Iran Threatens U.S. After Suicide Bombing Kills 42
The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard threatend to retaliate against the United States and Britain following a suicide bombing that killed 42 people, including 6 commanders of the Guards.
Media reports out of Iran say a Sunni Muslim group called Jundollah claimed responsibility for Sunday's attack in Sistan-Baluchestan province. But Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iranian security officials have documents indicating "direct ties" from Jundollah to U.S., British and, "unfortunately," Pakistani intelligence organizations, the ISNA news agency said.
"Behind this scene are the American and British intelligence apparatus, and there will have to be retaliatory measures to punish them," Jafari said.
The U.S., Britain and Pakistan have all condemned the bombing, and denied any involvement.
"We reject in the strongest terms any assertion that this attack has anything to do with Britain," said a spokeswoman at Britain's Foreign Office. "Terrorism is abhorrent wherever it occurs."
But Iran doesn't believe it. General Mohammad Pakpour, commander of the Guards' ground forces, said on Iranian television, "The base of the terrorists and rebels has not been in Iran. They are trained by America and Britain in some of the neighboring countries."
Jundollah says it is fighting to end discrimination against Sunni Muslims by Iran's dominant Shi'ites. Jundollah operates out of a Sunni area in Iran along the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its leader is Abdolmalek Rigi.
"This person himself and his plans are undoubtedly under the umbrella and the protection of these (U.S., British and Pakistani) organizations," Jafari said.
The incident is threatening to raise tensions at meetings in Vienna Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program. Analysts also fear the bombing will be used an an excuse to further clamp down on moderates opponents of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I wonder how liberals will try to pin /this/ on Bush like everything else Obama mucks up.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
How ironic! The Iranians laughably blame the US for a Sunni suicide bombing and you one up them in stupidity by blaming liberals instead. Propaganda is propaganda, I guess.
GW Bush's sorry, disastrous eight years reflects rather poorly on the judgement of those who voted for him twice. I can't say I blame you for deflecting your embarrassment by blaming 'liberals' for the bad choices you've made. Try taking responsibility, you might lose some of the anger. In the meantime, here is some reading material you may find interesting: It talks about how President Obama's administration will create more jobs in this one year than Bush did in all eight of his.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php?mrefid=site_search
Not once. In fact, I didn't even vote . Stupid me, I was too caught up in my job at the time and was not interested in politics . That was the only bad choice i made concerning Bush.
I am not responsible for Bush taking office, and will not accept any of the blame or credit. Heck, I'm in California. Even if I voted for him, it wouldn't have mattered.
I'd like to ask you to not insult my intelligence. You said, "It talks about how President Obama's administration *WILL* create more jobs in this one year than Bush did in all eight of his." (emphasis mine)
The story to which you linked says, "More jobs *MIGHT* be created this year than during George W. Bush's presidency." (again, my emphasis)
That makes it guesswork. What is not guess work , is that even with the wars, Obama has burned through over twice as much money as did Dubya, in one-eighth the time.
Explain THAT!
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
How is this a 'muck up' by President Obama?
Does he have control over what the Jundollah does?
As a side note, it is interesting how two liberals have found a way to misconstrue my statement, but both have refused to deny the charge.
Very interesting....
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
It seemed like a simple question.
If we were involved, it would predate Obama, so it would be calender definition involve the Bush regime.
But you clearly suggested Obama mucked something up, as if you assumed the west was involved.
I would not be at all surprised if Obama's administration had a hand in this, no. This is because I do not trust Obama. I have read and heard too many lies and distortions from the man. Once bitten.
(BAM! a vampire joke! )
(And you thought I didn't)
( pay attention :P )
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
A vampires, so frequent an apt metaphor.
Newt Gingrich was once asked why we should trust politicians: "You shouldn't. You should watch us like hawks."
As a young buck, I was impressed by this show of candor. It restated the idea the framers frequently voiced about balance of power being necessary because successful politicians are by necessity ambitious men. And I guess it reflected a rugged individualist response to modern representative democracy .
That was last millennia though. I think this reverse psychology marketing a lot of conservative politicians rely on has come home to roost in a lot of bad ways.
For one, why pay these guys if we can't trust them? I mean, is it so hard to isolate 0.0002% of the population that can be trusted, and that we could expect to avoid undue influence, conflict of interest, and general apathy? Why should we accept this state?
And also, if the government just did what the people expected it to, without regard for campaigns, lobbies, and public/private complexes, it could probably do a better job than any other institution. And if so, why wouldn't we want such a government?
Distrust should not be an option. It is regretable things have gotten this far out of hand.
Particularly by the 2 party system. We are roughly split down the middle. In thirds might be more accurate. but still split into smaller, easier to control chunks.
But... What is the remedy? They have the power and control. They own the media .
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
party of me. I honestly think both parties don't know what they are doing, it just depends for me what party is screwing it up worse on a particular issue. I do lean on the democratic side, but I hardily have any faith in them. They tend to take positions that are sensible (in my view anyway) and either muck them up (such as health care or a stimulus ) or they take it to some ridiculous extreme (like tax rates)*. You might actually be surprised on my conservative positions Solar, about things like rapidly increasing minimum wage, AMT, military policy (not Bush's kind, but I don't think his fit in with any ideology really) etc.
Anyway, not sure how I got on that when all I really wanted to say: that's Duverger's Law for you =(. We'd basically either have to get a proportional representation system or engage in aggressive gerrymandering. Both of which are unconstitutional and politically impossible anyway. I think we are stuck for now.
*It annoys me to no end when liberals use the 1940s / 1950s income tax rates to argue that tax rates should be much higher (they should probably be slightly higher for top earners, but not what some democrats suggest) because, they argue, the taxes didn't harm economic growth during the 40s to early 70s. Yeah, except that argument fails to appreciate we probably would have seen more growth with a lower tax rate - it was just the expansion of the world economy through international trade; stabilizing foreign economies; and multiplier effects from huge government spending on a global scale (from the war obviously) were so substantial if offset the high tax rate. Just pointing this out because I heard Senator Boxer argue this point earlier on TV this week, as though it was a serious argument.