America and the Good Psychopaths


Basij boys-thumb-470x352-3138Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

In his speech on Tuesday before the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu tried to get the Americans to stop their collective swooning at the sight of an Iranian president who smiled in their general direction.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” the premier warned, “I wish I could believe [President Hassan] Rouhani, but I don’t because facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that Iran’s savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani’s soothing rhetoric.”

He might have saved his breath. The Americans weren’t interested.

Two days after Netanyahu’s speech, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued a rejoinder to Netanyahu. “I have never believed that foreign policy is a zero-sum game,” Hagel said.

Well, maybe he hasn’t. But the Iranians have.

And they still do view diplomacy – like all their dealings with their sworn enemies – as a zero-sum game.

As a curtain raiser for Rouhani’s visit, veteran New York Times war correspondent Dexter Filkins wrote a long profile of Iran’s real strongman for The New Yorker. Qassem Suleimani is the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is the most powerful organ of the Iranian regime, and Suleimani is Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s closest confidante and adviser.

Rouhani doesn’t hold a candle to Suleimani.

Filkin’s profile is detailed, but deeply deceptive. The clear sense he wishes to impart on his readers is that Suleimani is a storied war veteran and a pragmatist. He is an Iranian patriot who cares about his soldiers. He’s been willing to cut deals with the Americans in the past when he believed it served Iran’s interests. And given Suleimani’s record, it is reasonable to assume that Rouhani – who is far more moderate than he – is in a position to make a deal and will make one.

The problem with Filkin’s portrayal of Suleimani as a pragmatist, and a commander who cares about the lives of his soldiers – and so, presumably cares about the lives of Iranians – is that it is belied by the stories Filkins reported in the article.

Filkins describes at length how Suleimani came of age as a Revolutionary Guard division commander during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, and how that war made him the complicated, but ultimately reasonable, (indeed parts of the profile are downright endearing), pragmatist he is today.

As the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Suleimani commands the Syrian military and the foreign forces from Iran, Hezbollah and Iraq that have been deployed to Syria to keep Bashar Assad in power.

Filkins quotes an Iraqi politician who claimed that in a conversation with Suleimani last year, the Iranian called the Syrian military “worthless.”

He then went on to say, “Give me one brigade of the Basij, and I could conquer the whole country.”

Filkins notes that it was the Basij that crushed the anti-Islamist Green Revolution in Iran in 2009. But for a man whose formative experience was serving as a Revolutionary Guards commander in the Iran-Iraq War, Suleimani’s view of the Basij as a war-fighting unit owes to what it did in its glory days, in that war, not on the streets of Tehran in 2009.

As Matthias Kuntzel reported in 2006, the Revolutionary Guards formed the Basij during the Iran-Iraq War to serve as cannon fodder. Basij units were made up of boys as young as 12.

They were given light doses of military training and heavy doses of indoctrination in which they were brainwashed to reject life and martyr themselves for the revolution.

As these children were being recruited from Iran’s poorest villages, Ayatollah Khomeini purchased a half million small plastic keys from Taiwan.

They were given to the boys before they were sent to battle and told that they were the keys to paradise. The children were then sent into minefields to die and deployed as human waves in frontal assaults against superior Iraqi forces.

By the end of the war some 100,000 of these young boys became the child sacrifices of the regime.

When we assess Suleimani’s longing for a Basij brigade in Syria in its proper historical and strategic context – that is, in the context of how he and his fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders deployed such brigades in the 1980s, we realize that far from being a pragmatist, Suleimani is a psychopath.

Filkins did not invent his romanticized version of what makes Suleimani tick. It is a view that has been cultivated for years by senior US officials.

Former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker spoke at length with Filkins about his indirect dealings with Suleimani through Iranian negotiators who answered to him, and through Iraqi politicians whom he controlled.

Crocker attests that secretary of state Colin Powell dispatched him to Geneva in the weeks before the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to negotiate with the Iranians. Those discussions, which he claims involved the US and Iran trading information about the whereabouts of al- Qaida operatives in Afghanistan and Iran, could have led to an historic rapprochement, Crocker claims. But, he bemoans, hope for such an alliance were dashed in January 2002, when George W. Bush labeled Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil,” in his State of the Union address.

