Apr 05 2007

Did Iranian IED Kill British Soldiers In Iraq

Published by at 3:47 pm under All General Discussions,Iran,Iraq

One cannot wonder if the result of the British success in obtaining the release of their 15 sailors and marines was not greeted with a planned IED attack on one of their scout groups, killing four UK soldiers in Iraq the very day the freed hostages land at home. It would be classic Iranian duplicity to give the UK a small win and a sharp hit all in one coordinated set of acts.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Did Iranian IED Kill British Soldiers In Iraq”

  1. Carol_Herman says:

    The British are not up to snuff.

    As to what’s going on, now, in Iraq; some of the things Maliki is doing. With General Patraeus’ help, is strengthening the Iraqi hand.

    The Brits? Always in the way.

    And, now? Pushed aside. SInce Merkel is the head of the EU. And, Tony Baloney’s “ideas” for cooperation, fell on euope’s dead ears.

    I guess Tony didn’t think of everything? Because IF Maliki is UNHAPPY with the way the Brit’s caved; how does Tony deal with headlines, today? Somebody found his weak spot.

    As to the IED’s coming from Iran; my biggest surprise came when it was the KURDS who invited the Iranians IN. And, the hostages Maliki took? A direct result the mischief Talibani (of the Kurds) was up to.

    There’s a lot more going on under the surface than meets the eye.

    And, so far?

    Well, once, we used language to describe the body politic. Now? We still have no X-Ray vision. Nor do we know what tomrrow brings;

    But a lot of the things Bush wanted to see happen, haven’t.

    A lot of the things Tony was hoping for? Also sailed away right from under him.

    Iran returned the “gift” she took less than two weeks ago. Was she holding onto the hostages so that their suits could be made? You think the 15 can put the outfits up on eBay?

    I’m sure they’re glad to be home. But way less glad to be seen as rather useless heroes. None of them made the cut.

    Was there ever a war without combat? And, combat without killing?

    During the Civil War, the pressures on Lincoln were enormous. During WW2, the same kinds of things happened to FDR. Both men didn’t let on that they suffered pain. But gave off, instead, vibes of success. And, stamina.

    We’ve always come through, before, ya know?

    Is Bush still a disappointment? Yes. His goals don’t match what most people want! His “goals” include a terrorist palestinian state. And, free territory to the Saudis.

    While at the same time? I think Bush marginalized conservatives. Turned them into a special interest group only interested in outlawing abortions. Growing police powers.

    Where you’ll also have to grow more police to accommodate Bush’s incipid plans to create a Mexican drive into America.

    Actually, I don’t think Bush will prevail.

    I do think, though, no one will say much about this stuff out loud.

    Sort’a like Dubai. Maybe, you got impressed you could build a whole city, immitating Singapore, on a stagnant lagoon. Perhaps, you think it will sell well? Well, didn’t Eisner guess wrong about Euro-Disney?

    What makes you think hot shots with lots of money are blessed by the Man Upstairs? It’s possible God’s “game” is to see to it that Israel survives?

    And, politics in America? No matter how foolish the voters are; there seems to come along times when even the insiders recognize they need to adapt and bring in “star power.”

    When the GOP did this in 1952, by bringing in Eisenhower. It threw Barry Goldwater into such anger, he decided to take on the Chase Manhattan fellas. (And, if he grasped how good Ronald Reagan WAS at explaining Conservatism as a lanuage that twinkled with joy. Barry Goldwater would not have gone down to defeat. Brought on by his being a major sour puss.)

    Still, history changes at the bend.

    At least Bush sits on his hands a lot. Right now? This “halps.”

    And, the pressures on Maliki? Thinking he can lose the Americans the way the Vietnamese did? I think it’s given him a sense that he needs to “cooperate with us” in order to survive. Whatever it takes to win!

    You think Maliki isn’t following our politics? He, too, has to sit out Bush. Until the boychick goes home. With a hat. Just like his dad’s. (But you see the Bush’s being invited to speak, a lot?) Nah.

    The face of politics is always changing. And, we’re always on the unknown cusp facing the future. You can try to do linear thinking; hoping to figure out what happens “next.” But those secrets belong to the Man Upstairs. And, whatever he does, he is not using a clock.

  2. Terrye says:

    I don’t doubt it. As for the British not being up to snuff, at least the Iranians did not hold these people for over 400 days. We should remember they took our embassy without much of a fight once upon a time.

    If the mullahs are so big and bad, why didn’t they hang for spying or something? but they didn’t. They turned them lose and then did something cowardly. That is how they operate.

  3. BarbaraS says:

    These captured sailors and marines were under the UN mandate. Where was the UN in all of this? All I heard they were Brits. Did the UN say anything about releasing their sailors? No. They showed again how utterly useless they are and not worth the powder it would take to blow them up.

