US and Iran

[Black Orchid]

Saudi Arabia has presented fragments of 18 drones and seven cruise missiles as “material evidence” Iran is behind the attack on the nation’s top oil field at an extraordinary press conference on Wednesday.

The Saudi Defence Ministry presented shards of missiles and drones, laid out on white cloths, in front of an audience of media and diplomats.

Colonel Turki al-Maliki said the collection, combined with analysis of the precision and direction of the attack showed it was “unquestionably sponsored by Iran.”

“The evidence ... that you have seen in front of you, makes this undeniable,” he said at a news conference.

He described the attack as “an assault on international humanity, a deliberate attempt to disrupt the global economy” and said the range of missiles showed it could “never be launched from Yemen”.

Showing the wing of a drone, he claimed data recovered from the computers was “proof” Iran was behind the attack.

He said 18 drones had been fired at the Abqauiq oil facility, while seven cruise missiles had been launched at other targets - all from a northerly direction.

The colonel said the launch points for the missiles could not be given yet but would be announced at another press conference. He said Iran’s denial had been a “false narrative”.

It comes as President Trump said he had ordered to “substantially increase” sanctions on Iran in a stark escalation of the simmering regional conflict.

Iran threatened it would retaliate against any action “immediately”, with state-run news agency IRNA saying: “If any action takes place against Iran, the action will be faced by Iran’s answer immediately.”

Officials have claimed the strike originated in southwestern Iran and its believed to have involved much more sophisticated weaponry than the Houthis have access to.

One official told Reuters neither the type of drone “nor the cruise missiles employed in the attack can reach the facilities from Yemen. It’s not possible,” the official said.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-ea ... 3fb6d7a419

[brian ross]

Briney wrote

The Houthis I agree are Sh'ites, Bogan. As to who's "bidding" they do, that remains mysterious. You appear to assume that merely being Sh'ite makes a person or a group incapable of independent action. What does that suggest about your viewpoint?

It suggests that I have a realistic viewpoint based upon my understanding of history, and a realistic appreciation of recent events. The Saudis and Iranians are ideological enemies, based up a 1300 year blood feud between the Shiites and the Sunnis over the leadership of the Muslim world. The mullahs in Iran will do anything to promote the Shiite cause. They have been arming Hezbollah with rockets, the Houthis with arms, and aiding the Shiite government of Iraq in their fight against Sunni ISIS.

Once again, you imply that I am wrong, but submit nothing to suggest that your peculiar worldview is correct.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are sectarian enemies, I agree. However, if someone is going to blow up a massive oil refinery, they need something more to goad them than an old argument which is 1300 years old, Bogan. Iran and Saudi Arabia have exchange shots in the past but they were usually as part of much greater tensions which affected Iran - Saudi Arabia was helping the Iraqis - during the Irani-Iraq war of the 1980s. The Iranians are not stupid, no matter how much you believe otherwise - they know they have much to lose if the US attacks them. Provoking a US attack needlessly, is pointless. All it does is end up with Iranians dead.

Brian wrote

Not all Theocracies are bad, Bogan. The UK is a democratic Theocracy - it's Head of State is also the Head of the Church.

Irrelevant hair splitting.

Really? IYO. IMO, I beg to differ. The UK is a theocracy. QED.

Brian wrote

The Iranians are bastards, I agree. They are a bad type of theocracy. However, they still deserve until proven otherwise, the benefit of the doubt.

That is another one of your contradictions based upon your reflexive contempt of your own western civilisation. A civilisation you prefer to live in. . Remember when you wrote this.....?

Old Brian Quote

As you said, its to whom you give the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I do not give the benefit of the doubt to any government, American, British, Soviet or Australian as far these sorts of matters are concerned.

You give the benefit of the doubt to an odious terrorism endorsing totalitarian government, that is trying to acquire nuclear weapons as a way of bringing about Armageddon? But you don't give the benefit of the doubt to democracies?

I give the benefit of the doubt to everybody, Bogan. I see the Iranian Government as the present, valid government of Iran until the Iranian people decide otherwise. I do not believe that the Iranian govenrment sponsor Terrorism in the way you attempt to portray them, Bogan. They have sponsored particular Terrorist groups - Hezbollah in Lebanon because Hezbollah is anti-Israeli and the Iranians want to strike at Israel. The Houthis are not a Terrorist group as far as I can tell - they are a national liberaiton group which is presently losing the civil in Yemen. The Saudis are supporting the Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi government against them and have declared them to be a Terrorist group for convenience. Rather like the Turks have declared the Kurds a Terrorist group.

No wonder people are voting for Trump, Brexit, and Pauline, and the Left is losing it.

Ah, that would explain why the PHONies haven't won a single seat in the House of Representatives, would it? Why el Presidente Trump has lost control of the Congress and why Brexit is proving a failure in the UK?

Brian Ross wrote

The US has a bad track record of "false flag" operations against it's opponents, in order to create a casus belli for themselves. Forgotten the Weapons of Massed Destruction case against Iraq, so quickly?

I remember Saddam Hussein doing everything he could to convince the USA that he was continuing to build nuclear weapons, in the stupid belief that the USA was full of Brian Ross clones who would do nothing about it. Naturally, your reflexive inclination is to always blame the yanks, instead of one of the world's most odious dictators who dropped poisoned gas on his own citizens. Strange way of thinking.

Actually, Saddam Hussein was playing a dangerous double game. The UN was well aware that his WMD programme was dead. Washington however used it to garner support for it's war against Iraq in 2003 - something the Bush Administration admitted to, Bogan. It was also aware that there was little likelihood of the WMD programme being intact after Gulf War I. It, like the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" are perfect examples of the US manufacturing casus bellis.

Brian wrote

I am unsure how sanctions applied by the USA would cause the Iranians to attack the Saudi Arabians, Bogan.

Well, I would not hire you are a political analyst, Brian.

I wouldn't bother applying for the job because I know you have preconceive hatreds, Bogan. Tsk, tsk.

Brian Ross wrote

Would you care to explain to us how this works? I am at a loss to understand how US sanctions would cause the Iranians to attack Saudi Arabian oil facilities which would hurt the US, how, exactly? We have seen how the US has initially responded - they have used their strategic oil reserves and I don't doubt they'll step up production of their own oil reserves. This seems a nonsensical attack to me as it could provoke the US into attacking Iran.

