Sharp Rise In Jailing of Online Journalists; Iran May Just Kill Them 233
bckspc writes "The Committee to Protect Journalists has published their annual census of journalists in prison. Of the 136 reporters in prison around the world on December 1, 'At least 68 bloggers, Web-based reporters, and online editors are imprisoned, constituting half of all journalists now in jail.' Print was next with 51 cases. Also, 'Freelancers now make up nearly 45 percent of all journalists jailed worldwide, a dramatic recent increase that reflects the evolution of the global news business.' China, Iran, Cuba, Eritrea, and Burma were the top 5 jailers of journalists."
rmdstudio writes, too, with word that after the last few days' protest there, largely organized online, the government of Iran is considering the death penalty for bloggers and webmasters whose reports offend it.
Here's a thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a thought (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a WELL RESEARCHED Allegation! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Gee. I love the sourcing on the link about planned executions.
Maybe the US should just bomb and invade? It has worked so well, elsewhere.
I'm not sure you have it right (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've read of the Koran, being a Muslim is an intensely self-centered act of surrender to God, in which no government or authority on earth can interfere with. You surrender your perceived control of your self and submit to God's will directly without an intercessor (Jesus or Mohammed or the Pope) because Islam is supposed to be based on the faith of Abraham, which is the progenitor to Judaism and Christianity. Historically, Mohammed never intended for a priesthood to arise (I'm basing this off Karen Armstrong's work, don't have a direct citation for you). He was emphatic that he was not to be worshipped, and the immediate founders of the ummah were not to be worshipped as well.
It appears to me that what you're referring to (regarding Islam and the state and how a Muslim can't be a muslim unless they are part of a nation state or something - you're very vague on that) is how Arab culture subsumed Islam and turned it into a political empire. Islam as politics and Islam as religion are two completely different animals, and the same can definitely be said for Christianity and Judaism. The muslim laws (shariah) you're referring to, are the collections of decisions made by later priests based on their interpretations of the Koran and given the weight of law. But they are not actually in the Koran, and they are subject to cultural interpretation and political whims. You would do better to study the Moors of Spain to see what a proper Islamic society was. As for the child-rapist thing, I would remind you that back then, it was customary for girls that young to wed men in Arab, Jewish, and even Christian culture. Hell, up until the beginning of the last century we had American Christian men marrying 12 and 13 year olds. So you're trying to pull a straw man argument there.
Your points, when you're attacking the political culture of Islam as defined by a state, are mostly valid. But you are making an error in combining Islam as political culture and Islam as religion. Unfortunately, I will concede to you that most people, many Muslims (and Christians, and Jews) make the same mistake. We are only human after all, and definitely not perfect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We don't do this, under any circumstances"
And we would believe them
Because they said the same thing about spying on Americans.
Or torture.
Shall we go on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And even if the CIA said all that, and actually meant it... Iran's government wouldn't believe it, or they'd believe the journalists were spies for someone else (e.g. Israel), or they wouldn't care whether it was true or not because it was just an excuse to kill annoying journalists anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and ditto for (doctors and nurses working for) the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a thought (Score:5, Insightful)
We’ll do that just as soon as Muslim terrorists stop hiding in hospitals and mosques.
Re:Here's a thought (Score:5, Insightful)
and male terrorists veiled like Musliim women...a favorite tactic.
Re:Here's a thought (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't as effective as you would think. Body language is a huge give away. Women in a burqa with a full veil are very submissive, they look down at almost all times when in public. Men trying to pass as women in a burqa have a hard time copying this. Woman may look up, but if you make eye contact, the look down in a hurry and will not look up again. Men have a tendency to not only look up, but to glare if eye contact is made. Its a dead giveaway.
And we caught one insurgent who's beard started poking out from under the veil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in at least some cases, they probably actually ARE spies (particularly with freelancers and bloggers with no connection to reputable news organizations).
Spies are supposed to be inconspicuous and do their best not to draw attention to themselves. If your job is to rile up the public against the government, you might risk being a blogger. If your job is to, well, spy, you'd stay as far away from publicity as you can.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purloined_Letter [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Tehran,
Please find attached my list of bloggers I don't like, their IP addresses, home address and a sample of their inain trite drivel
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the international community could do much about China. It's too integrated into the world economy, to important a player for us to ever meaningfully punish it. The last opportunity for that came when the Japanese held on to big chunks of its territory, but those days have long passed and trying to beat on China would be like sawing off the branch one is sitting on.