    As far as the Iranians being cowardly goes it depends on your point of view. To us it is cowardly, to them it is business as usual. The end justifies the means in regard to infidels.

    I say Ahmadamnidiot said to Fox that America needs to change, then may Iran would change their attitude toward us. Ha!

    People sure do expect a lot from Bush. Especially when they give him no support. He has the media against him, the dems against him, republicans in congress leave him hanging in the wind, and some the republicans at home have turned against him because they can’t get everything they want. I don’t know of any president in history who has battled so many different factions except Lincoln of course. I think history will be kinder to Bush than this country is today. People forget that a president gets what he can get and gives up what he can’t get. Bush has compromised on a lot, but re the Iraq war he has stood firm. And re the war on terror he has stood firm. To me, that is the only issue.

  4. DubiousD says:

    Posterity may indeed be kinder to Bush, but the President owes his current diminished stature, at least partially, to his stubborn unwillingness to fight the PR battles necessary to sway public opinion.

    As to AJ’s point, there is little doubt that the Iranians have killed many, *many* UK as well as US soldiers through their covert support of the Shia militias and, to some extent, the general insurgency as well. Four more dead UK soldiers wouldn’t surprise me.

  5. Carol_Herman says:

    This Bush isn’t the only unpopular guy! His dad faired WORSE.

    Seems Dubya got in a snit, though, when Bubba shoved his dad out of office, making him a one-termer.

    And, for some reason, there are blind people within the GOP, who think Bush is a “derangement” syndrome. NOPE. Bush IS the Realtor for the House of Saud.

    You bet. Bush actually fooled a lot of conservatives! HA. HA. You got snookered, good.

    And, from what I read the other day, up at Glenn Reynolds, you’re about to be snookered, again.

    Except for the blogs. And, for what caught my eye, should another vacancy up at the supremes open up. Because what’s in store? Well, according to Glenn Reynolds, you can expect this Bush to nominate KOH. The Yale dean.

    But by now this Bush is running into headwinds.

    His dream of a palestinian state? Seems it’s too late to change the rules Bush agreed to, when Arik Sharon defined a palestinian state comes ONLY WHEN TERRORISM STOPS.

    Condi has tried to soften this.

    Perhaps? So, too, pelosi.

    But the message that hit home? Merkel TOLD Abbas. To get to the EU’s money, he has to return SHALIT first!

    You should have heard Abbas yelping like a stuck pig! Angry at Merkel for “siding with Israel.” A position Bush doesn’t hold. And, one where Condi has gone into the Saudi tent.

    Doesn’t mean it’s going to be a successful maneuver.

    That’s why the whole show is fascinating to watch.

    Seems James Baker is trying to have the Saud’s pick up about $8-billion dollars worth of new military hardware. But, ya know what? It hasn’t made its way to congress.

    IF the deal comes thru? Then congress gets 30-days. To kabosh it.

    Since you don’t see it arriving, yet. It seems Shaul Mofaz, who came to America to STOP this technological transfer … may be showing signs that the House of Saud is not gonna grow into a military complex, where Israel BOTH loses territory. Because the Sauds want Israel to divest itself of all it’s gains from its 1967 War. It wants all that West Bank territory to go to the palestinians. WHO. DO. NOT. DESERVE. A. STATE.

    Why? Because they’re a terrorist mob.

    Bush pushes this crap “quietly.” Sans words. While you just saw him lose Tony Blair! It’s similar to the moment Captain Quueg cut his own tow line.

    What’s unknown? To quote the wonderful Donald Rumsfeld? How it all adds up, ahead.

    Who knows?

    After Libby, did you know that Mark Steyn is following the Chicago circus; where Oonrad Black is on trial? Perhaps, that outcome will favor Black? Mark Steyn seems to think the prosecutor doesn’t have a case.

    But we still have to wait for outcomes.

    When Ronald Reagan got elected, in 1980, the sense of relief people felt was enormous. We need such moments, again! (And, to think that Merkel stands tall, like Maggie Thatcher.) The potential for better times is there.

  6. BarbaraS says:

    Posterity may indeed be kinder to Bush, but the President owes his current diminished stature, at least partially, to his stubborn unwillingness to fight the PR battles necessary to sway public opinion.

    What use does it do for Bush to be more vocal? The press will cherry pick his statements to suit their agenda. He hesitates to say anything for this reason. They have always done this and will continue to do so. Please remember that he would not allow still pictures of him in his speech because the media would pick the worse one to print.

    At least when Lincoln was president there were more papers on the other side. Now there is only the dim side.

  7. DubiousD says:

    As I have pointed out (sigh) again and again on these boards, Bush can address the nation whenever he likes. He can go live during prime time and CNN, FOX News, C-SPAN, and MSNBC would broadcast it, unedited and uncensored. (The regular networks, well, I don’t know if they’d be willing to pre-empt CSI or American Idol just to carry a speech by the POTUS.)