Comments on: Wright continues her propaganda barrage at the WaPo

By: Peter Shalen

Peter Shalen — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:25:57 +0000

The article says that our “allies fear… that an evolving strategy may also set in motion a process that could lead to military action…” It’s about time, isn’t it?

Does anybody want to try to parse this sentence? “George Percovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that unilaterally sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard’s corporate interests makes sense if it AVOIDS THE PROSPECT OF NOT DOING SO in a new U.N. resolution.” (Caps mine.)

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:35:30 +0000

dclydew, in this case, the Quds are fighting out side their borders, not in uniform, using terror tactics, supporting terror organizations. Personally, I think an easy definition of “terrorist” is anyone using tactics intended to work primarily by spreading terror in a civilian population, but if you wanted to add “illegal combatants” to that it’d be fine.

I don’t see any problem with that definition including Quds.

By: Lem

Lem — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:18:30 +0000

If worry is the worry of the day, what is more worrisome?

What Iran is doing? A nuclear program, arming and training insurgents in Iraq, talking about wiping a country off the map.

Or what we are doing to counter it? Leaking about freezing the assets of ‘I don’t know what to call them’ group of bad people. (ooh the humanity)

Let’s fight the worries – Let’s not do/talk anything about Iran.

By: dclydew

dclydew — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:04:48 +0000

LarryD,

Well, thats really my point. Words modify our perception of reality (General Semantics). When we use a word, it creates a semantic connection to whatever our brains already have categorized to fit with that word.

For most people Terrorist is a definition of bad guys outside of a government, working on their own and directly attacking innocent civilians. Thus if we say “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard are Terrorists” we create the impression that they are independent of Iran’s government and focused mainly on innocent civilians. In reality, it appears that they are directly backed by the government and are aiming quite a bit higher than just bombing innocents.

By: ricpic

ricpic — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:23:54 +0000

Apparently the best way to undermine the Iranian regime is to support it. All right thinking people know that!

By: LarryD

LarryD — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:40:37 +0000

dclydew, the Iranian regime has been suppling munitions and other supplies to the insurgents in Iraq for quite some time. The proxy war has already begun. It’s just that very few in Washington want to admit it.

By: dclydew

dclydew — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:49:47 +0000

Regardless of what Robin Wright writes, this President of the United States does not read it or care about it and sleeps well regardless. It is comforting to know this. A man of conviction.

Convictions make convicts.

By: dclydew

dclydew — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:49:02 +0000

Several months ago, I asked someone (either here or on MJT’s site) about defining ‘terrorist’. Most of the definitions were about them hiding among civilians, not being tied to a State and attacking innocent civilians. While we might well accuse Iran of supporting terrorists, I think we may be at risk of diluting the term if we just start applying to anyone that is not our friend or that takes a side in the guerrilla conflict in Iraq.

At this point, if Iran is arming Iraqi Shiites, we have to reconsider what we’re fighting… in short, perhaps the beginning of a proxy war with Iran.

By: jedrury

jedrury — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:35:33 +0000

Regardless of what Robin Wright writes, this President of the United States does not read it or care about it and sleeps well regardless. It is comforting to know this. A man of conviction.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:18:08 +0000

Roger, you approach this all wrong. It is much less stressful if you simply assume, since it is in a major newspaper, that it is not news but is opinion or distortion. Regardless of where within the publication it is found it must be questioned and evaluated for inevitable bias, inaccuracy, and falsehood. Sometimes the bias and distortion is less blatant than at others but nothing can be accepted as raw fact and observation. If you want fact you read Michael Totten or Michael Yon, or letters from amateur observers on the scene. Otherwise you might as well be reading Scott Beauchamp.