The Iran dilemma is a complicated one. Partly, it's because some countries do a lot of business with Iran, and are unwilling to
Per Capita? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would probably be Eritrea, 19 journalists in jail, and just over 4 million population.
Then Cuba, Iran, Burma, China, in descending order.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran can't take much more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Iran can't take much more of this (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?
Re:Iran can't take much more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?
Nothing, this neutralize Iran leaders best weapon: Blame internal troubles on Western powers to squash any protest.
For once we are smarter then the bad guys and not playing their game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing, this neutralize Iran leaders best weapon: Blame internal troubles on Western powers to squash any protest.
Except they are still doing that. Don't you know that all of the current troubles are the fault of the British and Americans?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but now Iran's problem is the rest of the world knows better.
they are (Score:2)
The current problems are a direct result of the messing the British and Americans have done in decades past. Iran really is right when it blames the rest of the world for the current situation. Mind you, doesn't mean they have to kill journalists, India has been screwed with a lot too, it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama could spoon Ahmadinejad every night and it would be completely irrelevant. The Iranian media wouldn't report any of it anyway thus negating the whole purpose of these goodwill gestures. And whenever a nation's economy goes to crap the leadership is always quick to blame foreign powers.
What bothers me is that Obama is unwilling to at least harshly criticize Iran. Instead of standing behind the demonstrators he seems to be more intent on trying to not offend Iran's oppressive leaders. It's really no won
and the sounds coming from the White House (Score:2)
are deafening
No wait, they are not.
Sorry, but you over estimate the the result.
First, it does not matter what our leaders do, as long as one American is breathing Arabian air we are in the wrong.
So whats our new White House going to do? Nothing. Just like they did the last street marches in Iran where many were killed. Oh I know our wonderful President probably stamped his feet but Iran's leadership couldn't give a rats ass about Obama. They have already dismissed him as a credible threat. Obama comple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the reaction of Iran's government to the "carrot", it's not going to work either. "What? You're going to be nice to us? Great, thanks, we'll start enriching more uranium now"
Note, by the way, that saying bad things about Iran isn't quite the same thing as using "the stick" on them. The "stick" is usually delivered from a Buff...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that I agree with it. The (attempt at) the stick used was economic and trade sanctions. That didn't work. It's clear the Iranian government will do what ever it wants to do in either case.
There are many delivery methods for "the stick". A Buff is just one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Iran can't take much more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Communicating != extending a hand to.
Obama is naive enough to think that a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations is one that can be negotiated with in good faith. He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago. The worst part of it all is that he has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts. Iran continues to march towards nuclear capability. They've taken his measure and found him lacking.
Re:Iran can't take much more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we both admit that "communicating" and "extending a hand to" are both woefully simplistic reductions of a complicated diplomatic process, and neither of them really mean anything? Yes, I would have liked Obama to publicly denounce the post-election crack-down, but I also think the administration's assessment that it would be detrimental to the movement was correct. The main propaganda tool used by Iran during that time was that they were putting down violent protests instigated by western powers intent on putting them out of business. That propaganda is more obviously a lie if we stay out of the fray - that may not have mattered to the protesters back then, but it does matter for every protest afterward (like the ones right now). How would speaking up have helped the protesters at that point anyhow? Unless we were willing to back up the words militarily, they would have only been detrimental to the movement. We were not then and are not now prepared to face off with the government Iran in a fight that is, at the end of the day, basically the people of Iran's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the end game was the same. We're now dealing with the Basij and Revolutionary Guard having occupied every important aspect of Iranian government. Even the Ayatollahs don't appear to matter very much. How could have giving direct assistance actually have hurt the situation? They accused the US and the UK of interfering whether they were or weren't, so why not make it a fact as opposed to a lie?
I mean, if one good thing were to come out of Iraq, it would be a launching ground for an an
Re: (Score:2)
He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago.
