Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

[jbg]

An interesting take on the story...

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38123

So, basically this whole story was a stinking pile of crap all along. I hope the kneejerk warmongering rightwingers learn a lesson from this (as if).

Then where are the arms coming from? And is your point that we should do nothing about Iran and the Taliban, both forces implacably hostile to the West, for some reason?

[Catchme]

Umm where is the proof?

secretary of defense says they don't have any.

"senior coalition analysyst" concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

who do you think knows more?

oh wait lets see what a FORMER counter terrorism official. "It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," this article is all oppinion and no fact. the SoD even discredits this thread.

is this not the same bullshit from Corporate US news that got them into the blunder that is Iraq?

the whole article rests on an un-named analyst...

Exactly, good job pointing out the propaganda, and it sounds exactly like the same nonsense leading up to Iraq. The fact is they are trying to generate public support to attack Iran, before Bush leaves next year. Want to fill their pockets with a bit more blood money before they leave.

[Figleaf]

Then where are the arms coming from?

The report said Iran was caught red handed. In fact, 'Iran' has not been caught at all. A few trucks allegedly carrying explosives are alleged to have driven from Iran. Likely these are Afghani or Iranian criminal elements involved in the drug trade, NOT the national governments.

And is your point that we should do nothing about Iran and the Taliban, both forces implacably hostile to the West, for some reason?

1. Who do you mean by 'the Taliban' these days?

2. Iran is perfectly entitled to be 'hostile' as long as it doesn't harm us.

[Shakeyhands]

imagine that... dealing in arms and backing a "side". The horror.

the hypocrisy kills me.

[Black Dog]

jbg:

Then where are the arms coming from?

There's a wolrd of difference between arms coming from Iran (the place) and arms coming from Iran (the government). I mean, thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants enter the U.S. every year, but that doeasn't mean the Mexican government is sending them.

And is your point that we should do nothing about Iran and the Taliban, both forces implacably hostile to the West and each other, for some reason?

fix'd

[Higgly]

... both forces implacably hostile to the West, for some reason?

Well, for some reason. Hmmmm. What might those reasons be. Hmmm...... Reasons.... Hmmmm... Searching.......

[JerrySeinfeld]

There's a wolrd of difference between arms coming from Iran (the place) and arms coming from Iran (the government). I mean, thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants enter the U.S. every year, but that doeasn't mean the Mexican government is sending them.

It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability.

Just like it wasn't the US fighting the commies in Nicaragua - it was the CONTRAS!!!

[Higgly]

It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability.

Just like it wasn't the US fighting the commies in Nicaragua - it was the CONTRAS!!!

Well more my-sideism. It's OK to run guns into a foreign country as long as you're on my side.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability.

Just like it wasn't the US fighting the commies in Nicaragua - it was the CONTRAS!!!

Well more my-sideism. It's OK to run guns into a foreign country as long as you're on my side.

Yes, that's exactly right. Do you have some kind of warped problem with that?

[Figleaf]

There's a wolrd of difference between arms coming from Iran (the place) and arms coming from Iran (the government). I mean, thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants enter the U.S. every year, but that doeasn't mean the Mexican government is sending them.

It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability.

Right, so, Hamid Karzai's government, ally of Bush, is exporting opium worldwide.

And Tony Blair is sending hoodlums to soccer games all over Europe.

[jbg]

It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability.

Just like it wasn't the US fighting the commies in Nicaragua - it was the CONTRAS!!!

Exactly. Of a piece with the left making human rights, and the Geneva Convention, into suicide pacts for the West. There is no question that Iran's government fosters violence. The details don't matter.

[gc1765]

Right, so, Hamid Karzai's government, ally of Bush, is exporting opium worldwide.

And Tony Blair is sending hoodlums to soccer games all over Europe.

I wonder how many American citizens deal arms? I'm guessing one of the right-wingers on this board will soon start a thread about America dealing arms

[jbg]

I wonder how many American citizens deal arms? I'm guessing one of the right-wingers on this board will soon start a thread about America dealing arms

Does it qualify if an American leftwinger starts such a thread? Not that I'm the least bit interested in doing so.

[Black Dog]

It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability.

Oh brother. Hey, if thinking the Iranian government is willing to supply a faction that, just a few short years ago, they were actively trying to overthrow brings a smile to your face when you play with your army mans (with Cobra Commander standing in for Ahmadinejad), have at 'er. Just don't expect anyone else to buy that particular stream of diarrhea.

Exactly. Of a piece with the left making human rights, and the Geneva Convention, into suicide pacts for the West.

Do you have some kind of cookie installed on your computer that attaches this nonsensical blurb to your every post? Christ.

There is no question that Iran's government fosters violence. The details don't matter.