The US economy is geared to the world economy. If world oil prices spike because the criminal Iranian regime are sabotaging oil refineries and planting limpet mines on tankers, then that concerns the USA. Especially as Saudi Arabia is supposed to be under the protection of the US.

The US is not geared to the world oil economy, Bogan. The US is self-sufficient in oil. Attacking the Saudi oil facilities would not hurt the US economy very much at all.

Brian Ross wrote

Do you really think that the Iranians care so little for their own people that they would provoke a US "shock and awe" campaign against them?

Of course I do. They are the same religious nutters who gave teenaged boys plastic keys (to heaven) and sent them in human waves, armed with ancient Mauser bolt action rifles against massed machine guns. The country is ruled by religious fanatics from the 6th century who think that they are on a holy mission to rule the world for Allah. Perhaps if the Iranians were white, waving swastikas, and denouncing infidel "untermenschen", you might have the wit to figure out what is going on?

The Iranians had one thing in their favour over the Iraqis - manpower. The Iranians used religious fervour to improve the morale of semi-trained youths. The Iranians were only following what the French did in 1914 and the British did in 1916 and the Chinese in 1951, Bogan. Their tactics were not a failure - the human wave attacks actually worked - they invariably seized their objectives. Their failure was like the British, they had no idea of what to do next. They had no plans, no training of how they needed to move beyond their initial objective and seize the initiative and move on to create a breakthrough. They like the British fixed that - they created better training and had plans so that by the end of the Iran-Iraq war, they were likely to break through so much so, that the the Iraqis sued for peace. The Iranians, despite what you believe did care for their peoples' lives. They also agreed to peace, rather than continuing the war.

Briney wrote

As I have pointed out, you have as usual, the wrong end of the stick, Bogan. I don't hate the USA and I don't even particularly hate el Presidente' Trump.

I'll take that with a grain of salt.

You are welcome to.

Brian Ross wrote
I pity the Americans for being so foolish that they have elected an apparently bumbling fool like Trump who appears hell bent on leading them into yet another war.

If Trump wanted a war, he could have used the shooting down of their most expensive and advanced drone to do just that. The bombers were bombed up and ready to go. But he stopped the mission because he knew that he would be playing into the mullahs hands. The mullahs want a war, the Americans don't. But the USA is not going put up with the Iranian mullahs provocations forever.

You can believe that if you wish, Bogan however, I take it with a grain, nay a handful of salt.

Trump claimed that. In reality, we don't know what el Presidente' Trump was advised. We only have his version of events that Trump has created. It is like his claims he visited Ground Zero in New York when the WTC was hit by hijacked planes. Funny, no one remembers him being there...

Brian Ross wrote

We have seen how American war making works in Afghanistan and Iraq. It benefits no one, not even the USA.

Trump agrees with that. But there are dangerous regimes around the world who either do want to provoke a war, seek world domination, or who engage in dangerous brinkmanship to gain economic concessions from the west. The USA is the only military force capable of making these aggressive regimes think twice. And you think that is just awful? What is wrong with your brain?

Nothing. It is like the claims by Washington about how the Communists were hellbent on invading Western Europe or South Vietnam or Indonesia or where ever. It is like the claims that Iraq had WMDs, or other things like that. It is all bullshit, Bogan and the fact you steadily consume and accept that bullshit is a worry. A real worry.

Brian Ross wrote

Yet it appears that the US is quite willing to allow a "terrorist promoting government to get hold of nuclear weapons," in the form of Israel and Pakistan. It actively encouraged Pakistan's bomb making efforts in the 1980s. It has turned a blind eye to the Israeli efforts over the last 50+ years. You don't see a contradiction between what you claim and what has actually happened, Bogan or is that impossible in your blind allegiance to a foreign power like the US?

I understand Israel's need for nuclear weapons as it is surrounded by enemies who are sworn to exterminate Israel.
[/quote]

You mean the counties that have, with the exception of Syria and Saudi Arabia, all concluded peace treaties with Israel? The wars against Israel are well in the past. The last one was in 1973. That is nearly fifty years ago now.

And the Jews know what that means. I do not in any way regard Israel as a terrorism promoting government.

Ah, so the bomb campaigns initiated by Mossad don't get classified by you as Terrorism, Bogan? They had bombs in London, Rome, Berlin, Cairo, Damascus, etc. They killed people with bombs. Indeed, their very state was created on the back of a Terrorist campaign.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the USA was happy to see Pakistan get an "Islamic bomb," much less help the Pakis to obtain one. I Look forward to another one of your comical conspiracy theories.

Under el Presidente Reagan, his government turned a blind eye to Pakistan bomb making efforts. They relaxed Pakistani debts, which allowed the Pakistanis to spend more money on their bomb. It was touted as the "Islamic Bomb" at the time, despite them never giving it to any other Islamic nation. This is not a conspiracy, this is facts, Bogan. Look it up.

Briney wrote

Gee, how well is that plan working? Can't see any attempt at that occurring.

The mullahs can. So, just like Galtieri, Amin, and Hussein, they think a war will unite the people behind them.

Excepte as each of those cases, plus Sukarno has showed, it failed dismally to have that effect. It invariably led to their overthrow , Bogan.

Brine wrote.

What makes you think that Iran would trust any Terrorist group to have it's rather precious Nuclear Weapons (which BTW it is still very much in the early stages of enriching the Uranium for)? Terrorist groups have their own allegiances and it usually isn't anything except face value to Tehran. Nuclear weapons being given freely to Terrorist groups? In yours and el Presidente Trump and the other Hawks in Washington's imaginations perhaps

.

Because the mullahs are religious nutters from the 6th century with a holy mission to rule the world. So, you trust these nutters more than you trust a democratically elected President, who was elected by the deplorable Kulaks in America, over the objections of the US Establishment aristocracy.

History it littered with examples of US el Presidente' who were loonies. Being democratically elected does not make a person any more trustworthy than a person being a "mad Mullah" must automatically be untrustworthy. Be it Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior or junior or Trump - all of them have proved they are willing to thrust the world into war.

Brian wrote

In reality, I'd rather that no one had nuclear weapons, Bogan. Be it Moscow, Beijing, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, New Delhi, Islamabad or Tehran or Washington

So would I. But wishful thinking is hardly rational thinking.

There is nothing wrong with wishful thinking as long as it is recognised as such.

Brian wrote

Hindsight is a wonderful asset, isn't it, Bogan? Roosevelt actually didn't break any US laws.