I'm thinking you're just out to bash Obama, but at the time I recall most people agreeing that the correct course of action was inaction. I still believe it was. Have you already forgotten what happens when the US throws its support behind any group in Iran? The Iranians are obviously a deeply divided people and that's something that they need to work out without outside interference on any side. Once a solution looks imminent, then that's the time to give support. Giving support to the students now wi
did you ever notice the irony (Score:2)
that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea, that one of the three (iraq) was invaded ostensibly because of nuclear research... and none was found. meanwhile, har har, the two that were not invaded have since accelerated their pursuit of nuclear weapons thousandfolds? hey, genius: if bush was more subtle in his approach, maybe the nuclear status of those two vile regimes wouldn't be so far along, did you consider that?
but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy hande
Re: (Score:2)
that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea
I love how I say absolutely nothing about Bush yet you immediately resort to bringing him up as though it represents sort of meaningful counterpoint. Let me clue you into something: Disagreeing with Barack H. Obama != supporting George W. Bush. I happen to think that Bush did our country a great deal of damage but that's rather irrelevant to the point of whether or not Obama is making wise decisions.
but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support.
Actually no, the international attitude that I would support would be a return to non-interventionism and
you can criticize obama all you want (Score:2, Insightful)
but if your criticism is fucking stupid, i will criticize you for being fucking stupid
which is just as much my right of criticism as yours, right?
furthermore, bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing. it doesn't mean you support bush. it means: "what you are asking for is what bush did already, and it easily to demonstrate how fucking stupid it was"
and furthermore, if you wer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing.
I wasn't aware that foreign policy was a binary choice. "Bushism" vs. "Obamaism". Who knew those were the only two choices?
if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?
Because I reject your flawed notion that the only two choices available to us are those presented by Bush and Obama. I reject the notion that because Bush sucked I should embrace what Obama is doing. Can I say it any plainer?
and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism.
Non-interventionism != isolationism.
BTW, the "shift" key is your friend.
ok so let's look at the choices so far: (Score:2)
1. obama's nuanced approach. intelligent
2. bush's blunt approach. stupid
3. non-interventionism. DIFFERENT FUCKING SUBJECT MATTER
i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?
i did not know obama extending his hand was comparable to military intervention. oh, you didn't say MILITARY intervention? so you meant isolationism. no not that? well then what the hell is nonmilitary nonintervention? what the fuck are you saying?
here's an amazing wacky concept for you: how about obama extend h
Re: (Score:2)
i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?
Yes, and you responded to my criticism of that choice by presenting a false dichotomy between Obama and Bush.
what the fuck are you saying?
That Obama's foreign policy is misguided, naive and destined to end in failure. I believe I've been quite clear on this point.
here's an amazing wacky concept for you
How about we don't extend our hand to brutal regimes that murder their own citizens and support terrorist organizations? How's that for a wacky concept to you? Let them rot on the fucking vine until a responsible Government comes to power.
Re:Iran can't take much more of this (Score:5, Funny)
The best thing Obama could do to whack the Iranian regime is to *leak* Khamenei is secretly working with Washington. Add in a few complimentary intimations that Khamenei has a secret great respect for Israel and Jews in general. It would drive Ahmadinejad nuts. As soon as the shit hit the fan, the State Department should deny any knowledge and loudly claim the CIA has not been in contact with the Basji no matter what SOME in Iran might think; the secret investigation of CIA activities in Iran by DoD has no bearing on this problem. They could also mention there is also no truth to the rumor that Israel sold the Basji their blackjack batons and that no Basji have secretly converted to Christianity...to the CIA's knowledge. Also, that to the U.S.'s knowledge, the plots by the Revolutionary Guard to take out the ruling theocracy because they are not Muslim enough should be discounted as not being far enough along to justify serious comment. The black market the Revolutionary Guard runs isn't generating enough money yet for these sorts of plots to succeed since not enough of the Army has been bought off yet.
Sorry, but they have been successful for many (Score:2)
years at this. I doubt all the angst here in the states or Europe amount to a hill of beans. I see that our current Administrations new stance was accepted with glee by the leaders of Iran who more than likely feel they can now act with impunity since we have a real wimp in the White House.
Note to the current Administration, Bush didn't create the bad guys by labeling them, they were bad, he just gave us a sign.
Any successful revolution in that country is not going to come off without outside assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
If Bush went their for oil, where is my 25 cents a gallon oil then? Why is all the oil in Iraq not piped directly to the United States?
There are many stupid reasons for going to Iraq. Try, Bush W wanted to finish the job that his father started there. Bush wanted to 'win' something in history's eye. Maybe W never liked Saddam and wanted him gone. Maybe Bush wanted to punish Saddam for failing to following the UN resolutions all those years. Getting Iraq's oil is not one of them.