Supposedly in a rage, Suleimani pulled the plug on cooperation with the Americans. As Crocker put it, “We were just that close. One word in one speech changed history.”

Crocker told of his attempt to make it up to the wounded Suleimani in the aftermath of the US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in 2003. Crocker was in Baghdad at the time setting up the Iraqi Governing Council. He used Iraqi intermediaries to clear all the Shi’ite candidates with Suleimani. In other words, the US government gave the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards control over the Iraqi government immediately after the US military toppled Saddam’s regime.

Far from convincing Suleimani to pursue a rapproachment with the US, Crocker’s actions convinced him that the US was weak. And so, shortly after he oversaw the formation of the governing council, Suleimani instigated the insurgency whose aim was to eject the US from Iraq and to transform it into an Iranian satrapy.

And yet, despite Suleimani’s obvious bad faith, and use of diplomacy to entrap the US into positions that harmed its interests and endangered its personnel, Crocker and other senior US officials continued to believe that he was the man to cut a deal with.

The main take-away lesson from the Filkins profile of Suleimani is that US officials – and journalists – like to romanticize the world’s most psychopathic, evil men. Doing so helps them to justify and defend their desire to appease, rather than confront, let alone defeat, them.

Suleimani and his colleagues are more than willing to play along with the Americans, to the extent that doing so advances their aims of defeating the US.

There were two main reasons that Bush did not want to confront Iran despite its central role in organizing, directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. First, Bush decided shortly after the US invasion of Iraq that the US would not expand the war to Iran or Syria. Even as both countries’ central role in fomenting the insurgency became inarguable, Bush maintained his commitment to fighting what quickly devolved into a proxy war with Iran, on the battlefield of Iran’s choosing.

The second reason that Bush failed to confront Iran, and that his advisers maintained faith with the delusion that it was worth cutting a deal with the likes of Suleimani, was that they preferred the sense of accomplishment a deal brought them to the nasty business of actually admitting the threat Iran posed to American interests – and to American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Expanding on Bush’s aversion to fighting Iran, and preference for romanticizing its leaders rather than acknowledging their barbarism, upon entering office Barack Obama embraced a strategy whose sole goal is engagement. For the past five years, the US policy toward Iran is to negotiate. Neither the terms of negotiation nor the content of potential agreements is important.

Obama wants to negotiate for the sake of negotiating. And he has taken the UN and the EU with him on this course.

It’s possible that Obama believes that these negotiations will transform Iran into a quasi-US ally like the Islamist regime in Turkey. That regime remains a member of NATO despite the fact that it threatens its neighbors with war, it represses its own citizens, and it refuses to support major US initiatives while undermining NATO operations.

Obama will never call Turkey out for its behavior or make Prime Minister Recep Erdogan pay a price for his bad faith. The myth of the US-Turkish alliance is more important to Obama than the substance of Turkey’s relationship with the United States.

A deal with Iran would be horrible for America and its allies. Whatever else it says it will do, the effect of any US-Iranian agreement would be to commit the US to do nothing to defend its interests or its allies in the Middle East.

While this would be dangerous for the US, it is apparently precisely the end Obama seeks. His address to the UN General Assembly can reasonably be read as a declaration that the US is abandoning its position as world leader.

The US is tired of being nitpicked by its allies and its enemies for everything it does, he said. And therefore, he announced, Washington is now limiting its actions in the Middle East to pressuring its one remaining ally, Israel, to give up its ability to protect itself from foreign invasion and Palestinian terrorism by surrendering Judea and Samaria, without which it is defenseless.

Like his predecessors in the Bush administration, Obama doesn’t care that Iran is evil and that its leaders are fanatical psychopaths. He has romanticized them based on nothing.

Although presented by the media as a new policy of outreach toward Tehran, Obama’s current commitment to negotiating with Rouhani is consistent with his policy toward Iran since entering office. Nothing has changed.

From Obama’s perspective, US policy is not threatened by Iranian bad faith. It is threatened only by those who refuse to embrace his fantasy world where all deals are good and all negotiations are therefore good.

