as old pissed off people started demanding that they should both be killed. Some even said that sending suicide bombers out to kill whoever they could was justified over the honor given. And, you know, the book.

So, I am trying to figure out how, if the United States has been the one's pissing these people off, how they are tied into this whole kerfuffle?

Or maybe, JUST maybe (and bear with me for a second) some of these pissed of people are looking for reasons to be pissed off to disguise or excuse their own agendas, and/or maybe just like the thought of hurting people.

Sound crazy? Take this guy:

"Daddy pulled your pants down in front of the whole town and whipped you with a belt because you couldn't stop wetting yourself every time someone let off a firecracker at the Fourth of July parade in whatever crappy town you're from, and now we must suffer your non-grasp of history and your incapable, amateurish posts?"

This is, no kidding, about the 5th? 6th? time this lovely person has engaged in these little child abuse fantasies in lieu of a point. Maybe he does it more, but I can only comment on the ones I've seen directed at me. But it always about children, bare bottoms, and whipping.

Seriously, all politics aside, do NONE of you find this a litttle bit creepy? Just a little? How about this; those with children. Would you let this person babysit your kids? Just asking.

Anyway, my point is, some people are just sick and twisted and get off on hurting people whether for fun or profit, and maybe some of you should try to get it through your head that its not all about what you or we did, but about what they want to do. If not, then explain to me what justification there is for the threats and actual acts of murder over a BOOK.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Minion, it is common knowledge that the vast preponderance of SP's are SP's because they flunked out of their tech schools. That is just how it is in the Air Force - and we both know it.

And when I flamed you Saturday - you had it coming. That is why you retracted the offending statement.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl pointed out I'm not smart enough to be a liberal since I was just an SP [military policeman]

Thank you for guarding Such-and-such airbase in Wackytown, USA from the scourge of rabid beavers and from the occasional confused retiree who cannot find their way to the Commissary. Your service as a glorified rent-a-cop with a uniform more appropriate for a Greyhound Bus Driver is the reason why people like myself hold the military in such high regard. And by military, I generally exclude the United States Air Force, since it is not really one of the main branches of our military. It's more like a country club with bad haircuts and widespread insouciance.

The sight of a Marine causes you to pass out from sheer terror, yes? And that's why you comment here? You are "compensating" for something, no doubt?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway, my point is, some people are just sick and twisted and get off on hurting people whether for fun or profit, and maybe some of you should try to get it through your head that its not all about what you or we did, but about what they want to do.

The humiliation meted out by your daddy really left you this broken and useless?

The Iranians had their freely elected government taken away. They were forced, for decades, to live with the Savak, a torturous secret police. They had a big old jet airliner full of civilians shot from the sky. They had a revolution. Their people have lived under a twisted form of religious fundamentalism not unlike some of the crazier Baptists who have infiltrated my beloved Republican Party.

The fatwa issued against the Satanic Verses was due more to the slipping grasp that the Ayatollah had over the Iranian people. Inflaming people against the West is merely a tactic. Rushdie is guilty of being boring, nothing more, and for writing a series of books that insult various aspects of Islam. No, he should not be killed for what he wrote. But your childish, simplistic look at the fatwa and what he wrote highlights just how ridiculous you make yourself in an environment where learned people (some of them liberals! gasp!) can rip you to shreds because you simply cannot grasp the subject matter.

You're making conservatives look bad, and that is unforgiveable in this day and age. You are no different than the religious fundamentalists and racists who show up and pretend to be Republicans. Ugh. You sicken me.

Work out your "daddy" issues, sir.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK


minion: it's important for you of the illuminati to know what we yaboos are thinking

why don't more yaboos think ...in baghdad?

we'd have this war licked in no time...


Posted by: mr. irony on June 26, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

BlueGirl,

For the record, I didn't wash out of tech school. I had a guaranteed job contract [they offered those back then] to be on the armed forces radio network...the Air Force couldn't fulfill the promise and I was waiting for an opening... after two years I transferred to the NY Army National Guard to complete my commitment.

Posted by: minion on June 26, 2007 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

I have to agree with Norm Rogers too. When I switched to the National Guard I had to be a scab when the prison guards union went on strike in NY state...much tougher than guarding the chow hall in Merced.