Eritrea? (Score:3, Funny)
OK I get the others, but who the hell are "Eritrea"? They must do a REALLY good job of arresting reporters as I have never heard of this country before!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a country on the northeastern edge of Africa, bordering the Red Sea. It gained independence from Ethiopia in the 1990s.
Re:Eritrea? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur, a place where mass genocide has been going on- in fact, where as many as half a million civilians may have been slaughtered so far. Eritrea is one of the nations that has been accused of supporting the Darfur rebels fighting against the Sudanese government, but has since moved into a mediating position over the crisis.
To be fair though, part the reason you probably hadn't heard about it is because the world's media was mostly too busy covering middle east stuff like Israel's war with Lebanon. Apparently Israel killing 1000 odd Lebanese, many of which were Hezbollah militans and Hezbollah killing 130 Israelis, many of which were soldiers is somehow so much bigger a tragedy than the 10s of thousands of African civilians that were brutally raped, mutilated and murdered around the same time. For some reason, the tragedy in Darfur and the hundreds of thousands of dead, the hundreds of thousands raped and mutilated and the millions displaced just don't get the attention of the media like a good old fashioned suicide bombing in downtown Baghdad or a verbal spat between the US and Iran.
So yeah, Eritrea is an African nation with some quite close ties to the Darfur conflict. In it's short existence as a sovereign nation (since 1993 iirc) it's also managed to get itself in fights with Ethiopia, Yemen and possibly even Somalia I believe. It's relatively pro-Western, but not blindly so as there was some fuss about them allowing some militant in that the US claimed had Al Qaeda ties. It borders the red sea towards the North Eastern end of Africa.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as there isn't a mainstream movie about it, people won't know/care.
Dont start a post by being a dick. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been glued to world news for most of the last five years and I had to look up Eritrea. I've also never heard of it before.
You might have made an excellent point after this phrase, or provided some details, but when I read the first line I thought to myself, "Condescending dick." So I never read the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
"That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur..."
I've been glued to world news...
I don't mean to be rude, but that there is your problem. The "news" that arrives on your television or radio is highly manipulated and filtered to tailor your thinking. I highly recommend reading the blogs of ordinary citizens or "citizen journalists" in the target area along with your mainstream media. It's quite revealing.
Re: (Score:2)
[Eritrea is] relatively pro-Western
Maybe so, but it does depend on what your baseline is. They've got a bunch of fascists in charge who hate their (much larger) neighbors more than they hate us. They have no oil to speak of though, nor a navy worth the name to cause trouble in the Red Sea, so we ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard all about Darfur and how it is being ignored, and continues to be. That this one of many tiny African countries involved I was not aware.
Also I know it is getting gray and murky, but weren't the rebels the "good" guys, and the government was the one accused of sponsoring militias that have been going around slaughtering everyone?
Yes I think you are right, because I don't know this obscure tiny African country that may or may not be involved in supporting rebels, in a conflict that is half way a
maybe because eritrea is a new country (Score:2)
like east timor
both countries are recent breakway provinces. eritrea used to be in ethiopia until 1993. east timor used to be in indonesia until 2000. eritrea was a largely muslim area in a largely christian ethiopia. east timor was a largely catholic region in a largely muslim indonesia
its a shame that religious strife holds the basis for so much grief and fragmentation in this world
Re: (Score:2)
East Timor, like other chunks of Indonesia, was forceably annexed by Indonesia. Eritrea was annexed by Ethiopia after the collapse of Italy's empire at the end of WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Eritrea [lmgtfy.com]
Anybody who responds with a LMGTFY link comes across as a smug douche. How about you just provide some relevant links on the nation instead?
Re: (Score:2)
In the land of irritated vaginas, the one nozzled-douche is king?
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing smug about it, if you want relevant links then type Eritrea into Google and you'll find the Wikipedia and CIA Factbook pages (which, by the way, are the first two results).
You don't need to wait for others to do this for you, this is something you can do yourself. That's the point of LMGTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because I didn't ACTUALLY do that, as that was clearly not a joke, but I seriously think they are doing such a good job arresting reporters that it is difficult to know anything about said country because there is no one to report anything about it.
idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian actually. I suppose *everyone* has heard all about Eritrea wherever the hell it is your from?