What this means is that the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power does not faze Obama. The only threat he has identified is the one coming from Jerusalem. Israel the party pooper is Obama’s greatest foe, because it insists on basing its strategic assessments and goals on the nature of things even though this means facing down evil.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Walter Sieruk

    These poor children in the above picture have been throughly brainwashed into the of violence and killing which is taught in the Quran. Just to give only one of the many examples of this is from the Quran is Sura 9:112. Which teaches “The believers fight for Allah’s cause , they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
    Furthermore, the Quran ,in reality, is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” -the Bible, Ephesians 4:14. [NIV]
    The false teachers beng the imams and mullahs who mindprogram the false teachings of this false and heinous book into the hearts and minds of others wil have to answer to the God of Bible for their evil, Romans 14:12.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The ayatollahs of Fascist Iran should be brought to the ICJ to stand trial for engaging in Human Sacrifice.

      • Tatiana Covington

        Why? None of my business. Let them kill each other! (LTKEO!)

    • Drakken

      Those so called children are far more dangerous than their adult compatriots and far more deadly. I have zero problem with them being eliminated. One or thousands, the only good jihadist is a dead jihadist.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        They are Khomeni Youth.

        Raised like hallal veal to hate and kill and die for the ayatollahs.

        • defcon 4

          “For the ayatollahs”? Or for allah and islam?

      • 1Indioviejo1

        You are clear about the problem. I wish more people saw it the way you do.

  • Dak

    How many basij came from the families of the senior officer of the Revolutionary Guard?

    Filkins knows about the Basij. How can he write glowingly of Suleimani?

  • defcon 4

    The enemedia loves romanticising islam0fascism and its various despotic leaders — from the safety of the western democracies in which they hide.

    • truebearing

      We need to make it clear that it isn’t Americans that are the problem. Real Americans aren’t goose stepping to the Muslim tune. Hagel and the NYTimes morons will gladly sell us down the river, but they never did represent America.

      • 1Indioviejo1

        Most Americans don’t even recognize the problem.

        • defcon 4

          The enemedia and our corrupt politicians do an excellent job of whitewashing islam0fascism. Hell, National Geographic has been doing so for decades.

  • Jim Vaughan

    There are two reasons why your leaders do not want to confront the psychotic men. You have gotten both of them wrong. One: they are completely worthless cowards. Two: each and every one of them has a dog-fucking whore for a mother.

  • Kukye

    1. You only need too know two things about Muslims. One they are told to lie to non-Muslims.

    2. That he shall be a wild man and his hand shall be against every other man’s hand (as prophesied in the Bible).

    I assure you by any standards they will be IMPOSSIBLE to deal with. So then just how do you deal with them?

    You’re not listening are you?

  • truebearing

    “The Americans weren’t interested.”

    Wrong. The Americans are desperately interested, but that doesn’t include Imambama and his minions. They aren’t Americans.

  • cacslewisfan

    Seriously disturbing. Every day I wake up and think, “I should be Prepping.”

    • defcon 4

      Or buying better firearms and perhaps body armor.

    • Chasmania

      Too true. I thought the fall of the USSR was ushering in an era of peace ! :P
      Should have kept up the gun buying back then.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    Iran probably could have been subdued in 2003–Tehran could have been captured and the Mullahs sent fleeing–with perhaps 25,000 more coalition troops, and surgical airstrikes. Bush’s response was quite different than Reagan’s response to the 1983 US Marine barrack bombing in Beirut. Reagan evacuated the troops, and later sent the USS New Jersey to bombard the Bekaa Valley. Bush could have destroyed the head of the snake; but he backed out. Shame on him. Now we may have to accept a nuclear Iran, and a much more dangerous world.

  • AdinaF

    Aside from the fact that it is immoral to arm/choose sides when dealing with terrorists, it is also illegal. In fact, it is an impeachable offense, and few dare utter this truth.

    However, there is nothing more effective than sunlight on what amounts to treason, yes treason – ‘The POTUS’s Impeachment Looms Larger, Yet Not From The (Scandal-Ridden) Direction Most Americans Assume: What Is He Hiding?’