Posted by: minion on June 26, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

So you know how it is. They do fill SP billets with people who were screwed out of what the contract they signed promised; or those who could not qualify to do the job they wanted when they went in.

My basic assertion is still correct. You just happened to fit into the former rather than the latter category. And hey - at least they didn't make you an L.E. :) or worse yet a 702!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

after two years I transferred to the NY Army National Guard to complete my commitment.

You should have joined the NY Avant Guard with me. For one thing, the uniforms are a lot more stylish.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

"The US has been pissing them off? Huh, that's weird. Because then I can't figure out what the deal is with this guy, Salman Rushdie."

Dear heart, that some of their leaders also act irrationally does nothing to counter the original assertion. Got anything substantive to offer?

"So, I am trying to figure out how, if the United States has been the one's pissing these people off, how they are tied into this whole kerfuffle?"

The reason you're puzzled is that your whole argument is a non sequitur, wholly unrelated to any point that anyone here has made. Do try again, dear.

"Or maybe, JUST maybe (and bear with me for a second) some of these pissed of people are looking for reasons to be pissed off to disguise or excuse their own agendas, and/or maybe just like the thought of hurting people."

Gee, sounds just like some neocons we know.

"Seriously, all politics aside"

Oh, please. Spare us your silly antics. We're not idiots. Come back when you're ready to answer the many posts above that showed you up for the fool you are, because this was just pathetic.

Posted by: PaulB on June 26, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

"do NONE of you find this a litttle bit creepy?"

In case you hadn't figured it out yet, "Norman Rogers" is a troll, an adopted persona who says outrageous things solely to get attention. He usually attacks the regular commenters here, but every now and then, he likes to change it up by going after a clueless newbie like yourself.

Posted by: PaulB on June 26, 2007 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

In case you hadn't figured it out yet, "Norman Rogers" is a troll, an adopted persona who says outrageous things solely to get attention.

Ah, dear heart, dear lovely, you've got it wrong. I'm here to explain how things work and how things are going to be from this day forward. I am more like the omniscient narrator of your worst nightmare, explaining the who, what, where, when, how and why before you can figure out how to turn down the volume.

Last time I checked, I was real. Yes, sweetie, I'm as real as the kiss you get from the cross-dressing angels in your dreams.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Re: The "Norman Rogers" persona. Q.E.D.

Posted by: PaulB on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

I prefer to look at Norman Rogers as a public service. Seriously. He makes some outlandish claim, it gets a thorough fisking, and at least half the time, out in the real world, some wingnut will make the same outlandish claim, and as I have already been through the dumbfounded stage, I just move right on to the rhetorical assault and battery, with a slight Deja Vu' air about it all. But I use public transit, too, so I have exposure to a lot more *ahem* unique perspectives than I would be otherwise.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

This is, no kidding, about the 5th? 6th? time this lovely person has engaged in these little child abuse fantasies in lieu of a point. Maybe he does it more, but I can only comment on the ones I've seen directed at me. But it always about children, bare bottoms, and whipping.

Seriously, all politics aside, do NONE of you find this a litttle bit creepy? Just a little? How about this; those with children. Would you let this person babysit your kids? Just asking.

It amueses me to no end, seeing someone try to whip up public sentiment against me. I feel humbled and proud, perhaps a little giddy and altogether maudlin to say this, but thank you, sir. Thank you for trying to gin up support for your own ridiculous positions, supported by none of the posters here on this progressive blog by thinking you could "rally" people against me.

If that's not proof that I am real, I don't know what is. Pardon me, I have to shed a tear here and take a moment to reflect on my good fortune.

As an aside, and to continue in this vein, did Daddy make you put on an Easter Bonnet and wear that frilly dress to your first cotillion? Seems like there has been at least one very smart and proper forced dress wearing incident in your history, correct?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

I meant see where I typed be.

Paul - you know where I live, and I live in Midtown. See why I might think of Norman in those terms?

;)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

"He makes some outlandish claim, it gets a thorough fisking, and at least half the time, out in the real world, some wingnut will make the same outlandish claim"

Yeah, but he's not as reliable in this capacity as are our other resident trolls, like faux-liberal, egbert, Al, and the rest. Normy's just out for the amusement, so a lot of his comments are more suited for the more, erm, colorful people you would encounter in your public transit excursions.