My understanding of history is that he did. But that would put a different perspective on your idea that if a President breaks US law, then that must be judged absolutely reprehensible. If Roosevelt had not broken US law, Hitler would have won WW2. There was even a 1941 "Eric Snowdon", a diplomatic cipher clerk who was so outraged at Roosevelt's deliberate attempts to break US neutrality and get the US involved in the war, that he leaked secret messages between Washington and London to the press.

Immaterial. Roosevelt used an executive agreement that did not require Congressional approval. What the cypher clerk believed and what the US Government believed were too different things, as was what Congress believed. Roosevelt won the election in 1940. The American people believed in him. QED.

Brian Ross wrote

He did a "deal" - something Trump is supposedly a master of although we haven't seen any real evidence of that, yet - he agreed to supply the Destroyers - which had all been declared "obsolete" by the US Navy - in exchange for US access to bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean. Hardly a bad case, considering resistance to the deal was basically overcome by events in Europe and a national election (which Roosevelt won BTW), I think your views are nonsensical. The US is not facing a similar situation now. Executive actions by the Presidency have long been a subject for debate in the US, hence the passing of the War Powers Act in 1975 which removed those powers from the Presidency...

Which shows the value of keeping barely "obsolete" ships in case there is a war and you need them.

They were well obsolete by 1940, Bogan. The British used them but they were mainly had little in the way of ASW gear beyond some depth charges.

Brian Ross wrote

How about you talk about the times the US Administration has broken it's own legislation which forbid it to do the things I mentioned? Or are they too difficult for even you to justify?

It depends on what they are. I don't have an Absolutist mindset like you, where you demand absolutist positions, and can not recognise your own contradictions when you break the absolute rules you insist that everybody else should abide by.
[/quote]

I don't have an absolutist mindset. I have a legal mindset, Bogan. The US Administrations have often broken US laws. Funny that.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

Iran and Saudi Arabia are sectarian enemies, I agree. However, if someone is going to blow up a massive oil refinery, they need something more to goad them than an old argument which is 1300 years old, Bogan. Iran and Saudi Arabia have exchange shots in the past but they were usually as part of much greater tensions which affected Iran - Saudi Arabia was helping the Iraqis - during the Irani-Iraq war of the 1980s.

I completely disagree. Even minor religious differences between sects have resulted in some of the worst wars in history, where entire populations of innocent people were butchered, just for belonging to the wrong sect. One only has to look at the religious wars in Europe to see that your claim is a nonsense. The schism between Shiites and Sunnis is very real. ISIS was all about Sunnis refusing to be subject to Shiite control, and they killed any Shiite man they could get their hands on. Meanwhile, in Shiite Baghdad, Shiite roadblocks stopped cars on the street and any man who had a car license with a typically Sunni name was dragged out and summarily shot dead.

Brian Ross wrote

The Iranians are not stupid, no matter how much you believe otherwise - they know they have much to lose if the US attacks them. Provoking a US attack needlessly, is pointless. All it does is end up with Iranians dead.

The Iranian religious leaders most certainly are stupid. If they were smart, they would not be Muslims. President John Kennedy's famous speech where he said "we are all members of this planet, we all want what is best for our children, we all breath the same air", does not apply to the religious leaders of the fascist Islamic faith. "What is best for our children" can read as "killing infidels so that you and 62 of your family members will enter heaven if you die fighting for Islam."

You are incredible. The Iranians are planting limpet mines on tankers and everybody knows it, but you deny it. They shot down a US drone in international waters and very nearly sparked a war with the USA, only to have President Trump call off the retaliatory attack because he did not want to start a war over a lost drone. Yet you seem to think it is Trump who is the warmonger? A President who was critical of US overseas deployments and wars that was killing the US economy? Lastly, the Houthis have launched cruise missile attacks on that Saudi Oil refinery, the Saudis know it wasn't Hobbyking who provided the drones. But you want to run interference for one of the world's most dangerous and psychotic regimes?

An ability to suspend rational thought appears to be mandatory in being a western leftist.

Brian Ross wrote

I give the benefit of the doubt to everybody, Bogan.

To begin with, I have a quote from you that says the exact opposite.

Brian Ross wrote

I see the Iranian Government as the present, valid government of Iran until the Iranian people decide otherwise.

The Iranian people can not say otherwise because they can not vote for a different government. How can any sane person actually write the rubbish you are writing and actually believe it? 'Debating" with you is just like debating with Creationists. I submit a rational, reasoned argument, and they just come right out and make the most crazy statements which they actually believe, because the Bible says it, and that's that.

Brian Ross wrote

I do not believe that the Iranian government sponsor Terrorism in the way you attempt to portray them, Bogan. They have sponsored particular Terrorist groups - Hezbollah in Lebanon because Hezbollah is anti-Israeli and the Iranians want to strike at Israel. The Houthis are not a Terrorist group as far as I can tell - they are a national liberation group which is presently losing the civil in Yemen. The Saudis are supporting the Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi government against them and have declared them to be a Terrorist group for convenience. Rather like the Turks have declared the Kurds a Terrorist group.

One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter. But as far as I am concerned, any Muslim fighting for Allah in order to spread Islam by force is a terrorist. The present crisis is entirely the fault of the mullahs in Iran who want to spread Islam by force and who are trying to get atomic weapons to do just that. If they were Catholics you would be hopping up and down in red faced apoplexy.

Brian Ross wrote

Ah, that would explain why the PHONies haven't won a single seat in the House of Representatives, would it?

If Australia has an election where One Nation gets 12% of the vote and gets no seats, and The Greens get 8% and get six seats, then no wonder the redneck, deplorable, kulaks did not hand their guns in.

Brian Ross wrote

Why el Presidente Trump has lost control of the Congress and why Brexit is proving a failure in the UK?

You are completely missing the point. The whole white, western world is turning away from leftism because you lefties have made a real mess of things. The Democrats have gone so far to the Left that they are in danger of splitting their party vote. Exactly like what happened to Labor in Australia where one section of the party still represents working people, while the other represents the urban elites with their trendy causes. Former Labor leader Mark Latham is now working for One Nation.

The situation with Brexit is extremely interesting. The next election, which will have to be held sooner or later, will see just which side is winning the ideological war. The next election will be a Brexit referenda by default. My prediction is, that those Labor politicians who are blocking Brexit are going to be hurled from office for their treason against their own electors. Because it is the very same northern Labor heartland electorates who voted for Brexit. You lefties have lost the white working class.

