New Yorker reveals covert US ops in Iran

[Oliver]

So the current Administration [again] is, just like Hamas and Hezbollah, undermining another countries national security and regime. This certainly isn't new - but at least another major media outlet reports it:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

 

[Pardalis]

So the current Administration [again] is, just like Hamas and Hezbollah,

Yes, just like Hamas and Hizbollah...

Back to your old moral equivalences routine eh?

 

[Oliver]

Yes, just like Hamas and Hizbollah...

Back to your old moral equivalences routine eh?

No, I'm just pointing out all the whining I usually hear whenever I say that Iran didn't invade anyone in at least 250 years:

"But but but!!! - They are supporting Hezbollah and Hamas to undermine Israel!"

Hypocritical agenda to say undermining a Country is a good thing - if we do it. Isn't it?

 

[Pardalis]

What you have yet to understand is that "undermining" in islamic terms means "eradication".

Must be something lost in the translation.

 

[Oliver]

What you have yet to understand is that "undermining" in islamic terms means "eradication".

Must be something lost in the translation.

Your POV is lost in eradation - Ahmadinejad never said that he will destroy Israel. He clearly was pointing out that he will "Wipe the current Regime from the pages of time".

Do you even understand the difference between a regime and a country? - despite the fact that Ahmadinejad may not be re-elected in the upcoming election?

So what are you whining about ............................... Ahmadinejad ............

 

[Pardalis]

Your POV is lost in eradation - Ahmadinejad never said that he will destroy Israel. He clearly was pointing out that he will "Wipe the current Regime from the pages of time".

Do you even understand the difference between a regime and a country?

That's the thing Oliver, they don't make that distinction.

 

[Oliver]

That's the thing Oliver, they don't make that distinction.

Now you're certainly shifting into muddy "We the Rightdoers"-water...
What distinction do theynot make?

 

[Pardalis]

Please Oliver, I know you have an attention problem, but please follow the conversation:

Do you even understand the difference between a regime and a country?

That's the thing Oliver, they don't make that distinction.

 

[Oliver]

Please Oliver, I know you have an attention problem, but please follow the conversation:

That's BS. As I already said: Giving the economic circumstances, Ahmadinejad's approval ratings are as low at Bush's approval ratings. He might NOT get reelected anyway.

Does election/public opinion ring a bell?

http://www.dawn.com/2008/06/18/top10.htm :
The survey describes President Pervez Musharraf as the most unpopular leader in the world today. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is second on the list. US President George W. Bush is third.

 

[mrbaracuda]

That's BS. As I already said: Giving the economic circumstances, Ahmadinejad's approval ratings are as low at Bush's approval ratings. He might NOT get reelected anyway.

Does election/public opinion ring a bell?

You don't even know what having an instutition like the "Guardian Council" or whatever it's called means, do you? No, of course you don't. You don't know much and get most of what you think you got right wrong anyway. That's why you are being laughed at at regular intervals. No wonder you were a troofer. You have be a special kind of person to be one.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a Seymour Hersh piece, and like most of his work, it relies primarily on anonymous sources. Hersh's reliability is... questionable. Oliver, why do you think anyone should take Hersh seriously? We're already well past the point of taking you seriously.

 

[Thunder]

Oliver, what is wrong with trying to motivate and assist democratic-secular forces in an Islamic dictatorship that may be trying to develop a nuclear weapon to use against its neighbors?

Would you have also opposed covert operations against the USSR, Nazi Germany, the German Democratic Republic?

 

[plumjam]

As usual Oliver is essentially correct vis-a-vis how the real world actually works.
And, as usual, the propagandized herd moos its mostly ad hominem objections.
This might be funny (particularly as this part of the herd likes to preen itself with the adjective "skeptical") if it weren't for the fact that the issues in question have led to, and will probably lead to, hundreds of thousands of dead human beings.

Carry on though.

 

[Pardalis]

if it weren't for the fact that the issues in question have led to, and will probably lead to, hundreds of thousands of dead human beings.

By "issues" you mean religion? Then I agree with this last part.

 

[technoextreme]

As usual Oliver is essentially correct vis-a-vis how the real world actually works.
And, as usual, the propagandized herd moos its mostly ad hominem objections.
This might be funny (particularly as this part of the herd likes to preen itself with the adjective "skeptical") if it weren't for the fact that the issues in question have led to, and will probably lead to, hundreds of thousands of dead human beings.