Yeah, really, who gives a shit about niggling details like "reality" or "facts?

Wow. Just...wow.

[jbg]

Do you have some kind of cookie installed on your computer that attaches this nonsensical blurb to your every post? Christ.

No. But is this thread about an incessantly violent part of the world, or is it about the supposed intelligence of screen names you don't like very much?

[gc1765]

Does it qualify if an American leftwinger starts such a thread? Not that I'm the least bit interested in doing so.

Well, considering you are right-wing on every issue I've ever seen you argue about, especially the middle east, I'm not surprised that you are not interested in starting a thread. I'm also not surprised that the right-wingers who started and/or contributed to this thread aren't starting a thread about it either. I guess Higgly was right about "my-side-ism".

[jbg]

Does it qualify if an American leftwinger starts such a thread? Not that I'm the least bit interested in doing so.

Well, considering you are right-wing on every issue I've ever seen you argue about, especially the middle east, I'm not surprised that you are not interested in starting a thread. I'm also not surprised that the right-wingers who started and/or contributed to this thread aren't starting a thread about it either. I guess Higgly was right about "my-side-ism".

I prefer the following definition of "liberal" (I have color-coded the application sections)(link to online dictionary):

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al

Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free

1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

So I guess you define people whose culture includes sawing off peoples' heads, blowing themselves up underneath gasoline tanker trucks, or slamming planes into buildings as "liberal" or 'left wing". I think that the beautiful, constructive ideology of liberalism, of believing in progress, has been badly hijacked.

[gc1765]

I prefer the following definition of "liberal"

And I suppose your definition of "extreme left-winger" is someone who:

- unconditionally supports Israel no matter how many Palestinians/Lebanese they kill

- believes in restrictions on abortion

- is opposed to same-sex marriage

- denies that global warming exists

- supports the war in Iraq

- believes in aboloshing (or severely decreasing) the minimum wage

- supports conservative parties, such as the Republicans or CPC

Anything else I'm missing?

If that's extremely left-wing, then I guess Jack Layton is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely left wing.

[BC_chick]

No. But is this thread about an incessantly violent part of the world, or is it about the supposed intelligence of screen names you don't like very much?

For me, it's about trollism of otherwise intelligent screen-names who keep throwing blanket accusations against anybody who doesn't share their views of the world.

[geoffrey]

For me, it's about trollism of otherwise intelligent screen-names who keep throwing blanket accusations against anybody who doesn't share their views of the world.

That's because you hate Israel and all Israeli's BC Chick. Sheesh!

[BC_chick]

That's because you hate Israel and all Israeli's BC Chick. Sheesh!

Damn, you caught me.

Just the other day my friend at the International Coalition of Leftists Against Israel and I were discussing how to push Israel into the sea, then out of the blue she said, you know, we should try and bring on another holocaust. I said okay, but how do you figure we can side with the people who want to destroy us? She was like, oh, I don't know, maybe we can care more about the Taliban than we do about our soldiers. I was like, okay, but that means we should get up and go become human shields out in the Middle East. So she's like, yeah, maybe should leave for good since we love terrorists so much.

So yeah, to make a long story short - we hate freedom.

[geoffrey]

And you just got yourself added to the no-fly list.

[Black Dog]

No. But is this thread about an incessantly violent part of the world, or is it about the supposed intelligence of screen names you don't like very much?

I vote for a third option: this thread is about the absurd-on-its face claim that the Iranian government would support a faction that they have oppossed in the past (violently) just to poke a stick in the collective eye of the West. Think about it: what's in it for Iran? How does a strong Taliban benefit them? Oh I forgot: those are details. And we all know how you feel about them...

[ScottSA]

No. But is this thread about an incessantly violent part of the world, or is it about the supposed intelligence of screen names you don't like very much?

I vote for a third option: this thread is about the absurd-on-its face claim that the Iranian government would support a faction that they have oppossed in the past (violently) just to poke a stick in the collective eye of the West.

Yeah how silly. That would be like opposing the USSR, then allying with it and sending it war materielle against Germany, and then opposing it again in a cold war. That's as silly as the expression "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Thanks for straightening us out.

[Black Dog]

Yeah how silly. That would be like opposing the USSR, then allying with it and sending it war materielle against Germany, and then opposing it again in a cold war. That's as silly as the expression "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Thanks for straightening us out.

And of course, as everyone knows, people in the Middle East are always quick to lay longstanding grudges aside...

Generalizations aside, surely someone with as much time on your hands as you seem to have could do a little better. Secifically, by explaining why a strong Taliban is in Iran's interests now when it was not the case six years ago. Also why Iran's support is more significant than the support the Taliban is getting from our allies in Pakistan.