Brian Ross wrote

Actually, Saddam Hussein was playing a dangerous double game. The UN was well aware that his WMD programme was dead. Washington however used it to garner support for it's war against Iraq in 2003 - something the Bush Administration admitted to, Bogan. It was also aware that there was little likelihood of the WMD programme being intact after Gulf War I. It, like the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" are perfect examples of the US manufacturing casus bellis

You appear to believe that the USA just wants to go to war with somebody so that it can have thousands of casualties, and lose trillions of dollars, just for the fun of it? And they manufacture crises to ensure it happens? Hey Brian! It isn't the USA planting limpet mines on supertankers, shooting IRBM's over Japan, or building man made islands in the South China Sea and filling them up with SAM's and anti shipping cruise missiles. Yet you reflexively attack the USA, and avert your eyes when it comes to seeing who the real villains are.

Brian Ross wrote

The Iranians had one thing in their favour over the Iraqis - manpower.

The Iraqi's had one thing in their favour, the US reconnaissance satellites.

Brian Ross wrote

The Iranians used religious fervour to improve the morale of semi-trained youths. The Iranians were only following what the French did in 1914 and the British did in 1916 and the Chinese in 1951, Bogan. Their tactics were not a failure - the human wave attacks actually worked - they invariably seized their objectives. Their failure was like the British, they had no idea of what to do next. They had no plans, no training of how they needed to move beyond their initial objective and seize the initiative and move on to create a breakthrough. They like the British fixed that - they created better training and had plans so that by the end of the Iran-Iraq war, they were likely to break through so much so, that the the Iraqis sued for peace. The Iranians, despite what you believe did care for their peoples' lives. They also agreed to peace, rather than continuing the war

.

At least you have confirmed that dumb, absolutist mindset religious nutters have exactly the same mindsets as dumb, absolutist mindset socialists, they never learn from history. The only reason Iran and Iraq agreed to peace, was because the war was an eight year stalemate which was hurting both sides for no gain. Which was exactly what the USA wanted. With Iran and Iraq fighting each other, the pair of them did not have the resources to provoke trouble elsewhere.

Brian Ross wrote

Nothing. It is like the claims by Washington about how the Communists were hellbent on invading Western Europe or South Vietnam or Indonesia or where ever. It is like the claims that Iraq had WMDs, or other things like that. It is all bullshit, Bogan and the fact you steadily consume and accept that bullshit is a worry. A real worry

It only proves that for a certain amount of time, the US government was largely in the control of right wing absolutist mindset versions of you.

Brian Ross wrote

You mean the counties that have, with the exception of Syria and Saudi Arabia, all concluded peace treaties with Israel? The wars against Israel are well in the past. The last one was in 1973. That is nearly fifty years ago now.

Brian, 55% of the electors in Egypt recently voted for a fundamentalist government. That government was deposed by the Armed Forces, but the anti Israel sentiment is still there. How long the Armed Forces can remain in power needs to be seen. But Egypt came very close to having an elected regime that would have been extremely hostile to Israel, and armed with M1A2 tanks and F-16 fighters.

Brian Ross wrote

Ah, so the bomb campaigns initiated by Mossad don't get classified by you as Terrorism, Bogan? They had bombs in London, Rome, Berlin, Cairo, Damascus, etc. They killed people with bombs. Indeed, their very state was created on the back of a Terrorist campaign.

Double standard, Brian. That was fifty years ago, too.

Brian Ross wrote

Under el Presidente Reagan, his government turned a blind eye to Pakistan bomb making efforts. They relaxed Pakistani debts, which allowed the Pakistanis to spend more money on their bomb. It was touted as the "Islamic Bomb" at the time, despite them never giving it to any other Islamic nation. This is not a conspiracy, this is facts, Bogan. Look it up.

I looked up "climate change" and "the stolen generations" and figured out it was all crap. I won't bother looking up your latest ridiculous assertion because it just does not make sense. The USA has no reason to want an "Islamic bomb." The USA has immense good reason to fear an 'Islamic bomb."

Brian Ross wrote

Excepte as each of those cases, plus Sukarno has showed, it failed dismally to have that effect. It invariably led to their overthrow , Bogan

That is because totalitarians, with their absolutist mindsets, can never learn from history. Just like you and your mindset, Brian.

Brian Ross wrote

History it littered with examples of US el Presidente' who were loonies. Being democratically elected does not make a person any more trustworthy than a person being a "mad Mullah" must automatically be untrustworthy. Be it Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior or junior or Trump - all of them have proved they are willing to thrust the world into war

My take is that US Presidents realised that totalitarianism was wrong and democracy was right. And they took steps to keep the world safe from totalitarians. This meant being realistic and doing deals with the devils if they had too. They made mistakes by not understanding that some populations are so stupid that they would actually want to be ruled by totalitarians. The chastened populations from many of those countries now clamour to enter the USA, legally or illegally. In South America the slogans used to be "Yankee go home!" Now it is, "Yankee, we want to live with you in your home, whether you like it or not!"

Brian Ross wrote

Immaterial. Roosevelt used an executive agreement that did not require Congressional approval. What the cypher clerk believed and what the US Government believed were too different things, as was what Congress believed. Roosevelt won the election in 1940. The American people believed in him. QED.

Which is another way of saying that he broke the law, but the American people did not give a damn, especially after they were bombed into the war anyway.

Brian Ross wrote

They were well obsolete by 1940, Bogan. The British used them but they were mainly had little in the way of ASW gear beyond some depth charges

They were so obsolete that if they been scrapped, Britain would have been knocked out of the war and Hitler would have won. THAT is how critical even "obsolete" weapons can be, especially in second line duties.

Brian Ross wrote

I don't have an absolutist mindset. I have a legal mindset, Bogan. The US Administrations have often broken US laws. Funny that

Then you should be condemning those "Extinction Rebellion" morons who super glue themselves to roadways and block traffic. But you do not. Funny that.

[brian ross]

Disputing Trump Claims, Japan Says No Evidence Iran Was Behind Saudi Attack

[brian ross]

Brian Ross wrote

Iran and Saudi Arabia are sectarian enemies, I agree. However, if someone is going to blow up a massive oil refinery, they need something more to goad them than an old argument which is 1300 years old, Bogan. Iran and Saudi Arabia have exchange shots in the past but they were usually as part of much greater tensions which affected Iran - Saudi Arabia was helping the Iraqis - during the Irani-Iraq war of the 1980s.

