And there was a time when it was dealt with harshly.
Today... not so much:
Iran is paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan, according to a report in a British newspaper.
The Sunday Times described how a man it said was a "Taliban treasurer" had gone to collect $18,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul, a reward it said was for an attack in July which killed several Afghan government troops and destroyed an American armored vehicle.
...
The newspaper's correspondent, Miles Amoore, said he met and interviewed the treasurer, who he said had been an illiterate farmer who was taught to read and write, plus basic accountancy, by the Taliban last winter.
"We don't care who we get money from," the treasurer was quoted as saying. He described the relationship with Iran as a "marriage of convenience." Iran is a predominantly Shiite country, while the Taliban is dominated by Sunni Muslims.
'For jihad'
"Iran will never stop funding us because Americans are dangerous for them as well. I think the hatred is the same from both us and Iran. The money we get is not dirty. It is for jihad," the treasurer told Amoore.In addition to the $1,000 bounty on U.S. troops, the unnamed man said Iran paid $6,000 for the destruction of a U.S. military vehicle.
In the mean-time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is up to his old tricks:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned the accepted narrative of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, saying it was still not clear who was behind them.
"Something happened in New York and still nobody knows who the main perpetrators of that act were," Ahmadinejad told diplomats and newspaper editors late on Sunday while on a brief visit to Qatar.
"No independent people were allowed to try and identify the perpetrators," he charged.
Iran is a blight that the world will have to deal with... sooner or later. Prior to their having nukes would seem to be best but... what the heck do I know.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Iran
Comments (16)
y'know,its about time we sa... (Below threshold)1. Posted by LiberalNitemare | September 6, 2010 9:17 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
y'know,its about time we sat down and had a serious talk with Iran.
1. Posted by LiberalNitemare | September 6, 2010 9:17 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 09:17
2. Posted by retired military | September 6, 2010 9:48 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"Iran is a blight that the world will have to deal with... sooner or later"
It took us years to finally get the stones to deal with Saddam. And 7 years after Saddam is gone Iraq is a much better place and is moving in the right direction.
People seem to forget that history repeats itslef.
Pacify a dictator and he wants more
Kill a dictator and the country moves forward and possibly in a better direction.
2. Posted by retired military | September 6, 2010 9:48 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 09:48
3. Posted by oldpuppymax | September 6, 2010 10:18 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
The lack of courage and resolve among free nations resulted in a second world war which cost millions of lives. That same deficit of will now in fashion will be mourned by millions in the future.
3. Posted by oldpuppymax | September 6, 2010 10:18 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 10:18
4. Posted by 914 | September 6, 2010 10:21 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Saddam did it and Ahmadjihad is doing it.
Its Bush's fault.
4. Posted by 914 | September 6, 2010 10:21 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 10:21
5. Posted by James H | September 6, 2010 10:27 AM | Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
I know this is an unpopular opinion in these here parts, but this kind of thing makes me wish we had cut a deal with Saddam and left him in power. Among other things, he could have been used as a check on Iran's ambitions.
5. Posted by James H | September 6, 2010 10:27 AM |
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 10:27
6. Posted by 914 | September 6, 2010 10:39 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Its past time for Achmad to take a droning.
And to think this bastard is welcomed to the leftist UN to preach holocaust denial.
Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
6. Posted by 914 | September 6, 2010 10:39 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 10:39
7. Posted by GarandFan | September 6, 2010 11:37 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"...he could have been used as a check on Iran's ambitions."
Doubt it. Both have/had a vested interest in mid-east instability. Their main concern was/is self-survival.
Unfortunately, we have a no-balls president, more concerned with kissing ass, than kicking it when appropriate.
7. Posted by GarandFan | September 6, 2010 11:37 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 11:37
8. Posted by ODA315 | September 6, 2010 11:57 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
We're awfully busy paying off the unions and holding hearings about major league baseball.
8. Posted by ODA315 | September 6, 2010 11:57 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 11:57
9. Posted by 914 | September 6, 2010 12:04 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
#8
No kidding. Priorities are in order.
9. Posted by 914 | September 6, 2010 12:04 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 12:04
10. Posted by James H | September 6, 2010 12:04 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Garand:
I never said Saddam was a stabilizing influence. But given is long-time rivalry with Iran, he might have been useful where he was as a counterbalance to Iran.
10. Posted by James H | September 6, 2010 12:04 PM |
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 12:04
11. Posted by GarandFan | September 6, 2010 12:51 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Given the punitive restrictions aimed at Saddam by the US (and largely ignored by our allies), I really could not see how he'd take to being 'used' by us. Had we simply ignored him and concentrated on Afganistan; he'd probably have aided the Taliban in any way he could. The Iran-Iraq war was driven by Saddam (with our blessings) - and his desire for control of a larger share of oil. Today, the Iranian government is doing all they can in Iraq just to screw with us - and quell any growth of 'democracy'. What I'm getting at is that wars are normally started for some (ultimately) economic benefit. In the mid-east, the players are more driven by religious imperatives. The Saudi's (religious nuts in their own right) know which side of the economic bread the butter is on.
11. Posted by GarandFan | September 6, 2010 12:51 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 12:51
12. Posted by jim m | September 6, 2010 12:54 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The priorities are in order and that's the problem. The left is not all that interested in doing anything about imadinnerjacket. He's against America and so are they. The left believes that other cultures are superior to America. Like Ahmadinejad, they believe that American culture is a destructive force in the world and needs to be contained or eliminated. They believe that all other cultures are superior.
In reality the left and this administration are not all that interested in appeasing Iran. What they really want to do is appease the American public so that we think they are actually doing something about the threat to our security when in reality they do not see America's interests as something worthy of protection.
12. Posted by jim m | September 6, 2010 12:54 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 12:54
13. Posted by Jim Addison | September 6, 2010 3:16 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Putting a bounty on our guys is an act of war. The mad mullahs, their Revolutionary Guard, and their Disco President must pay.
Of course, the most Obama will do is apologize . . .
13. Posted by Jim Addison | September 6, 2010 3:16 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 15:16
14. Posted by howcome | September 6, 2010 5:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
James H,
Didn't we do that in the 80's and the left does nothing but blame America for Saddam's actions. How many times did I see pictures of Rumsfeld meeting Iraqis?
14. Posted by howcome | September 6, 2010 5:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2010 17:58
15. Posted by Oyster | September 7, 2010 8:09 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"Iran is paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan, according to a report in a British newspaper."
Terrorists clearly need a union to negotiate higher pay from the Iranians. Saddam used to pay better than that.
15. Posted by Oyster | September 7, 2010 8:09 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2010 08:09
16. Posted by Olsoljer | September 7, 2010 10:43 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
sigh..................just a little judicious use of a neutron bomb.......................
16. Posted by Olsoljer | September 7, 2010 10:43 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2010 10:43