Posted by: PaulB on June 26, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

I get to share bus stops with a lot of angry young white guys who are pissed off that they lost their licenses for DUI's in Arrestport (Paul is laughing - Westport is the bar district - and is in my zip code).

Those guys really have some wingnut issues.

It's really kind of creepy to see someone at the bus stop that you helped convict. ("Do I have my mace and my stungun?")

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

>"My grandfather patiently explained to me--beating the Bocce in World War I meant stifling the tendency of the German people to organize armies and try to conquer the world"

ROFL: The English complaining about Germans wanting to carve out a world empire at the very time they had half the planet under their boot heels.

Comic and tragic at the same time... and history repeats itself as I type.

Posted by: Buford on June 27, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

"Dear heart, that some of their leaders also act irrationally does nothing to counter the original assertion. Got anything substantive to offer?"

Hmmm, well I would think death decrees and actual assassinations of people over a BOOK by the country we were discussing, and the rather chilling repercussions for our individual liberties MIGHT be kind of substantive. I would think that a mindset of leaders, who you yourself call irrational, that could order killed anyone having to do with a BOOK, might give you some pause to think whether they pose an actual threat. I would think that same leaders, working to aquire nuclear power for "peaceful energy purposes" while sitting on vast pools of oil, MIGHT concern someone with who admits same leaders can be "irrational".

"The reason you're puzzled is that your whole argument is a non sequitur, wholly unrelated to any point that anyone here has made. Do try again, dear."

Let's examine that, shall we?

The original post was about Iran, and whether they were an actual threat, or whether it was all some ginned up propaganda of the US. My post was about how leaders of that same nation felt justified in assassinating someone over someone who wrote something the did not agree with, something that no one here can deny.

In addition, my post counters the assertion of several here that either Iran is not a threat or all of what it does is merely reactive to the "threat" of the US or past misdeeds, real or imagined. Thus, it actually does relate to a number of things written here, in direct contradiction to what you just wrote.

To sum up, a nation led by irrational people who kill people over what they write, sponsor terrorism worldwide, threaten to wipe nations off the map because of their religion, and are building nuclear technology for energy they don't need would seem to be an actual threat to anybody who bothers to look at it objectively.

(So, Paul, what I did here was take a only slight tangential in order to get you to admit several aspects of my original argument, and then used them to reinforce my point. Thanks for that "irrational" admission. It was a big help!)

WG


Posted by: Weary G on June 27, 2007 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

To sum up, a nation led by irrational people who kill people over what they write, sponsor terrorism worldwide, threaten to wipe nations off the map because of their religion, and are building nuclear technology for energy they don't need would seem to be an actual threat to anybody who bothers to look at it objectively.

Oh, balderdash.

People from Saudi Arabia have killed more Americans by use of the tactic of terror than Iran.

Ergo, your irrational focus on the Salman Rushdie fatwa indicates your complete and utter ignorance. Really? They issued a death sentence over a book? Correct me if I am wrong, but Rushdie is still alive. Now, if they are so dangerous as you suggest, one might conclude that their comical failure to get a simple academic might be grounds to have a hearty chuckle at the thought of how dangerous their regime is. A hint to you sir--the Iranian regime is slightly less popular than a cowpuncher at a PETA meeting.

How about the fact that Saudis made up the preponderance of the 9/11 hijackers? Sir, give it a rest. You are so far out of your depth that it is laughable to continue trying to explain how things work. You have your daddy-mandated panties in a bunch over Iran and you completely and conveniently do not recall the fact that Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Yemenis have killed far more Americans than have Iranians.

Iran is not the problem. I break completely with my party on this issue and I probably stand alone for doing so. But to see a mental midget like yourself twisted up in knots by things you don't understand is just pathetic to watch. Pathetic.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 27, 2007 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

I would think that same leaders, working to aquire nuclear power for "peaceful energy purposes" while sitting on vast pools of oil, MIGHT concern someone with who admits same leaders can be "irrational".

You're referring here to the US, of course, which sits on vast pools of oil and yet also claims it needs nuclear technology for "peaceful energy purposes"?

