Frankly Speaking

Those darn Israelis are at it again, launching a preemptive strike against Syria before allowing diplomacy to run its course.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Possible threat investigated, located, and destroyed. That is how you deal with Syria. Also a good lesson on how to deal with the press. Because you know the first thing those ass-clowns would have done is run to Bashar al-Assad and ask him his opinion on the whole affair, giving him time to hid everything before Israel could stomp seven shades of shit out of it.

The rest of the free world could learn a thing or two from Israel.

Labels: Iran, Israel, jihadistan, war

The 15 British sailors have been released.

Iran announced Wednesday that it would release 15 British sailors and marines it had seized at sea nearly two weeks ago, resolving a diplomatic impasse with what Iran’s president called a “gift” to the British people.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared that although Iran had every right to try the Britons on charges of trespassing in Iranian territorial waters, it would forgive and release them.

So let's recap, shall we? Iranian troops took British sailors hostage against their will, paraded them around on television for a few days, threatened to try them, which I'm sure would have led to convictions and threatened executions, then decided to be magnanimous and release them "as a gift".

This is, imho, complete and utter bullshit. The waterways where the sailors were taken is recognized by Iraq, Britain and the U.S. as Iraqi territory. Iran disputes this, claiming it as their own. At the most, this area can be called "disputed", if by disputed you mean the same way I can claim that my neighbors yard is really mine. Iran went after British sailors who posed no threat to them, and took them hostage. Some are trying to paint this as a retaliatory act against the U.S., but nothing about this is equivalent to the Iranians we are holding in Iraq.

The Iranians in Iraq were captured in a war zone, aiding and abetting our enemy. You know, much like Pelosi just did in Syria. But I digress. The Iranians were in Iraq giving money and munitions to the "insurgents" who are actively fighting coalition troops. This qualifies as an act of war, and we have every right to hold them. The sailors were committing no such act against Iran, but were taken hostage none the less.

Iran, in case you didn't realize this, has won in this situation. There was no U.N. condemnation, the Brits turned into a bunch of pansies, using "harsh words" with Iran, and W. basically stood behind Blair going, "Yeah, that goes for us, too."

There should have been hellfire raining from the sky. When a madman like Ahmadinejad takes your troops, there is but one correct resolution, and that is to see a large number of his people die. What Blair should have done was something like this:

• Every day you hold our sailors, one of your ships will be sunk


• Every day you hold one of our sailors, we level one of your towns


• For every one of our sailors who dies, you lose a town. Period.

The international community would have lost. its. mind. They would howl and rage against the threats, but when ships were sinking and towns were burning, Iran would have thought twice about ever fucking with the Brits again. As it is, they now know they can do pretty much whatever they want with no recourse.

Welcome to the new world, where terror is met with talking. Guess who loses that war?

Updated so I can include this quote.

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter season.

"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.

Labels: Iran

Iran, citing "positive changes" in Britain’s negotiating stance, won't air any more videos of British sailors.

In my estimation, the "positive changes" are that no one has bothered to bomb the living shite out of Iran, which is what they deserve.

Iran took American hostages and held them for over a year, with no recourse. They have now taken British hostages*, and are receiving some sternly worded protests from Tony Blair and Bush. Other than that, they are free to do pretty much whatever they want.

My question: Where is Rosie on this? She couldn't wait to point out how "mistreated" Kalid Mohamad appeared after his confession, where is the protest against mistreatment of British sailors? When is she going to rant and rave on that liberal propaganda machine The View that no sailor would make confessions like those which have been aired unless they had been coerced? When is she going to declare this "worse than Abu Ghraib"?

The easy answer is, never. Rosie, and those like her, are actively rooting for our enemies, and will never call the bad guys just that, bad guys.

Meanwhile, the British government is so hamstrung by leftists whackos in its own country that it can't even make a mock showing of strength, let alone actually do something to retrieve these sailors.

I'm sure Winston Churchill is somersaulting in his grave about now.

*yes, they are hostages. I don't care if CNN or any other major media outlet refuses to use that word, or puts it in quotes when they do. They are military personnel being held against their will and being used for propaganda by a foreign government. I think that fits the definition.

Update:To here to read a more in-depth analysis of the subject.

Labels: Iran

I have one question for all those peace-nicks out there who claim that we brought the fight on ourselves when we invaded Iraq. What has Britain done to provoke Iran?

Iran has taken 15 British sailors and is holding them, requesting that Britain admit that the sailors were in Iranian waters.

Britain has already given a pullout date for Iraq, and hadn't taken any action against Iran until this latest incident. So why would Iran do this?

IMHO, Ahmadinejad is looking for a fight. The man is the Islamo-fascist leader of an Islamo-fascit state. He is looking for the return of the 12^th imam, which he knows won't happen until there is some giant battle. It is therefore his duty to get it started.

The question is, how do you defeat a people who hold their ideology in higher regard then their own lives? He will gladly sacrifice every man, woman and child in Iran fighting the west if it will bring about the restoration of the caliphate. If we sit back and do nothing, he will eventually develop those nuclear weapons he so desperately desires, and then he will bring war to us. Or we could take the fight to him now, and listen to the complaints from the frogs about our "cowboy" attitude, and how America is always going it alone. The a few more people will march around carrying their signs to fight imperialism and Cindy Sheehan will extend her 15 minutes just a little longer.

What we should not do is take any action against Iran unless we plan on doing it right. We can't go in with the same half-assed attitude we took into Iraq. The rules of engagement seem to have changed in Iraq, and we need to keep that same attitude with Iran. Mosques should not be a place to hide. The man on the trigger should determine the threat. There should be as efficient a way to kill the enemy while exposing our troops to the minimum threat possible.

Follow those rules, and Iran is all yours, boys.

Labels: Iran