    Beyond psychopaths – the jihadists AND their enablers!

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

  • V. Tuter

    The Evil Brown Lord and the New York Slimes, part and parcel of the same anti-American elite. No surprises here.

  • Bellerophons_Revenge

    Iran is no threat to the US.

    Iran has does not possess as much as a single ounce of weapons grade fissionable material. Its centrifuges have only produced 20% pure U-235, not the 90% pure stuff that can be made into bombs. 20% pure material is appropriate for breeder reactors which all countries are allowed to produce. Iran submits willingly to International Atomic Agency inspections and no inspection ever turned up evidence of bomb making. These are facts, incontrovertible facts which are ignored by politicians anxious for war.

    There is an enormous opposition to the mullahs in Iran. In the nights following 9-11 there was dancing in the streets of Cairo, Istanbul and Damascus. There was one city where, under threats of arrest and imprisonment, citizens came out to mourn the American dead with candlelight vigils. That city was Teheran, yet Bush never once acknowledged those gallant souls who risked beatings and worse to express their sympathy and solidarity with America.

    Bush’s successor has been no better. Obama continued the Bush policy of ignoring the Iranian opposition finally making enemies of even those who once marched in the streets in sympathy with the US.

    There was a time when a promise to recognize a new secular regime in Iran might have made a difference, but not now. The Iranian opposition has been crushed, not by the mullahs, but by a callous and cruel American policy obsessed with drumming up a war against an imagined monster.

    • Drakken

      Well either you Iranians overthrow your mullahs, or we from the west will make your cities burn, your choice, so spare me the sympathy of a regime that is full on islam, I am all out.

    • defcon 4

      The atypical muslime evasion: it’s not our fault our countries are totalitarian theocracies run by the precepts of islamofascist Sharia law. I’m surprised you didn’t blame the Jews Fatima, but I suppose the Great Satan is just as culpable in your small islamic mind.

      • Manaphy

        I’m not surprised that your first resort was to call someone who disagrees with your positions on Israel/Iran an antisemite. That is what anti-white, jewish supremacist Caroline Glick and her supporters love doing, since they don’t have any actual facts to debate with.

        • defcon 4

          “Anti-white”? Really? What race would you describe her as Adolph?

          • Manaphy

            I would describe her as Jewish.

          • defcon 4

            Your delusions are vivid. Have you considered contacting a mental health professional?

          • BS77

            don’t bother arguing with manaphy….he’s an idiot

        • Well Done

          “disagrees with your position” is not the same thing as “misinterprets history and invents items to fill in the obvious deficiencies in his version”

    • 11bravo

      Why do you lie like that Bell?

      • Bellerophons_Revenge

        Have you actually seen evidence that Iran has a bomb? If so, you are unique because no one else has done so. Every single country that has a bomb has tested it. There have been no Iranian nuclear tests. That means that they do not have a bomb.

        How many times over the past 12 years have you heard that Iran is within a few months of having a bomb?

        We have only the word of known liars like Clapper. Lying is the policy of most security agencies. Truth, facts and logic are meaningless. Statements are made for short term pragmatic reasons. When asked to back up their claims they hide behind the cloak of “national security”.

        Doe the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident mean anything to you? How about the alleged sinking of the “Maine” by the Spanish fleet? They were among the dozens of fabrications by progressives obsessed with inciting the American people to war. The vision of Iranian nukes serves the same purpose.

        War unites a country, War silences opposition. War justifies violations of civil and economic liberties. Because of this war is the heart and soul of the progressive movement. There must always be monsters to kill or else people will be happy running their own lives.

        In wartime people submit to the state. That is the sole reason for war. Why do you think they call it the “War on Poverty”, the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror”?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The Fascist Iranian regime nuke program, buried deep underground, spread across the country.

          NOT the acts of an Open and Peaceful nuke program – but that of a deceitful deadly nuke program.

          Couple that with Fascist Irans military parade with missiles covered with slogans Death to the US and Death to Israel.

          Again, hardly the actions of a peaceful country.