I completely disagree. Even minor religious differences between sects have resulted in some of the worst wars in history, where entire populations of innocent people were butchered, just for belonging to the wrong sect. One only has to look at the religious wars in Europe to see that your claim is a nonsense. The schism between Shiites and Sunnis is very real. ISIS was all about Sunnis refusing to be subject to Shiite control, and they killed any Shiite man they could get their hands on. Meanwhile, in Shiite Baghdad, Shiite roadblocks stopped cars on the street and any man who had a car license with a typically Sunni name was dragged out and summarily shot dead.

Minor disagreements only make for a war when you have adjoining borders, Bogan. Guess what Saudi Arabia and Iran don't have?

Brian Ross wrote

The Iranians are not stupid, no matter how much you believe otherwise - they know they have much to lose if the US attacks them. Provoking a US attack needlessly, is pointless. All it does is end up with Iranians dead.

The Iranian religious leaders most certainly are stupid. If they were smart, they would not be Muslims. President John Kennedy's famous speech where he said "we are all members of this planet, we all want what is best for our children, we all breath the same air", does not apply to the religious leaders of the fascist Islamic faith. "What is best for our children" can read as "killing infidels so that you and 62 of your family members will enter heaven if you die fighting for Islam."

I thought the standard claim from Islamophobes was that it was 72 others.

Oh, well, leaving that aside for the moment, you are showing your Islamophobia again, Bogan. Tsk, tsk, such a pointless hatred of people who you've never even met.

You are incredible. The Iranians are planting limpet mines on tankers and everybody knows it, but you deny it. They shot down a US drone in international waters and very nearly sparked a war with the USA, only to have President Trump call off the retaliatory attack because he did not want to start a war over a lost drone. Yet you seem to think it is Trump who is the warmonger? A President who was critical of US overseas deployments and wars that was killing the US economy? Lastly, the Houthis have launched cruise missile attacks on that Saudi Oil refinery, the Saudis know it wasn't Hobbyking who provided the drones. But you want to run interference for one of the world's most dangerous and psychotic regimes?

We have claimed evidence that the Iranians are setting limpet mines on tankers. There is no way to verify that, Bogan. Just as there is no evidence that Trump called it off 'cause he doesn't like war. Get back to us when you have incontrovertible evidence to prove it.

An ability to suspend rational thought appears to be mandatory in being a western Rightes.

Brian Ross wrote

I see the Iranian Government as the present, valid government of Iran until the Iranian people decide otherwise.

The Iranian people can not say otherwise because they can not vote for a different government.

True but they can hold a revolution, Bogan. There are many different ways to change who is the government.

Brian Ross wrote

I do not believe that the Iranian government sponsor Terrorism in the way you attempt to portray them, Bogan. They have sponsored particular Terrorist groups - Hezbollah in Lebanon because Hezbollah is anti-Israeli and the Iranians want to strike at Israel. The Houthis are not a Terrorist group as far as I can tell - they are a national liberation group which is presently losing the civil in Yemen. The Saudis are supporting the Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi government against them and have declared them to be a Terrorist group for convenience. Rather like the Turks have declared the Kurds a Terrorist group.

One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter.

Really? I thought all right wingers had abandoned that idea when el Presidente' Bush declared that it was no longer valid and that "yer either wit' us or agin us."

But as far as I am concerned, any Muslim fighting for Allah in order to spread Islam by force is a terrorist. The present crisis is entirely the fault of the mullahs in Iran who want to spread Islam by force and who are trying to get atomic weapons to do just that. If they were Catholics you would be hopping up and down in red faced apoplexy.

Except there is no evidence of that. They defended themselves against the Iraqis who started the Iran-Iraq war by invading Iran but apart from that, they have not acted aggressively against any other nation except Israel. Why doesn't reality match your views, Bogan?

Brian Ross wrote

Ah, that would explain why the PHONies haven't won a single seat in the House of Representatives, would it?

If Australia has an election where One Nation gets 12% of the vote and gets no seats, and The Greens get 8% and get six seats, then no wonder the redneck, deplorable, kulaks did not hand their guns in.

Why do you keep using language which has never been used in Australia, Bogan? Isn't 'strine good enough for you? Tsk, tsk.

Brian Ross wrote

Why el Presidente Trump has lost control of the Congress and why Brexit is proving a failure in the UK?

You are completely missing the point. The whole white, western world is turning away from leftism because you lefties have made a real mess of things. The Democrats have gone so far to the Left that they are in danger of splitting their party vote. Exactly like what happened to Labor in Australia where one section of the party still represents working people, while the other represents the urban elites with their trendy causes. Former Labor leader Mark Latham is now working for One Nation.

Latham was unemployed (and unemployable except by the PHONies). The fact the PHONies are lagging behind all the other parties about working out how representative democracy works in Australia is their fault, no one else's. That the Greens have worked it out is admirable IMO. If you want to play in the big kid's playground you have to appreciate that it has rules the big kids understand and accept, Bogan.

The situation with Brexit is extremely interesting. The next election, which will have to be held sooner or later, will see just which side is winning the ideological war. The next election will be a Brexit referenda by default. My prediction is, that those Labor politicians who are blocking Brexit are going to be hurled from office for their treason against their own electors. Because it is the very same northern Labor heartland electorates who voted for Brexit. You lefties have lost the white working class.

Brexit is interesting. You have the present Prime Minister Boris Johnson proroguing Parliament, to prevent Parliament exercising it's power to prevent him from creating a no-deal Brexit, just as it had with May when she was PM. Remember, Parliament is sovereign. It determines who will be monarch, it determines the monarchs powers, it determines everything the UK politically. Johnson does not even have the support of his own party. He cannot call an election. If he ever manages it, I don't doubt some Labor members will lose their seats, just as some Tories will. He himself might lose his own seat. Labor however might win it. They appear to have the real interests of the UK in their hearts, unlike the Tories who want to sell it to the highest bidder.

Brian Ross wrote

Actually, Saddam Hussein was playing a dangerous double game. The UN was well aware that his WMD programme was dead. Washington however used it to garner support for it's war against Iraq in 2003 - something the Bush Administration admitted to, Bogan. It was also aware that there was little likelihood of the WMD programme being intact after Gulf War I. It, like the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" are perfect examples of the US manufacturing casus bellis

You appear to believe that the USA just wants to go to war with somebody so that it can have thousands of casualties, and lose trillions of dollars, just for the fun of it? And they manufacture crises to ensure it happens?

