Shut up, yhou stupid fucking chimp!

[tagos]

@jjimm

Casting aside for a moment the wisdom of invading a hot-headed country surrounded by hot-headed countries in a region that’s on a knife-edge, with a particularly hot-headed neighbor of both your occupations who hates your fucking guts and is now being squeezed on each side by your troops - are the IEDs actually coming from Iran?

No - most of IED’s attacks on coalition and security forces are the minority Sunni - who hate Shia Iran - and are quite capable of fashioning IED’s from the untold amount of explosives and munitions Iraq has.

Here’s a useful link

This quotes an extensive Defence News article on IED’s

As does this from Global Security

Bush is deliberately blurring the distinction between Sunni and Shia terrorism to rabble rouse. Iran is not arming the Sunni’s. They are its enemies.

It may, and there is no proof of this, be arming and training elements of the Shia Militias (whose leaders are part of the Govt and hold ministries and run ethnic cleansing death squads) and providing a specific type of shaped charge IED. As if Iraqi’s aren’t capable of making these themselves.

Here is a good article debunking the Bush claims

U.S. heats up rhetoric against Iran

The allegations by senior but unnamed U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The U.S. has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 U.S. soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children’s toys or to open garage doors.

Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when “shaped charges,” similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the United States is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name – explosive formed penetrators – may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, U.S. President George W. Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for U.S. losses in Iraq.

During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the United States and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

The U.S. stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position four years ago. Then, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device.

Washington is now saying Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

The White House may have decided that, in the runup to the 2008 presidential election, it would be to its political advantage in the U.S. to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shiite militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible the Sunni insurgents have received some aid, but most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the United States and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shiites have been at war with the U.S., when in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.

In short - Bush is trying to fool and lie us into allowing an attack on Iran. Don’t be fooled.

[Monty]

I kind of liked the rant until the jackass use of the term dry drunk.

[Liberal]

Iran may or may not be arming anyone, but just because Iran hates the Sunnis doesn’t mean it isn’t arming them. Nation states arm enemies all the time for various reasons of wealth and politics.

[tagos]

@Monty

I kind of liked the rant until the jackass use of the term dry drunk.

Dry Drunk is a perfectly good term, used by AA.

Dry Drunk Syndrome

And thanks for the gratuitious insult. Nice attitude, I’ll bear that in mind when reading your posts in future.

[tagos]

@Liberal

Iran may or may not be arming anyone, but just because Iran hates the Sunnis doesn’t mean it isn’t arming them. Nation states arm enemies all the time for various reasons of wealth and politics.

Well then you’ll have to come up with some evidence then won’t you. Until then all you have is wild supposition that flies in the face of history and common sense plus the words of a bunch of demonstrable liars who in making the allegations deliberately spread further misrepresentations and distortions.

At this point extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Monty]

@tagos

Dry Drunk is a perfectly good term, used by AA.

Dry Drunk Syndrome

And thanks for the gratuitious insult. Nice attitude, I’ll bear that in mind when reading your posts in future.

Looks like you tossed out a gratuitous insult in the OP, friend. Shows me that you couldn’t care less about logical reasoning. I’ll certainly bear that in mind when reading your posts in the future.

Of course, you do have proof that syndrome is actually applicable to the target of your OP, don’t you?

[tagos]

@Monty

Looks like you tossed out a gratuitous insult in the OP, friend. Shows me that you couldn’t care less about logical reasoning. I’ll certainly bear that in mind when reading your posts in the future.

Of course, you do have proof that syndrome is actually applicable to the target of your OP, don’t you?

What the fuck are you on about? I’m not the OP.

And unless you are George Bush I haven’t insulted you. If you are, then you have been begging for it for years.

You first post in this thread was to call me a jackass. I was barely aware of your existence before now. Really - what are you on?

And let me point out what forum you are in. Asking me for proof of part of a rant. The last 6 years stand as my cite in this regard.

[Nancarrow]

@Shodan

Who are we talking about here?

Not Anna Nicole Smith. Which has got to be worth something.

[Monty]

My mistake in misidentifying it, tagos. You defended the usage in the OP. Still a jackass move.

By the way, I find it incredibly amusing you griping about a request for you to provide some proof at the same time you’re asking another poster for some proof.

[Wallenstein]

Part of the “dry drunk” claim is base on Bush’s repeated use of “crusade”, “axis of evil” and other extreme terms.

Surely he has a whole team of speech writers who control that stuff, and basing character judgements on (in particular) prepared speeches doesn’t really provide any insight into his mind (or lack thereof)?

[Kalhoun]

@VCO3

Fuck that smirk!

Oooooooh…that fucking smirk. I’d like to haul off and knock it off his fucking face.

[Kalhoun]

@Monty

Of course, you do have proof that syndrome is actually applicable to the target of your OP, don’t you?

Or that there even IS such a syndrome, or that the object of scorn wouldn’t be a stupid asshole if he’d never taken a drink (he gives alcoholism a bad name).

[Muffin]

There appear to be any number of terrorists willing to blow themselves up, but not one patriot willing to give the Shrub a blow job.

Folks, in all seriousness, you need to impeach Bush now before he gets you and the world in a bigger mess.

[tagos]

@Monty

My mistake in misidentifying it, tagos. You defended the usage in the OP. Still a jackass move.

By the way, I find it incredibly amusing you griping about a request for you to provide some proof at the same time you’re asking another poster for some proof.

If you can’t see the difference between observing (in an interchange in which facts were on the table) that to make a case for Iranian arms interference you need evidence to overcome the huge preponderance (already provided and to which Lib’s post was a response) against the factual reality of the situation and jumping out from behind the bushes demanding proof for a crack at President Gump (O lordy, I’d better get a cite for Hanks and Bush being the same person and I sure hope the OP has a comparative DNA test to hand showing Bush is in fact a Chimp or all hell might break loose. What if it shows he’s more closely related to an orangatan or some sort of marmoset, how will the OP live down the shame?) then I don’t know.