          DEATH to the Islamofascist Regime of iran!

          • Manaphy

            Death to the Marxist, White GeNOcide promoting state of Israel! How do you like that?

          • defcon 4

            Follow the example your leader set in the Fuhrerbunker in 1944.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Femaphy,

            Israel Marxist??? If Israel is Marxist, why doesn’t you KGB Putin back Israel and not your Pal-e-SWINIANS?

            Why do your neo-commies back the Pal-e-SWINIANS?

            Femaphy, You are a socialist imbecile.

          • Well Done

            Yeah, you Islamist goat-herders have been vowing that for about 70 years. All it got you was various dictatorships that know how to deal with terrorists, and an Israel that is rapidly making your miserable backwaters of human misery look like miserable backwaters of human misery.

        • 11bravo

          ” We have only the word of known liars like Clapper”.
          But your word is somehow more valuable? I respect your opinion but not your facts. Inspectors have found evidence of a weapons program and advanced enrichment activities in Natance and Quom? I believe.
          Bibi mentioned them in his speech at the UN. You are changing no minds here because your facts are wrong.

          • Bellerophons_Revenge

            Your right about Bibi Netanyahu. Here’s what he said:

            “Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb, without having to import either the technology or the material,” he said. “[The nuclear threat] must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

            The problem is that he said this in 1995!

            As recently as last August the International Atomic Energy Agency said that there was no evidence that the Iranians had made any material of weapons grade purity.

            If you really want another WMD fiasco then invade Iran. Maybe the result will be better than it was in Iraq which began as a brutal secular dictatorship and is now an Islamist madhouse. At least in Iran you are already starting with an Islamist madhouse and it would be very difficult to make things worse for the Iranian people. Of course Obama, with the neocons rooting him on, can probably find the a way to create an even more evil regime.

            The real battle in the Middle East is between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. Our best move is to let them slaughter each other.

          • defcon 4

            Why invade Iran? Why not just employ Arclight strikes to turn back the clock to the 8th century CE for them?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Persian people are sick of the ayatollahs.

            They began to battle the ayatollahs but Obama decided not to help the opposition in any way. The fascist revolutionary guard killed a lot of the opposition.

          • defcon 4

            That’s not the rest of the world’s or Israel’s problem. The fact is, millions of Germans had to die to defeat the nazis, because the German people were obviously unwilling or unable to do so themselves.

          • 11bravo

            I am curious; why do you need proof (absolute proof)? This is not an American court of law. I have no problem with just about any country in western civilization (not commies) making a moral/ethical judgement, and then acting on it – do you? WMD in Iraq was not a fiasco for anyone but the left, and it took a major propaganda campaign to accomplish that.
            Between them and MSM Bush is a butcher for Christ’s sake.
            Iran is equivalent to Hitler. They are pursuing WMD and have stated what they will use them for – I’m convinced! Bomb them for 45-60 days = no invasion. Then walk away. No apologies, no rebuilding no nothing!!
            This is not complicated. Muslims do not want the same for their children as we do – they want ours dead, or converted the same for us all. The Russian people we never had much animosity toward – not so for Muslims. The ideology is all corrupting.
            It may come to pass we will have to do something about Pakistan too – who knows.

          • patron

            Iran currently follows the same precedent as North Korea and Pakistan. Both those countries now posses nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program led to many countries in the Moslem world including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, the Emirates and possibly Jordan starting their own nuclear programs

            You greatly under estimate the consequences of nuclear proliferation, which very easily destroy all life on this planet, like detonating a bomb in the atmosphere. This isn’t ship building or army mobilization in a far away foreign land, but poisoning the entire world and to disregard the drastic consequences is reckless.
            The 20% level is an outright lie. It’s what the Iranias will supposedly stop at if bank sanctions are lifted. The US repeatedly offered nuclear power infrastructure, in a country who exports oil and gives away free gasoline, and the Iranians declined. If you cannot see the Iranians want the bomb you are either a moron or a propagandist.

            I agree on your view of war profiteering as immoral. The world’s sole super power taking on an infantile foreign policy will open the floodgates to greedy evil monsters who like war so much they dye their public fountains red.