Nope. It is willing to go to war because it likes to be paramount in the world and it cannot afford to allow any substantial power to challenge it. It is one reason why it was so upset at the New Zealand anti-nuclear stance - they feared that allowing NZ the right to refuse entry to nuclear powers/armed ships would open the floodgates and allow other powers to do so, so they came down particularly hard of the Kiwis. So much for independence, hey?

They manufacture crises because it allows them to play the victim to the American people who must be, by now, well aware of the lies they are told by successive el Presidentes to garner their support for their latest piece of military adventurism. Well, we have seen how well those lies tell out, hey. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. All supported by foolish lies.

Brian Ross wrote

The Iranians had one thing in their favour over the Iraqis - manpower.

The Iraqi's had one thing in their favour, the US reconnaissance satellites.

True but in the end, even that didn't help, nor the US military's help in planning and executing the Iraq chemical strikes against the Kurds or the Iranians.

Brian Ross wrote

The Iranians used religious fervour to improve the morale of semi-trained youths. The Iranians were only following what the French did in 1914 and the British did in 1916 and the Chinese in 1951, Bogan. Their tactics were not a failure - the human wave attacks actually worked - they invariably seized their objectives. Their failure was like the British, they had no idea of what to do next. They had no plans, no training of how they needed to move beyond their initial objective and seize the initiative and move on to create a breakthrough. They like the British fixed that - they created better training and had plans so that by the end of the Iran-Iraq war, they were likely to break through so much so, that the the Iraqis sued for peace. The Iranians, despite what you believe did care for their peoples' lives. They also agreed to peace, rather than continuing the war

.

At least you have confirmed that dumb, absolutist mindset religious nutters have exactly the same mindsets as dumb, absolutist mindset socialists, they never learn from history. The only reason Iran and Iraq agreed to peace, was because the war was an eight year stalemate which was hurting both sides for no gain. Which was exactly what the USA wanted. With Iran and Iraq fighting each other, the pair of them did not have the resources to provoke trouble elsewhere.

Except the Iranians did have the ability to strike at Saudi Arabia, which they did - they provoked riots in Mecca during the Haj, they fired missiles at the Saudi oil refineries on the coast, they attacked Kuwaiti and Saudi oil tankers...

And what happened when they ceased to fight one another? The Iraqis turned on the Kuwaitis who they claimed were stealing their oil. What did the Iranians do again? Oh, basically nothing, right?

Brian Ross wrote

Nothing. It is like the claims by Washington about how the Communists were hellbent on invading Western Europe or South Vietnam or Indonesia or where ever. It is like the claims that Iraq had WMDs, or other things like that. It is all bullshit, Bogan and the fact you steadily consume and accept that bullshit is a worry. A real worry

It only proves that for a certain amount of time, the US government was largely in the control of right wing absolutist mindset versions of you.

Don't you mean, like yourself, Bogan? You're the one who likes to say the US does nothing wrong, right?

Brian Ross wrote

You mean the counties that have, with the exception of Syria and Saudi Arabia, all concluded peace treaties with Israel? The wars against Israel are well in the past. The last one was in 1973. That is nearly fifty years ago now.

Brian, 55% of the electors in Egypt recently voted for a fundamentalist government.

Actually, it was only ~52%, Bogan.

However, leaving that aside for the moment, 2011 when Mohammed Morsi was elected, was followed in June 2013, with protests calling for Morsi's resignation erupted. The military, backed by the political opposition and leading religious figures, stepped in and deposed Morsi in a coup. It appears the Egyptian people didn't like the outcome of the 2011 election, Bogan,

That government was deposed by the Armed Forces, but the anti Israel sentiment is still there.

Is it? When did the Egyptians last trade shots with the Israelis over their common border, Bogan? I'm genuinely interested to see whether you know.

How long the Armed Forces can remain in power needs to be seen. But Egypt came very close to having an elected regime that would have been extremely hostile to Israel, and armed with M1A2 tanks and F-16 fighters.

Yet Mohammed Morsi didn't indicate that he was hostile to Israel when in power. Funny that, isn't it?

Brian Ross wrote

Ah, so the bomb campaigns initiated by Mossad don't get classified by you as Terrorism, Bogan? They had bombs in London, Rome, Berlin, Cairo, Damascus, etc. They killed people with bombs. Indeed, their very state was created on the back of a Terrorist campaign.

Double standard, Brian. That was fifty years ago, too.

I thought that was immaterial? A Terrorist is a Terrorist according to el Presidente' Bush.

Brian Ross wrote

Under el Presidente Reagan, his government turned a blind eye to Pakistan bomb making efforts. They relaxed Pakistani debts, which allowed the Pakistanis to spend more money on their bomb. It was touted as the "Islamic Bomb" at the time, despite them never giving it to any other Islamic nation. This is not a conspiracy, this is facts, Bogan. Look it up.

I looked up "climate change" and "the stolen generations" and figured out it was all crap. I won't bother looking up your latest ridiculous assertion because it just does not make sense. The USA has no reason to want an "Islamic bomb." The USA has immense good reason to fear an 'Islamic bomb."

Spoken by a person with a non-Absolutist mindset, hey, Bogan?

Brian Ross wrote

Excepte as each of those cases, plus Sukarno has showed, it failed dismally to have that effect. It invariably led to their overthrow , Bogan

That is because totalitarians, with their absolutist mindsets, can never learn from history. Just like you and your mindset, Brian.

And according to you, what sort of government rules in Tehran again, Bogan?

Brian Ross wrote

History is littered with examples of US el Presidente' who were loonies. Being democratically elected does not make a person any more trustworthy than a person being a "mad Mullah" must automatically be untrustworthy. Be it Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior or junior or Trump - all of them have proved they are willing to thrust the world into war

My take is that US Presidents realised that totalitarianism was wrong and democracy was right. And they took steps to keep the world safe from totalitarians.

Don't you mean "their sort of democracy was right..."? The US has overthrown democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatamala, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua. It seems it only likes one sort of democratically elected government - one that is favourable to it's wishes/desires/needs.

Brian Ross wrote

Immaterial. Roosevelt used an executive agreement that did not require Congressional approval. What the cypher clerk believed and what the US Government believed were too different things, as was what Congress believed. Roosevelt won the election in 1940. The American people believed in him. QED.

Which is another way of saying that he broke the law, but the American people did not give a damn, especially after they were bombed into the war anyway.

It was never tested, Bogan. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? The history books vindicated Roosevelt's deal. QED.