I did wiki them after posting. Tiny insignificant African country is being kind, particularly when used in the same breath as China, Iran, Cuba, Burma (which is really the Union of Myanmar).
Former colony of Italy. Got 5 million people and border conflict with Ethiopia and has only been a country since the 1990's. About the size of Newfoundland, one of 10 provinces and two territories of Canada.
Its economy i
Good thing that the US would never ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Iraq (in U.S. custody): 1
Ibrahim Jassam, freelance
Imprisoned: September 2, 2008
Jassam, a freelance photographer working for Reuters, was detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces during a raid on his home in Mahmoodiya, south of Baghdad, Reuters reported. At the time of the arrest, a U.S. military spokesman told CPJ that the journalist was deemed “a threat to the security of Iraq and coalition forces.”
In November 2008, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruled that there was no evidence to hold Jassam and ordered the U.S. military to release him, Reuters reported. U.S. military authorities rejected the court order, saying that he “continued to pose a serious threat to the security and stability of Iraq.”
The military has disclosed no evidence against Jassam, and he has never been charged with a crime.
U.S. troops have detained dozens of journalists—mostly Iraqis—since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, CPJ research found. In at least 12 cases, journalists were held for prolonged periods without charge or due process. In all other cases, the journalists were freed without charges ever being substantiated.
Here's an idea (Score:2, Troll)
How about detaining all Iranian diplomats until all jounalists are freed.
I know that technically this is not allowed, but then again, jailing innocent people is not a generally accepted practice either.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which were likely set up for the express purpose of giving "the man" the excuse they needed to jail them in the first place.
And don't get me started on the laws broken by the guys now in power.
By all rights they should be in jail for rigging the election.
But as has been proven throughout history, when push comes to shove all that ever matters is who is stronger and be damned with morals.
The journalists are not imprisoned BECAUSE they broke the law, they are imprisoned because the regime wants them gone, and
Re: (Score:2)
Bad Idea: Don't do it, even if the others do (Score:2)
(Lybia has playing such a game against Switzerland, BTW)
Ok, if you start the "let's do it too in retaliation" game, then what differences will be between you and the "eeevil bad guys" your are fighting against ? I mean appart some basic schoolyard excuse as "They started first ?".
If you lower your standards, you aren't distinguishable any more from the guys you're fighting against. If one day you win, it'll be simply a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, jail the diplomats.
Then we need to get in contact with Tehran. Hmmm... How to do that?
You know, what we should do is ask Tehran to send people over who speak our language and understand our culture. It'd be such a nice gesture that we should probably give them a place to stay. Maybe they can be put up in the former Iranian embassy. They have lots of tea and a mosque there. Heaps of Persian literature and discount phones to Tehran too.
We can negotiate with the people in this embassy for the release of the dipolmats. They can call Tehran and set up meetings and stuff.
Perfect solution.
Re: (Score:2)
How about detaining all Iranian diplomats until all jounalists are freed.
All Iranian diplomats huh? Since there aren't any in the US (except occasionally at the UN, and I don't think the UN would approve), should we fly over to Switzerland and kidnap the diplomats working there? Where else should we kidnap people from? Surely this will get our point across.
Then how do you buy there oil? (Score:2)
Quick question: what is the mileage on your car? Or on your mom's car as she drives you the 1 mile to school?
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how espionage and subterfuge in general are an integral part of war, I think the laws of war need to be amended to recognize spies as soldiers that just happen to be unarmed.
A parallel sharp rise (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, let's bury it (Score:2)
Edited out of the report at the last minute... (Score:2, Funny)
"But regardless of the results, the US is still the world's worst place to be for freedom of the press. Or for anything, really."
We just need 300 well-trained Spartans (Score:2, Insightful)
to kick their Persian behinds one more time...
Re: (Score:2)
Any nation that executes journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait and See (Score:3, Insightful)
No point in agitating Iran. The US might be able to trigger something, but it couldn't control it. There is no way that the US can CREATE a friendly client-state in IRAN. Only people who get paid to think of ways to create client states think that. The revolution, if it comes, will take its own course.
It is very important to remember that the theocratic Iranian government has a huge base of support. Students and the intelligentsia have to shift that before they can do anything.
Iran's got a big problem. It needs technology to oppress its people, but the locals who furnish the technology are the people that the government wants to oppress. Unfortunately, the government has oil money and oil money will finance the purchase of oppression-aiding technology from the "free" countries of the world.