            Disengagment from the Ayatollah, and pursuing our own interest such as supporting the Green Revolution is not war profiteering. With Iraq, we were already there enforcing a no-fly zone and weapon sanctions.

          • Bellerophons_Revenge

            It’s always disappointing when I am forced to argue with someone whose ignorance is positively luminous.

            You clearly have no background in weapons because you think that if you have 90% pure U-235 then you have a bomb. The technical problems are tremendous. If the Iranians truly want a bomb then they have absolutely no way to develop one without testing it. Once they test one, they are toast and they know it. Even just achieving 90% enrichment without tipping off the world is impossible. Ever since India and Pakistan developed bombs the US invested heavily in detection technology. No one will ever again develop a bomb without us knowing it.

            The 20% level is not only not a lie but an undisputed fact among people who have investigated it. No evidence has been produced that the Iranians have ever reached the 90% level.

            If you want to live in a fantasy land of monsters that need to be destroyed then do so. Just don’t try to drag the US into your delusions.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your comment is utterly ignorant.

            “If the Iranians truly want a bomb then they have absolutely no way to develop one without testing it.”

            So they announce they withdraw from the NPT and test one underground. Not that the Islamic Regime of Iran would respect a Crusader/Infidel agreement.

            All those scattered and buried nuke factories in ran are examples of an “open” and “peaceful” nuke program.

            Belle, you are a fool.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      “Iran has does not possess as much as a single ounce of weapons grade fissionable material.”

      How would you know that comrade?

    • Well Done

      beller:bozo

    • Chasmania

      Do you seriously think that they need a nuclear weapon to be a threat to us ?
      Several years ago an unidentified group hijacked a LNG hauler and stole all its logs, operating manuals, etc… The damage one of these LNG carriers could do in an American port would be beyond description. The economic damage to the US would put and already shaky economy into a death spiral.

      • defcon 4

        Do you seriously think modern nukes are no more powerful than your hypothetical LNG terrorist attack?

        • Chasmania

          Your question makes little sense. What does explosive power of a nuke have to do with a potential terrorist target ?
          The threat of a nuclear weapon being delivered onto US soil is minimal. Real, but minimal. LNG carriers on the other hand enter US ports regularly and the fleet of carriers is expanding. One might call a ‘as yet to exist’ Iranian nuke the “hypothetical” as opposed to the LNG carrier explosion.

          • defcon 4

            How do you know it’s “minimal”? Do you know how many cargo containers are offloaded from foreign ports into US ports every day? You could modify a cargo container ship to carry an SRBM, or have it carry multiple nukes in multiple containers.

          • Chasmania

            It hasn’t happened yet ?
            You have to realize that nuclear weapons aren’t like bullets, bayonets or even regular explosives. They require an intensive amount of support and upkeep just to maintain functionality.
            The peak time for a nuclear attack was before and a few years after 9/11. At that time there was a greater amount of nuclear warheads available to provide a pontentiality, combined with a lowered intensity of searching for groups and this type of weapon to be used. “Nukes” sets off all the bells and whistles when it comes to threats. EVERYONE is looking for the proverbial ‘nuke’.
            As far as delivery systems are concerned, cargo ships , while proliferate and having high capacity, are very slow. Speed is the key for an attack. Slow delivery allows for response time, intel gathering, etc…
            A better method of delivering a nuke – and the way I would dare say is most likely – would be thru a leased commercial airliner. Time to target is hours, not days, etc… Much more difficult to stop an aircraft.

          • defcon 4

            Maybe a combo pack. a LNG carrier coupled w/a nuke.

          • Chasmania

            The nuke would likely vaporize the LNG making it pointless. Now if you mean as a two stage attack, that could work.
            LNG carrier blows, then afterwards (days likely), as first responders and investigators are on site you detonated a nuclear weapon ? That would truly be a world class tragedy.
            Smaller scale versions of this happen already. Israel has had more than her fair share.

          • defcon 4

            You could release the LNG first?

  • okokok
    • 11bravo

      It was because of an internet video!!

