How come the fkers always survive?

Corroboration?

There is more at the Jawa Report.

Internal opposition? Mossad? Fake attack/pretext for more radical crackdown?

Interesting times.

JPost reporting that Hezbollah says the Jews did it.

Well, of course they'd say something like that, but that was actually my first thought anyway when I heard about the attempt.

There've been lots of indications that the Israelis were going to do something major in the coming months. This might well be part of it.

And good on them for trying t.

Scratch that bit about the JPost... that was in reference to an earlier attempt against a Hezbollah leader.

Loose shit on my part.

how dare you post loose shit on my site!

I know... now you have to reset your "XX days without any loose shit" counter.

And it was up to, what, 5 or so, by now? Damn, we were gettin' into record territory!

I'll take loose shit over having too look at Keith Olbermann everytime I post. Ace, I hope you're getting crazy blog money for that!

Iran Focus is legit.

I don't think it was the Jews. If it was their operation, there would be no survivors.

But if it was Israel, not only would they have been succesful, but we could look forward to a Spielberg gilm down the road about how guilt wracked they are.

A Key Strategy for Victory

For authorative info/intel on Iran ,do read Dr. Zin site at:

Regime Change Iran

As for a Plan C and how the Blogos can help win the war of information in the GWOT, see this thread over at Winds of Change:

Here

Scroll this thread and also follow the links in this comment.

BTW here's another media link re the assasination attempt [Gee the word ''assasin" has roots in Islamic myths and linked tothe 72 dark eyed virgins we all keep hearing about].

Here

And Pat Robertson's alibi was. . . ?

Unruly, considering the way Swaggert and Bakker were - and I know what Ace's site is like - I'm real sure we don't want to open that door. Really.

Just speculatin' but I think it would involve ducks. Poor little waterfowl.

>Many people have been rounded up for questioning after the attack and the authorities here were clearly shaken by the incident”, a Zabol resident told Iran Focus.

Betcha those "authorities" would never go for an anti-torture bill.

...growingly secular?

Is this a word? Growingly?
Or does it just look weird to me?

Apparently "growingly" is an adverb, consistent with the increasing use of "grow" as a transitive verb. Sort of. From Wikipedia:

grow'ing·ly adv.

USAGE NOTE Grow has been used since medieval times as an intransitive verb, as in Our business has been growing steadily for 10 years. It has been used with an object since the 18th century, meaning “to produce or cultivate,” as in We grow corn in our garden. But the transitive use applied to business and nonliving things is quite new. It came into full bloom during the 1992 presidential election, when nearly all the candidates were concerned with “growing the economy.” The Usage Panel is decidedly less fond of this development than business leaders and politicans are. Eighty percent of the Panel rejects the phrase grow our business. The Panel is more accepting of, though not enthusiastic about, the phrase grow our way, perhaps because of way's established use in expressions like make our way and find our way: 48 percent accept We've got to grow our way out of this recession. The Panel has no affection for the odd but occasionally heard phrase grow down: 98 percent reject If elected, I shall do my utmost to grow down the deficit.

Back on topic:

For a long time our Iran policy has been simply hoping that the discontented, and growingly secular and Western-friendly, majority of Iran would rise up or otherwise check the power of the mullahs. That seemed much less likely with the fraudulent elections there last go 'round (many moderate candidates were simply struck from the ballot), and the elevation of a terrorist hostage-taker to President.

I'm not so sure that the "faudulent elections" worked against us. Frankly, credible elections that kept the mullahs in power would have been a disaster. The elections that actually occurred are just more grist for the mill, feeding popular discontent and anger.

Our current policy towards Iran seems sensible to me. Let the Iranians have a chance to clean their own house. Give the mullahs enough rope to hang themselves. And cooperate with Israel to ensure they don't get a nuclear capability, using force if necessary.

For now, this strikes me as a cheap and practical short-term strategy that has a reasonable chance of success.

Further elaborating:

Reagan's genius was that he recognized that the Soviet Union was a house of cards that could not survive in the long term, and would ultimately be consigned to the "ash heap of history." He knew that it would collapse internally if he just kept up the pressure.

Iran and North Korea are much the same, in my opinion. Their systems, outwardly monolithic with secure elites, cannot survive the internal pressures that are building.

Iraq, on the other hand, was not a case where patience was a credible policy. It was an established aggressor state, it was openly defying the terms of the cease-fire, it was blatantly defying international sanctions.

Am I the only one who remembers that Iraq was routinely taking pot-shots at U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones? Nobody mentions this any more, but that provocation alone justifies the war. We could not have tolerated such impudence indefinitely and retained any credibility in the area.

Who cares if they had WMD? The insolent fuckers were shooting at us!

If you're going to assume the role of a superpower in the service of world peace, you don't put up with shit like that.

What Michael said.

I assume that Pat Robertson put this hit on him.

Brewfan, even if he's right, don't encourage him.

Frankly I'm more concerned about Michael's blog-presence than I am about Iran.

Look what he did to Desolation Row. Totally pussified.

Totally pussified.

Sigh. Poor Jimmy Carter.

"Look what he did to Desolation Row. Totally pussified."

Bitch.

Look, if you don't want me to pussify Letters From Desolation Row, why don't you show up once in a while?

Oh, yeah. The holiday rush at your store.

Whaa whaa whaa.

Here. Let me pass you some bubble-wrap.

My what an insouciant little pillow-biter.
THERE IS FAKEY-INTERNET BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS.

I will deal with you in time.

Nice knowin' ya, Michael! Bwahahaha! BTW, that pillow biting originated with Mrs. Michael working him over with the strap-on.

Totally Pussified, huh?

Look, my blog hasn't been on a weeklong male ass-fucking bender unlike a certain blog that you are a primary contributor to, LauraW.

If one blogs in a glass house, one shouldn't throw stones.

Unless they are throwing them at vapid little twats like you who snipe and snipe about how tough their job is and how their husbands don't give them enough attention in the sack.

What? You've never heard your husband make such a claim? Well he does.

And it's pretty fucking annoying. For the last time, I will not go see Brokeback Mountain with him no matter how much he begs.

That's not the way I roll.

So go back to writing your shitty "chance some spring awakening!" poems and leave the commentary to folks that know what the score is.

You know, your intellectual betters. Like Spurwing Plover.

Shhh. Don't cry and carry on like that.

I know you've missed me, Jack.
I'll be back soon.

You have a very fine blog.
For me to poop on.

Hmm..I'm actually surprised you consider "for me to poop on" an insult.

After all, you are usually the first to claim that your shit doesn't stink. Further, your incessant demands for a "cleveland steamer" always bring your most intimate moments to a screeching halt.

Does it surprise me you relate to Triumph the Comic Insult Dog though?

Nah..you are a woman from Connecticut after all. Your breeds must stick together.

Everyone's fighting! *runs off in tears*

Damn!

I was, like, trying to be serious on this thread.

I actually did a little research on the semantics associated with "growingly" as an acceptable adverb due to the increasing use of "grow" as an acceptable transitive verb.

And then, I tried to offer an intelligent opinion on our policy towards Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.

My reward?

I'm accused of "pussifying" another blog, and this thread just goes to hell.

I get the message. All you want from me is Batman quotes. So live with it.

Mr. Ladd: "Bless you, Batman. Every law-abiding citizen of Gotham City goes with you today in spirit."

Secretary: "And if it were possible, in body!"

Sorry, I don't mean to butt in here, but, my explanation is that in 1992, the word 'grow' was Clintonized. Since then, most often, when the word is used, it is Clintonesque.

Oh, yeah. Back OT. Seems to me that since the attempt was a failure, it was not likely to be the Mossad. More likely, the CIA.

Michael how wonderfully disingenuously put:

"Am I the only one who remembers that Iraq was routinely taking pot-shots at U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones? Nobody mentions this any more, but that provocation alone justifies the war. We could not have tolerated such impudence indefinitely and retained any credibility in the area.

Who cares if they had WMD? The insolent fuckers were shooting at us!"

Like most other countries would, at armed attacks planes violating their airspace.

Unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Trust me you didnt have and still dont have any credibility in that area...

Unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Which, as is widely admitted, does not mean that they were *not* permitted under UN resolutions and international law.

Like most other countries would, at armed attacks planes violating their airspace.

Many aspects of Iraqi sovereignty were violated by the UN resolutions. That's a natural consequence of losing a war.

You will note where I predicted this in the comments to the post on December 14, Iran's President Ahmadnijead: Holocaust a Myth, Move Israel To America Or Europe

My comment was:
This guy is the Howard Dean of Iran. Ahmadinejad's politcal tourette's plays well to those who've drunk the kool-aid but it will ultimately lead to a quicker than expected exit. Either by the Mad Mullahs or the IDF.

Do I get a prize? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I assume you mean by "Which, as is widely admitted" as an euphemism for "UK and the US say..." Maybe you care to detail whom it was admitted by, if I'm wrong?

"Many aspects of Iraqi sovereignty were violated by the UN resolutions"

But strangely enough those violations were detailed in the UN resolutions.

I assume you mean by "Which, as is widely admitted" as an euphemism for "UK and the US say..."

Actually I'm just saying that the question of legality was never resolved, that the UN never challenged the US/UK/France/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Kuwait intepretation of the resolutions and international law.

But strangely enough those violations were detailed in the UN resolutions.

That's inherently obvious - if the resolutions violate sovereignty, then the violations are in the resolutions. The original point being, that Iraq's sovereignty was not and should not have been, a significant consideration post-1991.

Unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution

Jake would have rather we let Saddam unleash his 'air force' against the Shiites and the Kurds. The fact that even Bill Clinton recognized the No-Fly zones as necessary underscores how morally bankrupt Jake and his fellow travelers have become in politicizing the WOT.

I'm glad you concede the no flyzones were of dubious legality.

Since the no flyzones were put in place almost a decade before WOT, the WOT has nothing to do with it.

Strange that neither the Kurds or the Shiites were a big concern in the 80s.

I suggest you read the Howard Teicher affidavit.

Before you use the phrase "morally bankrupt"

I'm glad you concede the no flyzones were of dubious legality.

I agree that their legality was questioned and defended, and that it was never seriously taken to task. That doesn't exactly constitute 'dubious legality.'

Since the no flyzones were put in place almost a decade before WOT, the WOT has nothing to do with it.

This makes no sense. Michael was saying that we had independent justifications to invade (and these were cited in the President's 2003 SotU speech), beyond any GWOT considerations. And since the Iraqi shooting was contemporary with the GWOT, I don't see the point of your decade-old timeframe.

Strange that neither the Kurds or the Shiites were a big concern in the 80s.

Not so strange - the no-fly zones were created in response to international pressure to do something about Saddam's purging of the Kurds and Shiites, since it was perceived that the US et al. were responsible for placing the Kurds and Shiites at risk. And not so strange also that the UN has been exactly as effective at protecting the Sudanese as it was in protecting the Kurds & Shiites - in the '80s or the '90s.

This makes no sense. Michael was saying that we had independent justifications to invade (and these were cited in the President's 2003 SotU speech), beyond any GWOT considerations.

Actually, I said we had independent justifications apart from WMD. There is no question that Iraq was also a state sponsor of terrorism. This is not complicated, guys. A nation that offers sanctuary to Abu Nidal is just asking to get its ass kicked.

I concur that the no-fly zones were not specifically authorized by a U.N. resolution.

Big fucking deal. The no-fly zones were authorized by the exigencies of war, which included consideration of the international outrage which occurred after the first Gulf War when the U.S. was perceived as having abandoned Shiite and Kurdish allies to Saddam's slaughter.

Saddam was mocking us by routinely shooting at U.S. planes, in an attempt to make the U.S. appear hesitant and impotent. He got what he deserved.

My point remains the same. Fair-minded people can argue about whether the war was worth it, but not about whether it was "justified" or "legal." If we're going to assume the role of a superpower engaged in the promotion of world peace, we can't allow a tinpot dictator to shoot at us when we establish no-fly zones. With or without a resolution from the U.N.

Put another way, the point of having a powerful military with global reach is to scare the shit out of people. If someone like Saddam does not appear to be even slightly intimidated, something is seriously wrong. Your military is pointless and you are wasting a ton of taxpayer dollars. You might as well be Canada, because your military capability is no more effective.

Irag wasn't even the worst country around. North Korea gets my vote on that score. But it was clearly the most insolent and defiant country, and thus a good choice to be made an example of.

Think it doesn't work? Ask Muammar al-Qaddafi.

What is funny about the no fly zones is that they, in effect, safeguarded the kurds and other minorities in Sadaam-era Iraq.

When I say safeguard, I am talking about, like, safe from genocidal ambitions, etc. You never heard a complaint about them while Clinton was in office, since they were one of the only ways that you could actually discern a coheret foreign policy.

But now that Clinton is gone, they were eeeeeevil. Unauthorized. We probably even took advantage of them to spy on Sadaam's forces. For shame.

Where are the human rights activists on the left?

Jake, the way you're talking about Iraq is puzzling me. I think you're confused about the concept of rights.

Jake, since when did national sovereignty become more important than human rights? You seem to think that this abstract concept of a nation's "rights" trumps the actual rights of individual people. But think about how perverse this is, that a concept of a government's "rights" completely supercedes even the most basic rights (even the right to life) of millions of people. Isn't this exactly backwards?!

This is a common logical error, and not just on the left; the right sometimes does it too, in other contexts. This isn't mere semantics, it really matters. So, to be clear: Only individuals have rights.

Governments have powers. They don't have rights. Nations, governments, organizations, interest groups, clubs, religions, and even sports teams do not have rights. It's the individuals that make them up which have rights, on an individual basis.

Only indiduals have rights.

Strange that neither the Kurds or the Shiites were a big concern in the 80s.

I'm with you, Jake. American indifference to all the violence over there was apalling. And I'll even go one step further and say that I think George Bush Sr. was a terrible president, and that I despise "realpolitik".

Having said that, I'm still confused at your point. You and I surely agree that past US indifference to the Shiites and the Kurds was a bad thing. Right? Where I lose your train of thought is when you use this as a springboard for arguing that we should have been indifferent to them in the 90's, too.

Um... if it was wrong in the 80's, shouldn't it be wrong in the 90's, too?

I mean, seriously, man, you're arguing in favor of allowing genocide. Genocide. Is Darfur something you see as a good thing? I just don't understand.

The establishment of the no-fly zones was not illegal.

The Clinton administration's position in 2000 is here.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think, first of all, the Pentagon will give you more information and operational details. But I do want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the basic facts of the no-fly zones.

They were established under UN Security Council Resolution 688 following the Iraqi regime's brutal action against its own citizens in the south and the threat against Iraqi citizens in the north. The American and British flights in the no-fly zones are there to maintain protection for Iraqi citizens in those regions. There is no relationship between enforcement of the no-fly zones and the United States regime change policy for Iraq.

The U.K. Parliament's position in 1999 is here.

The precise legal basis for the no-fly zones is controversial. The MoD's view is that—

... the justification for the No Fly Zones remains that of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in that, without our deployment, a severe humanitarian crisis would in all probability recur.[72]

The UK and the US governments have frequently said that the basis lies in UN Security Council Resolution 688 of April 1991 which—

... condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq ... demands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression ... requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq ... appeals to all Member States ... to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts.[73]

None of the MSM outlets thought the no-fly zones were illegal until 2002, when it was clear Bush was going to order an invasion of Iraq. CNN, as one example, justified the no-fly zones in 1996 here.

Military intelligence indicated three divisions of Iraqi troops remained outside Irbil, north of the 36th parallel that designates the Iraqi "no-fly zone" marked off by the U.S., France, Britain and the United Nations, said [White House press secretary Mike] McCurry. [...] The White House said U.N. Security Council resolutions approved after the 1991 war provided the legal basis for responding to Saddam's actions.

No one in the White House, Congress, the U.S. and British MSM, or the U.N. disputed the legality of the no-fly zones until Bush announced plans to invade Iraq.

If they were illegal, then there are several former and current world leaders who should be brought up on charges besides Bush. Go for it.

I have said nothing about the invasion in 2003, so what actually makes no sense is you bring it up, rather than a time line pertinent to the topic in discussion, making no sense.

Nor have I mentioned Clinton, although I was of the same opinion when he was in office, which was a while ago, get over it.

I agree that their legality was questioned and defended, and that it was never seriously taken to task. That doesn't exactly constitute 'dubious legality.'

Its a case of, donut ask questions, that you wont like the answer to. If legality could of been definitively demonstrated, it would of been and you could quote chapter and section.

Since interjecting other unmentioned things seems be to par for the course here.

Its like extraordinary renditions, if its not for something dubious, why bother moving them in the first place.

Perceived?

The US asked them to rise up, we will support you, no?

The US then gave permission to Saddam troops to fly helicopters after the war was won, without mandating what use they could be put to, no?

The US then sat back and watched the slaughter, no?

The US then had to be convinced by the UK that there was humanitarian crisis in the making, no?

Perceived...

The Saddam-era also covers the period when Rumsfeld was there doing glad-handing.

As I say, I suggest you read the Howard Teicher affidavit.

Oh Sue. There you go with that insufferable preening of yours again(albeit you're absolutely, 100% correct)

As I say, I suggest you read the Howard Teicher affidavit.

Did it. Now what?

Preen preen preen.

First Jake says this:

I have said nothing about the invasion in 2003, so what actually makes no sense is you bring it up, rather than a time line pertinent to the topic in discussion, making no sense.

Then further down his screed:

The Saddam-era also covers the period when Rumsfeld was there doing glad-handing.

You break your rules almost as fast as you make them!

As I say, I suggest you read the Howard Teicher affidavit.

As did I.

I see nothing surprising, illegal, or even interesting.

However if your point is to show hypocrisy or some other infantile notion of foreign policy, I can only say "GROW UP." Jack ass.

This is foreign policy, not piano lessons.

Exactly, DeeDaGo. After having to Google up Teicher's affidavit, I've found that our friend Jake is a True Believer™ in Michael Moore.

LOL, but least foxnews is the same boat as the BBC

This is from BBC dated: 19 February, 2001 since links are not allowed for it apparently contains questionable content.

But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.

Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.

Trust me people did ask questions before 2002, even if you wont believe the BBC

Since the BBC is questionable, maybe legal advice will cut the mustard.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/FCOlegaladvicetext.html

9. The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement. Nor (as it is sometimes claimed) were the current NFZs provided for in the Safwan agreement, a provisional agreement between coalition and Iraqi military commanders of 3 March 1991, laying down military conditions for the cease-fire which did not contain any reference to the NFZs.

Bush up on charges, you once again bring something in I haven't mentioned, Freudian slips?

Bush up on charges, you once again bring something in I haven't mentioned, Freudian slips?

Freudian my ass, it's known as simple inference.

Why would you be bringing up legality if you don't give a shit about charges? Oh, that's right, you didn't write that specific thing. You just implied the fuck out of it like the typical liberal sophist shitbag that you are, then fell back on "durrr I din't say daaaat hurrr durrrr" when you get called on it.

This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement.

Hmmmm... the U.N. tells Iraq to shape up, but doesn't provide a way to do it. Typical. That way, the U.N. can have its Oil-For-Cake and eat it too.

I seem to remember them doing something similar in regards to resolutions against Iraq more recently. Hmmm....

yes. make a statement with a clear implication.

deny the implication.

gutsy move, that. you almost, like, defend your point. but fear makes you back off.

kinda like almost kissing a girl, isn't it?

Only individuals have rights.

I thought in the US organizations/businesses fought and won the same rights/protections as individuals, I stand corrected.

My point was if your going to do something, do it legally and not pretend that something that gives you authority to do something, when it clearly does not.

When have I said NFZ were a BAD thing, I said they were not legal under what people said makes them legal.

If that seems confusing to you, its no more confusing than when, people say the UN is worthless, then quote the UN resolutions as the authority for doing things.

As for Darfur, no its not a good thing and our response to it has been terrible, but since they don't seem to be offending the big boys or are too friendly with the big boys, as you imply realpolitik sucks.

I never made any rules for anybody to break, just if water going to get muddied, I might as well do some mudding myself, seems only fair if you want to bring in the decade after the 90's I can bring in the one before, no?

"GROW UP." Jack ass. Name calling and I'm the one who has grow up...

No wasn't trying show hypocrisy, that's a given in foreign policy, but we are not foreign policy makers, we have the luxury of being honest.

No there may very little we will ever agree on, but the fact Michael Moore is a tw*t is probably one of them.

I only came here because I was looking for some more info Assassination attempt on Ahmadinejad and I saw the multipurpose 688 trotted out again and the rest is history as they say...

Why would you be bringing up legality if you don't give a shit about charges?

Honesty about what 688 states.

As for the charges,why care about something that will never happen.

The US asked them to rise up, we will support you, no?

Actually I've been looking for the exact quotes Bush made concerning Iraqis rising up to unseat Saddam. The only direct quote I've seen simply encouraged them without offering any support.

I saw the multipurpose 688 trotted out again

Don't think 688 was 'trotted out' until several posts after you started jumping on Michael. And the incontrovertible fact remains that no authoritative body declared the no-fly zones illegal or even a bad idea. After more than a decade of enforcement.

You're convicting the US before they've been tried.

Racial discrimination against baluchis? what idiotic propaganda, they are the same race as other Iranoids, they are just a different tribe. There is religious discrimination against sunnis though.

And it was not ISrael or America or anyone like that. That province is very wild at the best of times.

BREAKING NEWS: Resolution 688 is being used as a pretext to drown polar bears!!!!

Oh, wrong thread.

You know who's behind the resolution 688 debacle? Seals.

I saw little baby seal pilots enforcing the no-fly zones. They bombed neighborhoods full of innocent polar bears. Polar bears just minding their own business, flying kites, drinking tea, then WHAM! Little baby seals delivered death from the skies.

The seals think Cheney is hilarious and laugh at all of his jokes.