When the oil runs out, the theocracy will die because it can't afford the oppression. The sadness is that all that oil money could be used to build infrastructure for the people for the future. But it won't. 'Tis a pity.
Re:Pile it on (Score:5, Insightful)
If McCain / Palin had won the election, I might agree with you.
I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran. You'll note that Bush didn't. Iran can't win a war against the United States but they can make it sufficiently expensive to deter us from undertaking such a venture unless our back is truly against the wall. They can creditably threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. Could they keep it closed indefinitely against the US Navy? Not likely. But closing it for even a few days would send the global price of oil through the roof and bring enormous diplomatic pressure down on the United States.
I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran."
Did you not see him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" on Sunday morning TV?
He seemed positively eager at the thought.
Re:Pile it on (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you want to take things out of context and hold them up as something meaningful, I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about "spreading the wealth around" and how an entire class of people "cling" to their guns and religion.
I didn't like McCain 2.0 very much but if you think he's "eager" for any sort of war then I don't think you understand him very well.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it out of context?
He said on multiple occasions that he hoped the US acted against Iran.
e.g. (06/15/09 on Fox News, obviously) "I hope that we will act" http://www.youtube.com/v/aDeJKl4h3Sg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about 'spreading the wealth around'"
What a horrible quote. It's almost as if you're suggesting that Obama wants to do something about the poor other than round them up and exterminate them. Surely that's not the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you rather missed the point of why I brought that quote up in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason that Bush didn't go into Iran, and it was that people in the military were actively thwarting him. [cbsnews.com]
I believe the quote was: "[An attack on Iran] will not happen on my watch...There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box." --Admiral William Fallon
Re: (Score:2)
Logistically it would be a nightmare. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a mountainous country. It has a larger population, a much more disciplined military. I can't imagine many even senior ranking military officers wanting to invade Iran. It would be a nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Israeli's wont do anything.
I mean this in the least insulting way possible but you don't know anything about the Persian and Israeli people. Allow me to explain.
The Iranians are mostly Persian (do a google image search on Persian, there are some interesting results). The leaders of Iran are Arab, most
Re: (Score:2)
Third front? We'd need a first front first. We aren't at war and haven't been since WWII. We've had lots of police actions since then, but no wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Go tell that to Congress.
They've let the Executive branch send that many troops to foreign soil without a declaration of war. Obviously they don't believe that the current number of troops means it is a war.
Vietnam saw almost a half million troops deployed at one point and that wasn't enough to be a war.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the character's name wasn't Landon -- it was Londo Mollari.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
======= They actually have a lot in common with certain conservative religious groups here in the US. Bob forbid those retards ever get their hands on the levers of power. We'd have bloggers on death row within the year. =======
Please cite?
Errr..didnt think so...
Nice try.
Can you say PROJECTION?
Come to think of it... Seems the liberal side is all about that
Democrats trying to criminalize citizen journalism
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
12/03/09 5:10 PM EST
An amendment to a bill currently being considered by the Senate would deny ordinary citizens doing vital investigations in the public interest the same legal protections as professional journalists. If it were to become law, the change could significantly stifle important citizen journalism efforts similar to the recent ACORN expose.
The Senate is currently considering a new press shield law sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The bill would "maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media." Except that Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Cal., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., want to ensure that any new journalistic protections would only apply to professional journalists and not regular citizens. An amendment filed by Durbin and Feinstein would modify the legislation to define journalists thusly:
AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN)
Viz:
In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:
(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity--
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and
(II) that--
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;
In section 10(2)(B), strike ''and'' at the end.
In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ''; and''.
In section 10(2), add at the end the following:
(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.
While the ACORN story has stung congressional Democrats and pointed out the deficiencies of the mainstream media, there's no basis for Durbin and Feinstein's amendment that seems anything other than vindictive or an attempt to protect the powerful. It's telling that bloggers on both the left and the right are in total agreement this is very bad law.
Reality is a bitch huh?
And we can't have THAT when sadly attempting to bash conservatives now can we?
Yay, free press!
MOD ME DOWN!!!!
They did. I don't see how you're that off-topic though. They must have accidentally clicked "-1 offtopic" when trying to select "-1 inconvenient truth"
Re: (Score:2)
Parent post is not a troll; poster makes a sensible point; the moderator is a flaming asshole.