However, in the light of your reading performance in this thread and weird claims of personal insults I am probably closing in on an understanding of the reasons for your frankly bizarre response to the rhetorical use of the term ‘dry drunk’ in a pit thread rant against the chimp-in-chief (DNA test pending).

And given Bush’s repeated performances in public and the ineptitude of his Administration being a fucking drunk, dry or otherwise, is the kindest possible explanation. But if you want to go with ‘brain damaged’, ‘congenital idiot,’ ‘unindicted war criminal’ or ‘incompetent glove puppet,’ you just knock yourself out.

Disclaimer: That last phrase is not intended to suggest Bush is made out of felt or indeed any other type of fabric, or that he has had some guy’s hand up his ass so no requests for pictures please.

And in other news just breaking: In ‘The Sound of Music’ the hills really weren’t actually alive, in the commonly understood biological sense. More to follow at 10 when we’ll be reporting live from Bavaria.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

@Vinyl Turnip

the same testy non-response to several questions on Iran

I came downstairs Wednesday morning, and it being a snow day, my 16-year-old daughter was sitting in her usual “couch potato” position, wrapped up in her favorite snugli, staring at the tube.

But what she was watching was the press conference. She said, in puzzlement, “You know, he’s not answering any of their questions.”

So there’s hope for America, folks, if even the teenagers who are only watching the press conference because it’s pre-empting reruns of Reba can tell that there’s major obfuscation goin’ on.

And it actually initiated a short, intelligent discussion between Teen and Mom on the subject of Vietnam and its lessons for today. Perhaps there is some wisdom there that we can pass on to the next generation.

[tagos]

@Muffin

There appear to be any number of terrorists willing to blow themselves up, but not one patriot willing to give the Shrub a blow job.

Folks, in all seriousness, you need to impeach Bush now before he gets you and the world in a bigger mess.

I presume you have proof that Bush is in fact some sort of chlorophyll based life form?

[tagos]

And in case anyone is interested in something other than nitpicking rhetoric, here’s something more on alleged Iranian arms paritally quoted from Jane’s Defence Review

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace further underlined the weakness of the administration’s case by declaring Monday in an interview with Voice of America, “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved,” he continued, “but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”

In the end, the administration presentation suggested that there could be no other explanation for the presence of Iranian-made weapons than official government sponsorship of smuggling them into Iraq. But in doing so, they had to ignore a well-known reality: most weapons, including armour-piercing projectiles, can be purchased by anyone through intermediaries in the Middle East.

An article in Jane’s Intelligence Review last month by Michael Knights, chief of analysis for the Olive Group, a private security consulting firm, reports that the British discovered that there was indeed an organisation in Basra engaged in arranging for the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs and that it was comprised entirely of police officials, including members of the Police Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Directorate and the Major Crimes Unit. They found that members of the organisation followed no specific Shiite faction, but included members from all the factions in Basra.

By insisting that the Iranian government was involved, the Bush administration has conjured up the image of a smuggling operation so vast that it could not occur without official sanction. In fact, as Knights points out, the number of EFPs exploded monthly has remained at about 100, which clearly would not require high level connivance to maintain a flow of imports.

The power point slides presented to the press in Baghdad ended with a slide that essentially confirms that the evidence points not to official sponsorship of cross-border weapons smuggling but to private arms trafficking networks.

The slide, which can be viewed on the Talking Points Memo website, includes the curious statement that information from detainees “included references to Iranian provision of weapons to Iraqi militants engaged in anti-coalition violence.” That formulation carefully avoids stating that any of the information implicated Iranian officials. Furthermore the slide’s six bullet points, representing the concrete “highlights” of the information, fail to make reference to any official Iranian role in the smuggling of weapons across the border.

In fact, the slide reveals that the smuggling is handled by what it calls “Iraqi extremist group members”, not by the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The oral presentation accompanying the power point indicated that the smuggling had been carried out by “paid Iraqis”, without specifying who was paying them, according to the New York Times report.

The final bullet point of the slide says, “Qods Force provides support to extremist groups in Iraq by supplying money, training and propaganda operations.” But its silence on the question of supplying weapons to groups in Iraq represents a serious blow to the credibility of the administration’s line.

[BobLibDem]

@Monty

Looks like you tossed out a gratuitous insult in the OP, friend. Shows me that you couldn’t care less about logical reasoning. I’ll certainly bear that in mind when reading your posts in the future.

Of course, you do have proof that syndrome is actually applicable to the target of your OP, don’t you?

I have a colleague that has been in AA for 30 years and has seen more drunks than you can shake a stick at. His observation is that Bush exhibits classic dry drunk behavior. If you look at video of his gubernatorial debates vs the presidential debates (particulary the Kerry debates), it’s like looking at two different guys.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@jjimm

Add “they’re killing our troops” to “they might get nukes”, is this a great enough reason for the US to try to justify an attack?

The rhetoric issuing from Bush - namely, in my perception, that any suggestion of diplomacy is countered with a “so you want this dictator to attack our troops?” - means I have a Very Bad Feeling about this. Anyone else sharing my discomfort?

raises hand

I definitely get the vibe that we’re being set up for a bombing attack on Iran. I thought Bush had an air of desperation about him in the press conference. Given he seems, on the evidence to date, to believe that if something isn’t working you try again harder, it’s not difficult to think he’d see whipping up a war frenzy against Iran as the way out of his troubles.

I really, really hope that I am badly misreading all this.

[Squink]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I really, really hope that I am badly misreading all this.

Not a chance.
Qods is the new Qaida.