Oooooo. Please don’t hurt me, Mr. Iranian Military Terrorist Man!!!!
Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington’s ire toward the group because of their “leverage” against the U.S.
“America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future,” he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan. “We will never remain silent in the face of U.S. pressure and we will use our leverage against them.”
There was no elaboration on what Safavi meant by the punch or the organization’s “leverage.”
Probably because the barbaric, 4th world dufus had no idea what he meant himself. So is the the word from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in response to the Bush administration’s threat to list either the entire Guard or its special forces as an official terrorist entity. This action would allow the government to cut the Guard off economically and take action against companies who deal with them.
Naturally, Iran is pissed. No foreign military force has ever been designated as a terrorist group. This action would be unprecedented but well-deserved. Consider the role of the Guard in the violence rocking Iraq, training and arming Hezbollah against Israel and generally lending tactical and military support to any thugs who wish to undermine the US and/or Israel. If that doesn’t meet the definition of a terrorist, I’m not sure what the word means. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard seems to meet the criteria.
I read over the US State Department’s guide for the designation of an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization). I didn’t have to read very far to see that the Guard clearly meets the criteria.
As used in this chapter [chapter 8 of the INA], the term ‘engage in terrorist activity’ means in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization–
- to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
- to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
- to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
- to solicit funds or other things of value for–
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;
Or maybe you can try this -
- to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–
- (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.
I think those are pretty solid standards when it comes to defining a terrorist organization. And I don’t give a crap if it is “unprecedented” to name a foreign military force as a terrorist organization. Since when have the Iranians had any respect for precedent or convention? The mullahs have dedicated an entire branch of their armed forces to promoting terrorism. THAT is unprecedented.
So the Iranians can cry and whine all day, and Europe can come running to them with a box of Kleenex. But regardless of what you think of the Bush administration, I can say this – they have some balls and they aren’t afraid to call a spade a spade.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Yes, I agree with you on everything you have to say about Iran but America is becoming so militarily weak they have to devise new strategies to prevail. How for do they beat terrorists who turn themselves into bombs? History has never recorded such wholesale explosive suicides, and such people can undermine any military force. America is frantically searching for a way out in Iraq. I think they should turn to Powell who actually won in Iraq. He decided to stay away from fighting in the cities and succored them into the desert. More like him.
I appreciate your comments, but I respectfully disagree with the premise that America is militarily weak. The U.S. military is the strongest, most versatile force in the world. The reason that the military has failed to produce to their potential in Afghanistan and Iraq has nothing to do with their ability or potential.
Rather, it has everything to do with assholes like the Democrats in Congress who are hellbent on doing everything in their power to undermine our troops and their mission abroad. Co-commanders-in-chief-designate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, think they have a better perspective on things than the generals in the field.
I’m sorry if I seem touchy on this, but the fact that you would even suggest that the US military is weak is indicative of the fact that there are forces within this nation at work to destroy our military and its mission abroad. When you have people like Barack Obama, John Kerry and Dick Durbin accusing our troops of being terrorists, it only reinforces the troubled image of our military.
There is an answer to Iran. I’ll say it here first. The US could easily tackle Iran militarily if it wasn’t hamstrung in other conflicts by politicians at home. Forgive me for being blunt, but it’s time to quit being wusses.
Kill them when they come at you – ask questions later. Stop threatening to prosecute our soldiers for taking decisive action. Stop arresting and detaining the insurgents. Hang them in the streets for the people to see. The insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily be doused if the US military took an old school view of counterinsurgency. We have instead allowed ourselves to become practicioners of the “soft” UN/Euro version of military intervention.
I believe we have adequately proven that this won’t work. And it’s time we quit f***-ing away the lives of our troops and do what will work.
That, folks, will quickly free us up to deal with Iran.
Oh, BRAVO, Philip!
Thanks Ruthie.
And by the way – I’m steamed on this issue. I’m anticipating. I dare someone to say that this strategy will offend Muslim sensibilities and hurt US standing. I really want some real-life liberal to get on here and make that argument.
I’m at my wit’s end. Bridson wasn’t trying to be mean-spirited at all. It just touched a raw nerve. Sorry Bridson.
I could not agree more, Philip. Well said!
Well stated, Philip.
Somehow, though, I’m not sure Bridson was challenging the commitment of the military as much as reflecting the near viral frustation of war fatigue.
But, you’re on target when citing Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Durbin, Murtha et al.,.
Not since Tet was revised in the press has there been such manifest contempt for the US fighter.
Considering that an insurgency is difficult enough to combat – it affects many echelons. What these solons are up to is the same thing, only in this case subverting the will at home and fueling the international press with their comments, hoping for the trickle down effect upon the troops. In their spite, they seem to have underestimated the fiber of our uniformed men and women. When Kerry cites acts of barbarism, and Reid suggests the effort is lost, they only indicate how shallow they are and how they would hold the military hostage to any accusaton. A few cheap words to oil their power lust.
As I indicated in my last screed, we must defeat this enemy, not just defend against it. Negotiate is not a term in this matter.
I agree with you, Shawmut. I don’t believe that Bridson was being antagonistic in anyway. But Bridson stated that America’s military seems weak. It is the fault of the media that we are perceived as such overseas.
Bridson was only echoing what he has been told by the MSM and others who are invested in seeing the US withdraw from our foreign committments. The fact is, the American military is not weak. The American will is weak. And that is just as damaging.
Without a doubt, the left and the MSM have been indulging in a passionate symbiosis for longer than most passions last. The don’t seem to realize that they will be the first to go down under the dhimmitude (as prostitution is usually among the first of the moral proscriptions).
In terms of both the military and law enforcement factors we must begin to realize that though the military is not ‘weak’ it has becoming fatigued and over-extended. Of course, this is because we were doing 85% the work of what should have been a UN Commitment to enforce its own citations (choke). In addition, we* have been lost in our failure to understand unconventional or asymetrical conflicts (no matter how many PhD’s in social science have gummed on about it). The dynamic is mythical unless one witnesses a village where not only men, but women and children, and the elderly have been subject to atrocities.
Where we want our deployed troops to have a warm feeling for home, we must show them that the homefolks have the same regard for it. Imagine coming home to Comubus, Ohio ,with a ‘Purple Heart’ to find an jihadist apologist has paid positions on both the county’s homeland security committee and education advisory committee.
Imagine being on leave, visiting your high-school in uniform and being told you were violating a dress code.
Recognizing that kid you knew was an illegal, you stay silent, but then realize it doesn’t matter; your hometown has become Amnestyville. ICE just got a grant for day-care.
You read the hometown blat and discover the old orchardlands, once a real tax base, has been declared a religious institution in spite of the fact that it’s incorporators are subject both to RICO investigations and are unindicted co-conspirators (with a few guys who were a month ago shooting at you) in terrorist training and fundraising.
Well, soldier of the most powerful of armed forces, what do you think?
* “we”; meaning Americana in general, neither this writer nor any one particular reader.