      • okokok

        but accurate..so what? lol lol

    • Well Done

      LOL! thinking daily kos is anything like a credible source proves you a bozo.

      • okokok

        Oops… Should have used a credible source you like—like the ones that predicted a Romney landslide? Lol lol lol lol

      • defcon 4

        Just ask Eric Bell, who was expelled completely and quickly once he went off the reservation WRT his viewpoint on Islam.

  • 11bravo

    Do what you gotta do Israel. The American people will not let Obama abandon you. We will raise hell!!!

  • Minnalousha

    Iran or Iraq: Each one has taken its turn as the foremost enemy du jour for decades, and whichever one happens to be at the the top of the s’list at any given time is ALWAYS (drumroll…) 6 to 18 months away from building an atomic bomb.

    In fact, one or the other has been 6 to 18 month away from building an atomic bomb since I was in high school in the early and mid-80s

    We have always been at war with Eurasia/Eastasia/Eurasia/Eastasia/Eurasia/Eastasia/Eurasia/Eastasia….

    • defcon 4

      Who is funding/equipping Hezbollah? Quakers? Who is funding/equipping Al Qaida? Catholics? Who is funding/equipping Boko Haram? Buddhists?

      • Minnalousha

        Probably a state actor who’ll be able to build an atomic bomb sometime in the next 6 to 18 months.

  • https://www.facebook.com/duke.mantee.77 Duke Mantee

    You can’t reason with zealots.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    Most people who follow our foreign policy are consistently frustrated by the ignorance and stupidity displayed by our public servants. Even people who we think of as experts, people in think tanks, are wrong most of the time. Ronald Reagan called out his axis of evil and got results because he had a clear vision of the enemy to defeat. After him we’ve had failures from both Parties because they want to be slick and treat evil as a temporary problem, one of form and not of substance. Obama is the worst of the bad bunch because of his ideological bent. He deals with monsters as if they were traffic violators or have committed misdemeanors when they have capital crimes to answer for.

    • Theta One

      re your assessment of Obama: ‘birds of a feather flock together’ Will he be discovered in time to have him removed from office, and derail his agenda?

  • 1Indioviejo1

    Filkin is a shill for Muslim terrorist.

  • brutus

    America to jews……………………NO MORE WARS FOR JEWISH INTERESTS………NEVER AGAIN!!!!!

    • defcon 4

      No more welfare for idiots who are too lazy to work for a living.

      • brutus

        says the jew who i could buy and sell ten times over…..whosale

  • justquitnow

    If you are going to write blog posts like big articles with lots of facts, how about a single link or footnote or something? For the historical part that is…you don’t need notes when you get into your ridiculous perceptions of what is going on.

    “His address to the UN General Assembly can reasonably be read as a declaration that the US is abandoning its position as world leader.”

    Something tells me that your feelings about what Obama says or means would be the same regardless of the words. The modern hysterical ninny just thinks that saying the most extreme and nasty things they can make their argument stronger. It’s like a kid building a statue out of feces. So proud.

  • Tatiana Covington

    So…. as for those keys…. this is real cheap mass abortion and thus self-imposed genocide.

    While I just sat back and laughed and ate burgers.

  • Theta One

    If the truth could be measured on a meter that guages the soul, I think it would show that over 50% of USA citizens know that Obama is bad for the USA and the world. We are concerned about inflitration of religious intolerant life-disdaining people. We are disgusted that our president and his cabinet and bureau chiefs do not confront and act on the facts in the whole picture. Israel must do so by geographic and historical precedent, and deserves help. Many of us applaud you for shining a light on the unconscionable behavior of USA leaders. Appeasing psychopaths has not always been the American Way, though it has noteworthy resurgences, now back at a very bad time for you and us. As you point out, it extends farther back than BHO. Also, you are correct, most of us in the USA lack the knowledge to assess the total connections and reality of world situations. Due in part to the psychopath-worshipping, socialist-loving mainstream media. Also due to the US educational system having been stolen by the federal progressives and chemical socialists in the last half century. Some of us have survived it, can confront evil, and appreciate alternate news sources like yours. We are spreading the word.. Thank you Caroline. Shalom.