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

"You're referring here to the US, of course, which sits on vast pools of oil and yet also claims it needs nuclear technology for "peaceful energy purposes"?"

Even as snark, that's pretty lame. Anyone else want to try?

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 27, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Even as snark, that's pretty lame. Anyone else want to try?

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are.

A hint to all of you--learn the difference between a light water nuclear reactor and a heavy water nuclear reactor and then we'll have a conversation.

Iran's oil extraction and refining infrastructure is practically at collapse. Regardless of what "reserves" they supposedly sit on, they are having great difficulty extracting the oil that remains and then doing anything with it that is profitable.

The world is not going to run out of "oil" in the next thousand years. The world is having a greater and greater problem of extracting, transporting, refining and selling petroleum products in a manner that is profitable. And by profitable, I mean, is the cost of extracting the oil commensurate with the return on its sale on the world market.

Venezuela is attempting to acquire nuclear technology. How many of you moonbats and idiots knew that? Every country in the world is attempting to tap into a use nuclear power of some type. It is not nefarious at all--it is because we are approaching a "peak oil" scenario where nuclear power--produced by light water nuclear reactors--is going to be more profitable than burning oil or even coal.

An investor like myself is always looking forward. I'm hedging my bets right now--I'd love to put money into switchgrass or wind generating technology stocks. The problem is, I cannot forsee doing so until the next administration takes over and sets energy policy. Placing a bet now is useless--we will see broad upheavals, politically, in this country in the next 18 months.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 27, 2007 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Only a dolt would believe "nuclear bombs" are going to be produced all over the world for "blowing up Israel" or for use in some doomsday terror scenario.

Gentle fools, the world is about making money. And you cannot make money by blowing up the world. You can make a hell of a lot of money by engaging in "fearmongering" though, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but fearmongering only works on saps.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 27, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Weary G is more ignorant (willfully so?) of Persian culture and the state of Iran than anyone I have ever encountered outside the current State Department. Send Condi your resume post haste because this could be your big break!

Seriously - that person is so far out of his pay grade I am speechless. (Those who know me should be appropriately taken aback by that bit alone...) I do not resort to appeals to authority to win arguments, but please! You are offering third or fourth hand warmed over punditry. Now, for an exception to my rule about appealing to authority: I lived in Iran, and you are barking fucking mad, wrong on every count and not even worth my time. The points you are feebly, lamely, pathetically offering have been thoroughly dealt with on these boards. Go to the bottom of the page and search this blog for Iran, and read the archives and learn something before you further humiliate yourself. You have no idea how flat-out fucking stupid you are proving yourself to be. I'm getting a chuckle at your expense, but you really are dangerously ignorant.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 27, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

"I do not resort to appeals to authority to win arguments, but..."

You will, ad nauseum in your response, because you have nothing else. I got it. Your whole response amounts to, "I know better, so there." Very convincing. Truly.

How does living in Iran (if you did, in fact, do so) in any way rebut the facts surrounding what I posted about Salman Rushdie, or about Iran's support of terrorism, or its skulking toward nuclear weapon production?

Because you lived in Iran, Salman Rushdie was not threatened with death, and several translators and publishers were NOT killed by decree of the Mullahs? Fascinating logic, that.

Well, it appears the only responses I am going to get at this point are from child abuse fetishists and people who act like children.

Very unimpressive, to say the least.

WG


Posted by: Weary G on June 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

What "facts" are you talking about? You posted no "facts" you posted opinions based on specious translations!

Show me where I defend the fatwa or where I said a word about being cool with political murder! you can't because I never have. I said your opinion based on warmed over punditry is not worth a bucket of warm piss, and I am so relieved that you morons are marginalized.

You are a fool, and not to be taken seriously. Learn something, and stop being such a doofus.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 27, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

How does living in Iran (if you did, in fact, do so) in any way rebut the facts surrounding what I posted about Salman Rushdie, or about Iran's support of terrorism, or its skulking toward nuclear weapon production?

You don't know "the facts" surrounding these matters. Hence, the frustration with seeing you post foolishness.

Hence, the only logical conclusions we have--at some point, your father stuck a banana in your mouth and taught you to enjoy it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 27, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Get over your daddy issues, sir!

Sheesh!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly