Living with the 'Taliban'

[Libertarian Muslim]

I think you, and many other such dreamers, are being set up.

Here's the thing; a mad - but clever - tyrant who begins to think that he can win a war, will eventually wage that war.

But he needs to convince his ignorant or innocent masses to follow.

Yes, but who here is being led by tyrants that assumes they can win war and because of that launches wars with the support of the ignorant masses..

It's not Iran that's gone and attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and really wasted their time in both countries and will leave with their tail between their legs having failed.. it's the USA..

You're the one being led by the nose.. Not me..

An Iran versus the West war, is something I view with horror, and so should you. The signs are starting to show.

Similar to other M.E. wars, first you pave the way - show the injustice that those 'others' are demonstrating against you (either the 'Yahudi', or the United Nations, or Big Satan); prepare international opinion and sympathy with disinformation and lies; create increasing "incidents", on your borders, territorial waters and air-space.

When the 'righteousness' of your cause is established, and your own people have reached a fever pitch of anger and jingoistic bombast...

attack - or engineer that you be attacked, and then defend.

We know this strategy time and again in the wars Arab Nations fought against Israel.

The Iranians aren't Arabs, nor do they behave the way Arabs do..

The Iranians are posturing yes.. But their country is being threatened constantly.. To avoid war of course they'll try and show what kind of repercussions would occur.. Just like a lion who's territory is being threatened would roar and posture to deter it..

Get it straight, the vicious offender here is Ahmadinejad. Why, just for a start, would that gentle pussy cat the UN sanction Iran, if Iran was not culpable?

What gentle pussycat UN? The US Government plus the other Security Council powers are the ones who wanted sanctions against Iran, it's not as if this was some big vote by all nations either..

Nevertheless, why on Earth did they put the sanctions on Iran when Iran had already come to an agreement between themselves, Turkey and Brazil that would have ensured that the issue of Iran's Nuclear Program would have been solved..

When that war begins - probably over a Gulf of Tomkin type incident ( a naval warship of Britain or the US that gets missiled because it 'violated' Iranian waters) or something like that, it will be fought with conventional weapons, I'm certain.

That's my whole point, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never actually happened.. It has been revealed that it was in fact an attack by the USS Maddox against North Vietnamese torpedo boats but the US Government used the event and twisted it to say that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on US forces which gained support from the American public for war and then passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that allowed the war to go ahead.

The Bush-Cheney administration had proposed to use US Navy SEALS to dress up like Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen and to launch a false flag attack on a US Naval ship to gain justification to launch a war on Iran..

US Intelligence since Kennedy's murder has used Nazi tactics of pre-emptive war and launching false flag attacks on US targets to get justification and support to launch war on other nations.. But it's not surprising considering that the CIA was really influenced by Nazi secret services brought over to the US by the US Government after WW2 to help setup the US efforts against the Communists.

In contrast to Dwight D. Eisenhower's comments where he stated:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

Iran's Navy will be sunk, its Air Force might last a week, and Iran would be blockaded and bombed endlessly. You don't think that any Coalition Commander would put "boots on the ground" in a conventional invasion, with those huge Iranian ground forces?!!

I do think that a Coalition Commander will put boots on the ground.. I don't doubt it whatsoever.. However, the Iranians would much prefer that Coalition Commanders put troops on the ground rather than just bomb them from afar simply because it means the Iranians will be able to respond much better.

You are, I believe, being led by the nose, as an unsuspecting dupe, by powers you do not comprehend.

I suggest you distance yourself from this monkey on your back that is Iran; it is not doing your otherwise reasonable and peaceful cause any good.

You may think it's me who's being led by the nose, but I'm not the one who is ignoring historical precedence here..

[Robert Campbell]

But of course, the 9/11 attacks weren't the real reason the US Government had decided to go into Afghanistan was it? Of course not.. The decision was to do so was made before 9/11.

Adonis,

Who in the United States government made the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and occupy that country?

When did this person or persons make this decision?

And what is your evidence?

By the standard of justice that you've claimed should have been applied to Osama bin Laden, the evidence will need to be compelling.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Bush-Cheney administration had proposed to use US Navy SEALS to dress up like Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen and to launch a false flag attack on a US Naval ship to gain justification to launch a war on Iran.

Adonis,

When did Bush and Cheney (or those under them) propose this?

And, given your assessment of their character and motives, why on earth didn't Bush and Cheney authorize this false flag attack?

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

When did Bush and Cheney (or those under them) propose this?

And, given your assessment of their character and motives, why on earth didn't Bush and Cheney authorize this false flag attack?

Robert Campbell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3n5gfZtmkc&feature=player_embedded

It was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Robert Campbell]

The Iranian military is not a push over like Saddam's was..

Adonis,

I doubt that anyone thinks the present-day Iranian military is a pushover.

All the same, the Iranian forces sustained enormous losses against Saddam Hussein's troops in the 1980-1988 war. How many Iranians died in that conflict?

First you have to deal with the more than 500,000 members of the Iranian Army, Airforce and Navy.. All are well armed and well trained in conventional warfare and who are armed well enough to tie the American forces down.. Now this isn't a force that has low morale and has just finished a 10 year long war like Saddam's military did in the first Gulf War, nor have they been suffering from crippling sanctions like Saddams military did in the second Gulf War..

This reads as though you are hoping for war between Iran and the United States.

In your view, is the United States government the author of all significant evils in the world since the end of World War II?

And if the US government really is the author of all significant evils over the past 65 years, what fate do you think it deserves? What fate do you think Americans deserve?

Then, as you're dealing with those, you have to deal with the more than 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.. Made up of a Naval, Ground and Airforce in addition to the Missile Corps and the the Qud's force.. All Iranian Revolutionary guardsmen are dedicated fighters who see their role as defending the 'Islamic Revolution'.. They are highly trained in guerrilla warfare and will attack targets not only in Iran, but everywhere and use their proxies like Hezbollah to do the same. In addition to that, the Quds members that are in Iraq will activate any cells they have there and start major attacks on bases still occupied by Americans.. That also doesn't take into consideration the forces they have in other places in the Middle East and the World.

In addition to dealing with them.. You'll have to deal with 90,000 full time members of the Basij and more than 11,000,000 Basij reservist men and women who've been trained to fight that'll be armed and ready within 48 hours of any attack..

If Iran were governed on the principle of velayat-e-ummah, as you say it should be, instead of velayat-e-faqih, as it presently is, would there be any Revolutionary Guards or Quds forces or Basij?

Isn't their function to carry out those operations that that present-day rulers of Iran aren't sure their regular military can be relied on to carry out?

And aren't the basij the ones who are counted on to beat and rape and kill those who publicly protest against the regime? Or am I unfairly maligning them?

Such a war will never be easy for the US.. The Iranians are the home team and are a proud people.. Yes, they don't all like their government but just as Americans don't all like Obama, if the US was attacked or invaded most Americans would fight against that attack..

The fact is that they are prepared and ready for a long and bloody war.. Is the US? I doubt it.. The US population would never take another draft and that's what it would require and even then, the US would still be unsuccessful in that war..

Barack Obama did not rig his election to the presidency. His political backers have not been granted the exclusive power to decide who is allowed to run for Congress or for President and who is not. Nor does he have personal reserve forces of black and brown shirts to call on, should anyone dare to protest too vigorously against him and his policies. If he has opened any prisons where his domestic critics can be detained on bogus charges, beaten, raped by guards, and executed, he has been remarkalby successful at keeping everyone outside his regime from publicizing his deeds.

Whereas many Iranian citizens appear to view their rulers as foully tyrannical and completely illegitimate. And, according to your own stated views, that is precisely how all Iranians should view their rulers.

It does not follow that because many of them fear and loathe their rulers, Iranians would not fight to defend Iran. The Soviet military fought extremely hard in World War II.

However, even those left-libertarians who thought the Soviet Union was unfairly put upon by the United States during the so-called Cold War were not inclined to sing the praises of the Red Army or extol its condition of military readiness.

It's an odd sort of libertarian who would praise a military force that he presumes is ready to fight and die on the orders of a military dictator and a ruling council of clerics who have arrogated supreme power to themselves.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

I doubt that anyone thinks the present-day Iranian military is a pushover.

All the same, the Iranian forces sustained enormous losses against Saddam Hussein's troops in the 1980-1988 war. How many Iranians died in that conflict?

I believe it was more than a million, however to assume that the Iranians are in the same precarious position that they were in 1980 would be foolish. They were not as organized because the revolution had only just occurred. The military wasn't ready for a war. However since then they've been preparing for war and engaging in proxy wars. Their troops are well trained and ready for combat.

I wouldn't suggest underestimating them by comparing them to that time.

This reads as though you are hoping for war between Iran and the United States.

In your view, is the United States government the author of all significant evils in the world since the end of World War II?

And if the US government really is the author of all significant evils over the past 65 years, what fate do you think it deserves? What fate do you think Americans deserve?

No, war would be bad for everyone, both Americans and people in the Middle East.. The only people that would benefit would be the international bankers that finance the wars and military industrial complex that builds the weapons.

I believe Americans are truly ignorant of what is being done behind the scenes, I believe that they should care more about what their government does but nevertheless, they are guilty of no crimes. My hope is that those responsible behind the scenes who are also working against the American people are brought to justice for their crimes by the American people.

I also don't think the US has been responsible for all evils since WW2 either. Though a lot of guilt has laid with successive governments.

I hope the Americans get back to what the constitution says, that's it..

If Iran were governed on the principle of velayat-e-ummah, as you say it should be, instead of velayat-e-faqih, as it presently is, would there be any Revolutionary Guards or Quds forces or Basij?

I think there would be people's militias in a system that is similar to that in the USA, the right to form your own militias should the nation be attacked or should the army launch a coup against the government.

Isn't their function to carry out those operations that that present-day rulers of Iran aren't sure their regular military can be relied on to carry out?

In part yes, but also to defend Iran unconventionally.. They play many roles

And aren't the basij the ones who are counted on to beat and rape and kill those who publicly protest against the regime? Or am I unfairly maligning them?

Some of them yes, but to say that all of the Basij are like that would be like saying all US police are racists for the crimes of some.

Barack Obama did not rig his election to the presidency.

He didn't need to, the media chooses presidents in the US, people vote from candidates the media chooses.

His political backers have not been granted the exclusive power to decide who is allowed to run for Congress or for President and who is not.

I don't think Ahmedinejad has as much backing amongst the Guardian Council as you believe.

Nor does he have personal reserve forces of black and brown shirts to call on, should anyone dare to protest too vigorously against him and his policies. If he has opened any prisons where his domestic critics can be detained on bogus charges, beaten, raped by guards, and executed, he has been remarkalby successful at keeping everyone outside his regime from publicizing his deeds.

Not yet..

Whereas many Iranian citizens appear to view their rulers as foully tyrannical and completely illegitimate. And, according to your own stated views, that is precisely how all Iranians should view their rulers.

Yes I agree, they should.

It does not follow that because many of them fear and loathe their rulers, Iranians would not fight to defend Iran. The Soviet military fought extremely hard in World War II.

That's where you assume too much. Do you think the Iranians want another Western backed leadership after the Shah? The Iranians will fight because they don't want the US to put them through the same crap again as last time and they'd rather deal with it their own way.. Change will come to Iran, but through a process.. It took the US many years to get into the right track.. Iran needs time and no interference.

However, even those left-libertarians who thought the Soviet Union was unfairly put upon by the United States during the so-called Cold War were not inclined to sing the praises of the Red Army or extol its condition of military readiness.

Agreed

It's an odd sort of libertarian who would praise a military force that he presumes is ready to fight and die on the orders of a military dictator and a ruling council of clerics who have arrogated supreme power to themselves.

Robert Campbell

You'd be foolish to assume that the current system didn't have the support of the majority of Iranians actually.. They're a nation of 70,000,000 people. A great many more protested in favor of Ahmedinejad than against him..

I hope Iran changes personally.. But it should come from within for lasting change, not at the barrel of a gun.

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Of the plan to have Navy Seals mark some PT boats to make them look Iranian, then attack US warships in the Persian Gulf, you say

It was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans.

Let's assume that Sy Hersh's dark intimations are factually reliable. (That's a big if.)

Let's further assume that this kind of false-flag operation was in fact proposed by Dick Cheney or some other higher-up in the Dubya administration, at an unknown date between January 2001 and December 2008. (Hersh doesn't say when it was.)

Now let's consider the purported reason why Cheney et al. didn't go through with it.

You yourself have darkly intimated that the 9/11 hijackers were not in fact Sa'udi and Egyptian agents of Al-Qa'eda acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Rather, as you coyly suggested, they hailed from nations "C, I, and A."

What does it mean, exactly, that they were from C, I, and A?

Either those who flew two passenger jets into the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 were actually Americans. But if that was the case, it follows that somebody really high up in the US government had no compunctions, when the prospective rewards were big enough, about using Americans to kill Americans. Why not go for it again, in pursuit of a casus belli against Iran, when it worked so well providing a casus belli against Afghanistan, enabling Congress to be stampeded into enacting USA PATRIOT, and making it easier to stampede Congress and the public into supporting war against Iraq?

Or those who flew the jets into the towers were not Americans, but were under the direction and control of either the CIA or of other covert agencies of the US government. In which case, one wonders why a false-flag operation in the Persian Gulf (one that wouldn't have guaranteed the deaths of the operatives in the disguised PT boats) couldn't have employed such non-American "intelligence assets."

Unless, of course, only 19 such "assets" ever existed, and the supply was exhausted after they died on 9/11.

Robert Campbell

PS. The Khomeinist military theocracy in Iran has committed several acts that in times past would have constituted a clear casus belli. You've previously defended the "Revolutionary Guards'" seizure of the US embassy and taking its inhabitants hostage for over a year. How do you suppose the Iranian government would react if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in the United States to give another speech about how Hitler never killed any Jews or how there are no homosexuals in Iran and the US government detained him, promising his safe return as soon as concessions were made by the Iranian regime?

[Libertarian Muslim]

Let's assume that Sy Hersh's dark intimations are factually reliable. (That's a big if.)

Let's further assume that this kind of false-flag operation was in fact proposed by Dick Cheney or some other higher-up in the Dubya administration, at an unknown date between January 2001 and December 2008. (Hersh doesn't say when it was.)

Now let's consider the purported reason why Cheney et al. didn't go through with it.

It's not that big of an if. Bush and Cheney wanted to paint US planes in UN colors to try and get Saddam to shoot them down. They're looking for justifications for war, they plan for it.

You yourself have darkly intimated that the 9/11 hijackers were not in fact Sa'udi and Egyptian agents of Al-Qa'eda acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Rather, as you coyly suggested, they hailed from nations "C, I, and A."

I didn't say they weren't Saudi or Egyptian agents of Al Qaeda acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. I'm sure they were, but who was Osama bin Laden working for? When did he stop working for the CIA? Did he even stop working for them?

What does it mean, exactly, that they were from C, I, and A?

I was demonstrating that they were not Americans who hit the trade center but were instead from other countries like Saudi and Egypt.. I was being facetious by mentioning C,I,A?

Either those who flew two passenger jets into the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 were actually Americans. But if that was the case, it follows that somebody really high up in the US government had no compunctions, when the prospective rewards were big enough, about using Americans to kill Americans. Why not go for it again, in pursuit of a casus belli against Iran, when it worked so well providing a casus belli against Afghanistan, enabling Congress to be stampeded into enacting USA PATRIOT, and making it easier to stampede Congress and the public into supporting war against Iraq?

That's an assumption there that wouldn't fly.. The Iranians aren't that type of religious extremist that pulls off those attacks, therefore I doubt very much that the people would believe they did. It's not there MO to attack civilian targets with suicide attacks.

Or those who flew the jets into the towers were not Americans, but were under the direction and control of either the CIA or of other covert agencies of the US government. In which case, one wonders why a false-flag operation in the Persian Gulf (one that wouldn't have guaranteed the deaths of the operatives in the disguised PT boats) couldn't have employed such non-American "intelligence assets."

Exactly, that is what I'm sure a false flag attack would consist of if it did. But it's more difficult because this isn't the American domain like the 9/11 attacks were, the Iranians are employing camera equipment to constantly spy on the American ships just in case such a thing occurs.

In fact, do you recall when there were those Iranian boats relatively close to an American warship? The news was reporting on it as if they were playing chicken with the Ship or challenging it whereas they weren't and this was admitted later by the Admiral in charge (which pissed Cheney off). Nevertheless, at the time Americans and many media outlets were wondering why didn't the US Government attack the Iranian boats? All that is required, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, is that the reports come out that the Iranians are attacking the US ships even if it's the other way around. That would get the public support necessary to launch the war. I think the big problem is the resistance within the US military leadership to such an idea is huge and they're not wanting to fight the Iranians.

Unless, of course, only 19 such "assets" ever existed, and the supply was exhausted after they died on 9/11.

They have plenty where that came from.

PS. The Khomeinist military theocracy in Iran has committed several acts that in times past would have constituted a clear casus belli. You've previously defended the "Revolutionary Guards'" seizure of the US embassy and taking its inhabitants hostage for over a year. How do you suppose the Iranian government would react if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in the United States to give another speech about how Hitler never killed any Jews or how there are no homosexuals in Iran and the US government detained him, promising his safe return as soon as concessions were made by the Iranian regime?

Again, you make this assertion, but who has provided who with just cause to fight? Was it Iran who went into the US and launched terrorist attacks and blamed it on the democratically elected President of the US to create a coup? No.. It was the US who did that in Iran. The war had already been waged on Iran and hasn't ceased since then because the CIA has been at it since then so anything else you've mentioned is inconsequential. Iran has just been good enough not to respond militarily yet..

[Robert Campbell]

Was it Iran who went into the US and launched terrorist attacks and blamed it on the democratically elected President of the US to create a coup? No.. It was the US who did that in Iran. The war had already been waged on Iran and hasn't ceased since then because the CIA has been at it since then so anything else you've mentioned is inconsequential. Iran has just been good enough not to respond militarily yet..

Adonis,

I take your meaning to be that the United States has been waging war against Iran without interruption since 1953.

And that Iran is justified in waging war on the United States at any time, using any means, whereas the United States will never be justified in waging war against Iran.

I'm surprised, then, that you have expressed any reservations about the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic.

Surely, from your point of view, the present Iranian regime would not merely be in the right in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons; it would be under an obligation to acquire them, in light of the 57-year war that's still being waged against it by a nuclear-armed opponent.

Robert Campbell

PS. From your standpoint, for how many years has Israel been waging war on Iran? And how long has Lebanon been at war with Iran?

[Darrell Hougen]

Adonis,

Thanks for the video. It is interesting to watch the Taliban in action. Watching them almost makes them look like sympathetic characters. And, it was very sad that two of the leader's children were killed in a raid by Special Forces.

It was interesting to hear the leader ask, "Why are Americans here?" "Are they being oppressed?" He asked it as if the Americans had no justification for being in Afganistan and as a way to motivate his men. Of course, his rhetorical question completely ignores the issue of 9/11. It ignores the fact that the Taliban had opened their doors to the creation of terrorist training camps, that the 9/11 terrorists had trained in Afganistan, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden had been given refuge there.

But, it shows the difficulty of waging a war in a place like Afganistan. It is hard to convince the fighters in the hills that the U.S. is there to bring peace, order, civility and real freedom to the people of Afganistan in the hope that the Afganis won't allow their country to be used as a staging area for attacks on us in the future.

Darrell

Well, firstly, I don't think they're Taliban, which is a problem as the Americans and rest of the world tend to heap all of the resistance groups that are against the occupation into the Taliban category which is incorrect..

The title of this thread and the video you linked is, "Living with the Taliban," hence my assumption.

Secondly, the Taliban explicitly forbade Osama bin Laden from launching operations against the US and using Afghanistan as a base for it. That was a condition of him being able to stay there. In addition to that, after the attacks when the US Government demanded the Taliban hand bin Laden over, the Taliban asked for the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks and said they'd even hang him themselves if they found it were true that he did that.. But the US Government supported by most US Citizens, in all their arrogance simply wanted blood and revenge.. There was no wish for real justice and unfortunately this seems to still be the case for most Americans today.. So they essentially said to the Taliban, "We're America, we don't need to give evidence even though we'd expect evidence to extradite an American indicted on crimes in another country so hand him over" (paraphrased).

I never said that the Taliban allowed Bin Laden to launch attacks from Afganistan. I said that the Taliban gave him refuge. Besides, it's a well known fact that Bin Laden had set up terrorist training camps in Afganistan. Bill Clinton took a pot shot at him, but missed.

And the Taliban did the right thing by refusing to hand Osama over, I even agree with that action of theirs because no matter how backwards their understanding and practice of Islam is and no matter how much I despise Osama, they stuck to the Islamic thing to do and that was to ask for evidence first to ensure that no person was going to be held accountable for crimes that they didn't commit.. That is what proper American justice should have been.. It's embarrassing that some 'cave dwellers' had to show the Americans this lesson..

Osama Bin Laden and his followers committed an act of war against the United States, aided and abetted by the Taliban, and everyone knew it.

That is what justice is.. Almost ten years of war which will have all been wasted as a failure that cost the American tax payer billions could have all been avoided if the US Government and the people demanded justice rather than blood.. But of course, the 9/11 attacks weren't the real reason the US Government had decided to go into Afghanistan was it? Of course not.. The decision was to do so was made before 9/11.

How, pray tell, was the U.S. supposed to produce the type of evidence required by a court of law? And, why should the U.S. have been constrained to treat the attack as a crime, rather than an act of war?

Also, the Afghan people have never really liked occupiers, they've tolerated them on occasion when having them benefited them but eventually they are all opposed and run out.. I said from the beginning of this war in 2001 that this was the most retarded of all decisions ever made, did the US Government not learn from the British Empire and Soviet Union's failed attempts to occupy this country? They should have at least learnt from the Soviet's experience because they assisted the Afghan people against them.

The U.S. can win this conflict if it is determined and smart about it. We've been in Germany and Japan for over 50 years. We should be prepared to stay in Iraq and Afganistan just as long, if necessary.

I think a definition of terrorism is in order.

Terrorism is the use of attacks on innocent civilians for the purpose of frightening the populace into turning against its leaders.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Well, if it aided and abetted suicide bombings --- people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up on buses or in crowded markets or restaurants --- then, yes, Hamas qualifies as a terrorist organization.

I would say according to your definition, that during the period that Hamas did carry out suicide bombings they most certainly were a terrorist organization.. However, this is no longer the case, they no longer use this tactic and their attacks are no longer directed at harming unarmed Israeli citizens therefore, according to your own definition that would mean that Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization.

Also, according to your definition Israel is a terrorist state due to its blockade (an act of war) which is targeted mainly at the Gazan population to force to turn against their elected leaders (Hamas).

Gaza is being blockaded in order to prevent weapons from getting into that territory. Food and medicine are allowed in.

Darrell

[Robert Campbell]

Another prominent endorser of a 9/11 conspiracy theory can be seen here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/23/ahmadinejah_us_orchestrated_911_due_to_failing_economy_and_israel.html

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Robert:

Glad you posted this.

The nimrod in the White House is going to answer Acquavelva Man by "addressing the Iranian people" tomorrow in an interview on some media outlet!

Could this moron be more clueless?

Did his staff schedule his speech to the UN on Sukkoth intentionally?

Amazing.

This has to be the most incompetent administration. It is even making the Carter administration look good which I would have thought was completely impossible.

Good post.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

Obama gives no indication of having a clue about the current Iranian regime.

He doesn't seem to get that Iranian forces grabbed up those three hikers, and the regime is still holding two of them in Evin Prison, to score propaganda points—and collect ransom.

Etc. etc. etc.

Robert Campbell