It has never vindicated the more reason efforts of various US Administrations. Indeed, it appears to have condemned them in Vietnam, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

Minor disagreements only make for a war when you have adjoining borders, Bogan. Guess what Saudi Arabia and Iran don't have?

The schism between Shiites and Sunnis is hardly "minor" Brian. It has been going on for 1300 very bloody years.

Brian Ross wrote

Oh, well, leaving that aside for the moment, you are showing your Islamophobia again, Bogan. Tsk, tsk, such a pointless hatred of people who you've never even met.

How many KKK members and Nazis have you met, Brian?

Brian Ross wrote

We have claimed evidence that the Iranians are setting limpet mines on tankers. There is no way to verify that, Bogan. Just as there is no evidence that Trump called it off 'cause he doesn't like war. Get back to us when you have incontrovertible evidence to prove it.

I saw with my own eyes, the TV footage of Iranian gunboats removing unexploded limpet mines from a tanker hull. They were obviously removing the evidence. Your implication that the odious mullahs are just nice guys who just want world peace, while the nasty Americans under Trump are clamouring for war, is too stupid for words. But please keep it up, it helps to destroy your credibility with anyone capable of reasoned thought.

Brian Ross wrote

True but they can hold a revolution, Bogan. There are many different ways to change who is the government

Your premise implies, that the mullahs regime is legitimate, becasue if it was not, the Iranian people would simply hold a revolution? Congratulations Brian. You just legitimised every totalitarian regime that ever existed. And it does not take into account the fact that rebelling against brutal totalitarians is not considered a healthy pastime.

This YouTube video came under the heading of "Political executions in Iran."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO4br72y ... 1569019406

Brian Ross wrote

Really? I thought all right wingers had abandoned that idea when el Presidente' Bush declared that it was no longer valid and that "yer either wit' us or agin us

I have no idea what this particular implication means. Could you please write in specifics instead of implications?

Brian Ross wrote

Except there is no evidence of that. They defended themselves against the Iraqis who started the Iran-Iraq war by invading Iran but apart from that, they have not acted aggressively against any other nation except Israel. Why doesn't reality match your views, Bogan?

The Saudis would strongly disagree with that premise. So would the nations who's tankers are being targeted by Iranian gunboats with Iranian limpet mines. The Japanese were so alarmed at Iranian behaviour that the Prime Minister of Japan personally visited Iran to politely ask the Iranians to cool it. While he was on his state visit, his Iranian hosts politely planted a limpet mine on a Japanese tanker in the Gulf of Hormuz. So solly.

Brian Ross wrote

Why do you keep using language which has never been used in Australia, Bogan? Isn't 'strine good enough for you? Tsk, tsk

it is a way of imparting an important fact into your near empty head. That even internationally, the usual victims of your European socialist utopias have much in common. They are the white rural working class people that the elitist class despises, and who in the USA and Australia, won't give up their guns.

Brian Ross wrote

Latham was unemployed (and unemployable except by the PHONies). The fact the PHONies are lagging behind all the other parties about working out how representative democracy works in Australia is their fault, no one else's. That the Greens have worked it out is admirable IMO. If you want to play in the big kid's playground you have to appreciate that it has rules the big kids understand and accept, Bogan

That particular election, and the antics following brexit in the UK, showed the white working class people and the white lower middle class people just how the establishment insiders from both the Right and the Left have gamed the system to effectively disenfranchise them.

Brian Ross wrote

Brexit is interesting. You have the present Prime Minister Boris Johnson proroguing Parliament, to prevent Parliament exercising it's power to prevent him from creating a no-deal Brexit, just as it had with May when she was PM. Remember, Parliament is sovereign. It determines who will be monarch, it determines the monarchs powers, it determines everything the UK politically. Johnson does not even have the support of his own party. He cannot call an election. If he ever manages it, I don't doubt some Labor members will lose their seats, just as some Tories will. He himself might lose his own seat. Labor however might win it. They appear to have the real interests of the UK in their hearts, unlike the Tories who want to sell it to the highest bidder.

Nice bit of legalistic misdirection there, Brian.

The over riding fact is this. Three years after the brexiteers won a referenda instructing their own parliamentarians to get their country the hell out of Europe, the leadership of the main political parties have conspired together to frustrate the people's majority will. This is because the political leadership of so many western countries have become a ruling class aristocracy who put the interests of their own class, above that of the people they are supposed to represent. The next election in the UK will be an extremely interesting one. Nigel Farage's stunning win for his Brexit Party in the recent European elections is a portent of things to come.

Brian Ross wrote

Nope. It is willing to go to war because it likes to be paramount in the world and it cannot afford to allow any substantial power to challenge it.

It is funny how you can make such a charge against the USA, which is a democracy. The leader of the free world, who's inventiveness has done so much to create the modern world, and with bases all over the world because it has a lot of friends all over the world. But you refuse to make the same charge against the Iranian mullahs, who hang children like that 16 year old girl "for crimes against chastity", who's Islamic faith demands war to spread Islam, who's only contribution to world technology was the invention of the suicide truck bomber, and who's only friends in the world are the worst examples of backwards Islamic savagery.

Brian Ross wrote

It is one reason why it was so upset at the New Zealand anti-nuclear stance - they feared that allowing NZ the right to refuse entry to nuclear powers/armed ships would open the floodgates and allow other powers to do so, so they came down particularly hard of the Kiwis. So much for independence, hey

New Zealand is probably the safest country in the world from foreign invasion because of it's geographic isolation. It is a perfect example of how people can get all theatrical about a moral question when they know it does not affect them personally. It's behaviour is akin to an adolescent who rails against parental authority and acts out, safe in the knowledge that whatever trouble he or she gets into, mummy and daddy will come to their rescue.

Brian Ross wrote

They manufacture crises because it allows them to play the victim to the American people who must be, by now, well aware of the lies they are told by successive el Presidentes to garner their support for their latest piece of military adventurism. Well, we have seen how well those lies tell out, hey. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. All supported by foolish lies.

Reality check to Brian Ross. THE USA is not building man made islands in the south china sea and declaring it's intention to demand that foreign ships and aircraft identify themselves before transiting "their" ocean. The USA is not planting limpet mines on tankers in the Straight of Hormuz. The USA is not shooting IRBM's over Japan or threatening Australia with a nuclear strike. The USA is not firing cruise missiles into Saudi oil refineries. The USA does not need to manufacture crises because there are plenty of nut case totalitarians around the world, who you are an apologist for, who are happy to do just that.