Carry on though.

Wait that post was full of nothing but ad hoeminem and stupid appeal to emotions. It seems to be your using the same level of argument.

 

[egslim]

This is a Seymour Hersh piece, and like most of his work, it relies primarily on anonymous sources. Hersh's reliability is... questionable.

According to this, a Dutch news source, in 2004 Hersh was the first to report about abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and in 1968 the first to report about the bloodbath in My Lai.

Seems to me like he has a knack for reporting unpleasant facts about US behaviour that the US government would love to bury. It follows that if said government is even remotely competent, then they will occasionally manage to bury them, hence it is to be expected not all his stories can be proven.
So do you have any evidence of Hersh lying or misrepresenting?

As usual Oliver is essentially correct vis-a-vis how the real world actually works.

That pretty much sums it up.

Personally I care little if the US wants to play cloak and dagger in Iran, but I expect Iranians to feel different about it. Of course they'll simply return the favour. So to everyone who supports US operations in Iran: Stop wining about Iran destabilising Iraq or supporting Hezbollah. Don't play unless you're willing to pay.

The second thing to consider is cost/benefit analysis. What benefits does the US receive from operations in Iran? Do they actually influence Iranian policy? Except for providing an excuse to crack down on internal security. The intelligence may actually be useful, but other than that? Few things unite a population as effectively behind the government as a foreign threat.
I expect Iranian operations to be far more cost-effective: RPG's and AK47's are cheap. A few large shipments to Hezbollah or into Iraq can cause major complications to Israel or the US respectively. At little cost to Iran, because their allies take the casualties.

Personally I'm infinitely more worried about Pakistani nukes than about Iran obtaining them. Unlike Pakistan, Iran is stable. And while the country is a theocracy, the government is more pragmatic than many western christians.

 

[Ziggurat]

According to this, a Dutch news source, in 2004 Hersh was the first to report about abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib,

He was given photos by one of the people under investigation for the abuse, because they wanted to push the blame onto higher-ups. It was a PR move by the defense, and Hersh was a convenient vehicle because he could be counted on for an anti-government spin. It was not a coup of investigative journalism on his part, and in fact the story he wrote about it was rather deceptive.

and in 1968 the first to report about the bloodbath in My Lai.

Yes, that was a significant and important piece. It was also 40 years ago, and in the mean time, he's screwed up on more than one occassion (his Kennedy biography being a particularly laughable example).

Seems to me like he has a knack for reporting unpleasant facts about US behaviour that the US government would love to bury.

Knack, obsession, bias... call it what you will.

So do you have any evidence of Hersh lying or misrepresenting?

In this particular case? No. But that's just the thing: because his sources are primarily anonymous, there's not only no evidence that he's wrong, there's no evidence that he's right. And that's frequently a hallmark of Hersh's reporting. Which is why I don't understand why anyone still pays any attention to him. He doesn't have any credibility.

 

[egslim]

But that's just the thing: because his sources are primarily anonymous, there's not only no evidence that he's wrong, there's no evidence that he's right.

I agree, but considering this administration's past behaviour I'm not willing to dismiss such accusations as absurd. And since the operations in question would be secret, the lack of named sources is to be expected in either case.

Since the guy has a proven record of being at least occasionally right, for people who would oppose such operations that warrants an investigation.

He doesn't have any credibility.

You're the first one in this thread to explicitely place the accuracy of his accusations in doubt, so apparently the others believe Hersh has at least some credibility.

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree, but considering this administration's past behaviour I'm not willing to dismiss such accusations as absurd.

I didn't say they were absurd. They aren't. But what they are is baseless. They are without evidence, and from a source with no real claim to any particular credibility and a rather obvious political agenda. It's not exactly difficult to come up with accusations against anyone which are plausible, so plausibility should not be the standard we set for whether we get ourselves worked up about an accusation. Clearly Oliver does not agree with me on that point.

 

[plumjam]

By "issues" you mean religion? Then I agree with this last part.

huh? where did that come from?
This is the politics subforum. It shouldn't be too difficult, therefore, to conclude that by "issues" I am referring to issues to do with politics, invasions, sanctions, propaganda etc..