Middle East expert and Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, Kenneth Timmerman, details why the Obama Justice Department’s contention that the figures involved in the recently uncovered Iranian assassination plot acted without the knowledge and sanction of official elements of the Iranian government does not pass the laugh test (a sentiment which I wholeheartedly echo):
Buried on page 18 of the indictment is the following passage:
“SHAKURI advised ARBABSIAR that an individual whom ARBABSIAR understood to be the leader of the Qods Force (hereinafter “Iranian Official #3?), was aware of what ARBABSIAR was doing and that he (ARBABSIAR) could meet with Iranian Official #3 in the future.”
Shakuri is the other defendant in the case, and is currently a fugitive. He served as a courier for Arbabsiar’s cousin, and brought $15,000 in cash to Arbabsiar to cover his expenses while they were waiting for the $100,000 wire transfer to be made into the DEA informant’s bank account from a non-Iranian bank.
This passage clearly suggests that the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was officially sanctioned by Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the notorious commander of the Quds Force, a man identified by the Guardian newspaper as the true power behind the Islamic Republic regime.
Be sure to read the entire piece over at the Daily Caller.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
So I assume you are not going to delete the Shedlock post Kavon? He must have you blackmailed or something. You seem like a pretty fair guy, but Shedlock’s post (and many of his posts in the past) have been pure bigoted trash. Why do you tolerate it?
October 16th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Why should I delete it? If David wants to make himself (and the candidates he supports) look like asses, why should I stop him? In what world does expressing the sentiments he did hurt the guy I endorsed (Mitt Romney)?
I’d rather leave it up personally.
At this rate, Mitt has a decent shot of winning Iowa. He will at least come in a very competitive second. Nothing, including attempting to stir up religious dissent in order to divide people of faith against one another for political gain, is going to change that.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
2 – You didn’t read the whole thread, did you? He made several bigoted remarks. You have banned others for similar stuff in the past.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
You are right, I haven’t read any of the comments in that thread because I find such posts to be tediously boring, as well as irrelevant.
You know what would be the best thing to do? Not comment at all and the message would be sent that this kind of post isn’t what we find interesting here.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@4 – Fair enough.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
OK. I made it to comment #13 before I started falling asleep.
So one side is pissed that the other called their religion an apostasy 150 years ago. The other side is pissed because someone that nobody every heard of before a week ago called their religion a cult.
YAWN…
Personally, I could give crap what anyone thinks of my denomination (Catholicism). My faith is between myself and the Lord. If someone wants to write something that makes them look like a backwards, bigoted idiot, it’s about THEM. It says nothing about me and my faith.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Sorry to distract from the subject of this post.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Why did the comments get shut down on Mr. Shedlock’s last article? Mr. Shedlock’s piece was a spurious piece of half truths and I was just getting going on rebutting them.
I post like that is offensive to many readers on this site.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Oops, I meant to say: “A post like that is offensive to many readers on this site.”
October 16th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Kavon: If I may be permitted to make a non-religious comment, thank you for posting this. I remain uncertain about this plot (obviously, I have no way of knowing the full story at this point), but Timmerman’s arguments are persuasive.
No one should expect the most passive president since Buchanan to take action on anything, however.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
8 – I had the same question. If Shedlock gets the right to post his opinion, people should have the right to respond to it.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
I have zero interest in sponsoring (via hosting this website) people arguing who is more Christian than who. I have have a mind to set up the site to automatically trash any comment or post which contains the words “Christian”, “Mormon”, “Evangelical”, “religion”, etc…
I am pretty much going to delete any frontpage post that has this effect from now on. I don’t care who wrote it or how many comments it gets.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
12
There are ways around that, so I guess the best thing to do is delete comments that inflame, but that requires time and effort beyond what one can be expected to spend when they have other responsibilities.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
12 – Then delete the post.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
He isn’t passive, he honestly believes in actively reversing political course by offending our traditional allies while trying to kiss buttock of our rivals. And the greater the enmity shown us by a rival, the greater the O-man’s effort to kowtow. He honestly believes that some countries hate us because we’ve been rude to them or something. It all started with the embarrassing “Restart” campaign with the Russians, where we made all the concessions and the Russians made none.
October 16th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
I’m curious why we haven’t yet addressed BHO sending American troops into Africa. I like when we address things like this Iranian “plot” on this site and I’d like to see the site address more things that our eventual nominee and his/her affiliated SuperPACs can attack him on once the nomination is settled.