Brian Ross wrote

Except the Iranians did have the ability to strike at Saudi Arabia, which they did - they provoked riots in Mecca during the Haj, they fired missiles at the Saudi oil refineries on the coast, they attacked Kuwaiti and Saudi oil tankers...

But now you are claiming that they could not be doing exactly what they have previously done before?

"But Captain, that is illogical."

Brian Ross wrote

And what happened when they ceased to fight one another? The Iraqis turned on the Kuwaitis who they claimed were stealing their oil. What did the Iranians do again? Oh, basically nothing, right

Which means what?????? Talk in specifics, not implications.

Brian Ross wrote

Don't you mean, like yourself, Bogan? You're the one who likes to say the US does nothing wrong, right

No Brian, I have never said that. I opposed the USA when I thought it was doing something foolish, the same way you and I would oppose the actions of a friend who was doing something foolish. Fifty years ago, I was convinced that the USA was largely in the control of well meaning but extremist, right wing authoritarians who assassinated their own President to prosecute the Vietnam war. And because Kennedy was perceived as being "soft on communism." The youth rebellions in the USA and Australia were a consequence of that right wing extremism and their policies of conscription, so western societies went steadily to the political Left. But now the political pendulum has swung so far to the Left, that it is the Left who are full of well meaning but extremist authoritarians who are trying to assassinate democracy and free speech.

Brian Ross wrote

However, leaving that aside for the moment, 2011 when Mohammed Morsi was elected, was followed in June 2013, with protests calling for Morsi's resignation erupted. The military, backed by the political opposition and leading religious figures, stepped in and deposed Morsi in a coup. It appears the Egyptian people didn't like the outcome of the 2011 election, Bogan

You are dodging the essential point. The majority of Egyptians want a fundamentalist style government, and the only thing preventing that is the Armed Forces. So the danger to Israel from Egypt is still there.

Brian Ross wrote

Is it? When did the Egyptians last trade shots with the Israelis over their common border, Bogan? I'm genuinely interested to see whether you know.

I would say 1973. Although it would not surprise me if fundamentalist members of the Egyptian Armed forces disobeyed orders and took a few pot shots at the odd exposed Israeli sentry. I would genuinely be interested to know in which misdirection you are going with this?

Brian Ross wrote

Yet Mohammed Morsi didn't indicate that he was hostile to Israel when in power. Funny that, isn't it?

No, not funny at all. His position was precarious with the military and there were already massive demonstrations against his authority. The Egyptian military would not be keen to go to war with Israel again, and have their arses well and truly kicked again. Peacetime soldiering is so much more pleasant than being shot at by people who really are prepared to die than be defeated, and who really do know what they are doing when they shoot at you.

Brian Ross wrote

I thought that was immaterial? A Terrorist is a Terrorist according to el Presidente' Bush

That's your absolutist mindset kicking in again, Brian. Under that thinking, Germany and Japan are still terrorist states and a threat to world peace.

Brian Ross wrote

Spoken by a person with a non-Absolutist mindset, hey, Bogan

Spoken by a person who can form a logical conclusion from a given set of facts.

Brian Ross wrote

And according to you, what sort of government rules in Tehran again, Bogan

An Islamic republic. A country run by the clergy. That should be anathema to a card carrying socialist like you, Brian. But you compare democratic USA to a terrorism supporting country run by totalitarian religious nutcases from the 7th century, and you pick Iran for the good guys. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

Brian Ross wrote

Don't you mean "their sort of democracy was right..."? The US has overthrown democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatamala, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua. It seems it only likes one sort of democratically elected government - one that is favourable to it's wishes/desires/needs.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting something. Socialism has been a failure in every single country around the world that has ever tried it. In that respect, the USA was absolutely correct to try and prevent the formation of even democratically elected socialist governments. Because socialism inevitably means, "One man. one vote, once." The latest manifestation of that essential truth is "riches to rags" Venezuela.

Nobody believes in Socialism anymore, except Brian Ross, dictators, and western Humanities graduates. If the creation of socialist countries does little more than bankrupt those countries, encourage terrorism, and create ever more hordes of "refugees" clamouring to enter western societies, why should the advanced societies tolerate the formation of soon- to- be totalitarian bankrupt governments, which will cause them endless future problems? Given that socialism will be opposed by the more intelligent class in any society, why should the USA not work with the smartest class in that society to prevent the aspirations of the elitist class, who wish to take over absolute power for themselves and stuff up everything?

Brian Ross wrote

It was never tested, Bogan. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? The history books vindicated Roosevelt's deal. QED.

Not according to the books that I have read, Brian.

Brian Ross wrote

It has never vindicated the more reason efforts of various US Administrations. Indeed, it appears to have condemned them in Vietnam, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

That is a sweeping generalisation. Every single one of those examples you gave is different, and each should be studied separately.

[Bogan]

Oh, and I forgot. The USA does not hold Australians as hostages, Iran does.

Although, it is kind of funny about that Victorian university luvvie who went to Iran to learn about Shiite culture. She is in some hellhole dungeon right now, learning about Shiite culture the hard way.

Heeheeheehhee

[Bogan]

Another update, Briney. It seems that those nice, trustworthy mullahs and ayatollahs you trust so much more that the USA now have three Australian hostages. You would have to be dumb enough to believe in HIGW and racial equality to be stupid enough to go to Iran. I'll bet that all three of them now rotting in Iranian dungeons believe in multiculturalism, think that Islamophobia is just awful, and they voted for the Greens.

Would you like to visit your friends in Iran, Brian? I will buy you a one way ticket because you will only need a one way ticket. And I will give you my quadcopter to take with you. You can tell your friends over there in Iran how much you hate the USA as they pull your fingernails off.

[cods]

hasnt bri bri got contacts in Iran???? I could have swore he did have...kets face it

he has so many contacts he knows everyone........

I am sure if Morrison comes begging on his hands and knees bi bri will make a phone call

unless he knows the culprits personally.. and therefore knows full well they are guilty as charged...

btw what are they charged with???...ok! bri will know.

[brian ross]

hasnt bri bri got contacts in Iran???? I could have swore he did have...kets face it

he has so many contacts he knows everyone........

I am sure if Morrison comes begging on his hands and knees bi bri will make a phone call

unless he knows the culprits personally.. and therefore knows full well they are guilty as charged...

btw what are they charged with???...ok! bri will know.

Jealousy is such a curse, Cods. Tsk, tsk.