Article

2006-12-06 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Top Iranian Military Brass: In Case of Attack on Iran, We'll Target U.S. Troops, Sink Warships

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-12-06 08:09|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "American Warships Are Heavy... And Easily Sunk"

Also we know where on board they store their goats and fowl. Hit those areas, kill the goats and fowl, and the American infidels will starve to death.

Posted by tu3031 2006-12-06 09:06|| 2006-12-06 09:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Go ahead, slick. Mess with a CBG, see what happens.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-12-06 10:39|| 2006-12-06 10:39|| Front Page Top

#3 She said that she had been one of the students who took over the U.S. Embassy [in 1980] after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and that she would be willing to do it again were [the Embassy] to reopen."

She must love being suppressed/submissive as what future has a women under the Mad Mullahs!!!!

Posted by Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2006-12-06 10:46|| 2006-12-06 10:46|| Front Page Top

#4 "American Warships Are Heavy... And Easily Sunk"
Taking on the US Navy worked SOOO well the last time they tried it (in 1988). After 12 hours what was left of their Navy was pretty much gone.

Posted by Flish Uleregum9913 2006-12-06 12:37|| 2006-12-06 12:37|| Front Page Top

#5 In addition, Firooz Rajai-Far, commander of the Martyrs Brigades, commander of an Iranian volunteer suicide bomber organization, threatened that her group would carry out suicide operations in the Gulf countries if the latter permitted the U.S. military to use U.S. military bases in those countries to launch an attack on Iran.

This actually gives me hope. We know (no offense Rantburg Ladies) with a woman at the helm, under the MM's, there are NOT that many "volunteers" to go kaboom. Article states later it's only 56 "volunteers."

And, when I've seen the sea trials of the USS Reagan (the carrier) on Discovery Channel and it was quoted as saying it's top speed was 30 or so knots, I don't think the USN is as "heavy" or "unmanuverable" as the dear Admiral thinks, lol! Seeing the Reagan going full speed and tilting her entire deck 15 degrees from horizontal is quite the site to see for a ship that large!

Posted by BA 2006-12-06 13:54|| 2006-12-06 13:54|| Front Page Top

#6 I'll huff, and I'll puff

and I'll blow your house down!

Hat tip: Big Bad Wolf to the Three Little Pigs

Posted by Bobby 2006-12-06 14:10|| 2006-12-06 14:10|| Front Page Top

#7 No offence taken, BA dear. There really isn't any comparison between our professional Rantburg ladies and the Iranian version of Moving Black Objects. I'd be as proud to load for them, at need, as for the Rantburg gentlemen, knowing they are each good for "one bullet, one enemy."

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-06 14:36|| 2006-12-06 14:36|| Front Page Top

#8 The Japanese sacrificed 10,000 kamikazes and failed to stop our fleet. The fleet's defenses have improved somewhat since those days, while (to say the least) the suicide attackers have not improved at all.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2006-12-06 15:05|| http://www.nuclearspace.com]">[http://www.nuclearspace.com] 2006-12-06 15:05|| Front Page Top

#9 One more time ... Why not take these proclamations seriously? Make sure they are broadcast to the American public so they understand the layers of threats that Iran continues to make against us. A weekly White House newsreel of these warpath rantings by our foes would go a long way towards militating the American public against jihadism.

Not doing this continues to support Islam's ostensible and very wrong label as The Religion of Peace [spit]. If public opinion is ever going to be shifted to the war-footing this nation needs to be on, it is these flagrantly hostile declarations by our enemies that should be given a thorough airing.

The Bush administration may well go down in history as being the most inept at utilizing modern media to promote its vision. All the more tragic in that, by comaprison to the rudderless democrats, at least they DO have some sort of vision.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 15:20|| 2006-12-06 15:20|| Front Page Top

#10 How many "news" networks, outlets, does Bush control?

Who actually watches Tony Snow's performance, the main means of disseminating Bush's position on everything, other than the MSM?

If you watched TV, you'd know that when it comes to getting the word out on topics such as this it's pretty much limited to Fox. And that's available to what - maybe 20%, 25%, 30% of the US population? It was 17.3% in 2000...

There isn't a MaGIk wANd when the entire media establishment, sans fewer outlets than you have fingers, are determined to torpedo everything you do.

Sad, that. I think we agree that Hunter / Killer Teams just might be needed to correct this imbalance. Meanwhile, let's apply some common sense to our condemnations.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 15:30|| 2006-12-06 15:30|| Front Page Top

#11 "The Bush administration may well go down in history as being the most inept at utilizing modern media to promote its vision. All the more tragic in that, by comaprison to the rudderless democrats, at least they DO have some sort of vision."

Agree 100%. It amazes me how inept they appear to be at getting the word out, at even defending themselves. As if the press is going to go easier on them when they see blood in the water?

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-12-06 15:44|| 2006-12-06 15:44|| Front Page Top

#12 Ah, a mass reading comprehension problem.

How, pray-tell, oh wise ones, how thy will be done?

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 15:56|| 2006-12-06 15:56|| Front Page Top

#13 If you watched TV

I don't. My television has not been powered up for over five years now. Not even to watch movies or DVDs, VHS, nada, zip, zero, bupkus. You should see the layer of dust on my remote. I am doing my best to punish the MSM by killing their viewing numbers in exchange for their treason.

There isn't a MaGIk wANd when the entire media establishment, sans fewer outlets than you have fingers, are determined to torpedo everything you do.

So, you're saying that the MSM would refuse to air a five or ten minute weekly White House press conference devoted to getting this message out? Media channels that refused to carry a presidential address to the American people would take some sort of noticeable hit if they did.

Sad, that.

It most definitely is, but Bush's inability to rally, if not actual support, at least the strength of fluency by regularly working the media has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lack of exposure has snowballed into near-obscurity.

I think we agree that Hunter / Killer Teams just might be needed to correct this imbalance.

No "think" about it, .com. On this we have always agreed and my support for such a notion only increases with passing time, as does my desire to see it extended further down into the ranks of Islam's command chain. Summary execution of jihadist imams on a worldwide basis still represents one of the single most cost-effective ways of stifling Islam's propaganda machine and recruitment activities. A dozen or two well-orchestrated hits could achieve this in just a few month's time.

Meanwhile, let's apply some common sense to our condemnations.

Believe it or not, your accusations of BDS notwithstanding, it is more a lamentation than condemnation. However much I disagree with numerous aspects of Bush's domestic agenda, I have always backed his approach to foreign policy. As has been mentioned here before, there is nothing to debate about terrorism. The disservice he has done to both himself and the American people is largely self-inflicted. As others have noted, Bush has THE bully pulpit of all time and has not utilized it to anywhere near its full effect, which is my major point.

Yes, the MSM is torpedoeing much of the White House's agenda, especially in the Global War on Terrorism. For that they need to held accountable. I do so by refusing to be co-opted into their commercial merchandising of the American viewing public. I now reside exclusively on the Internet. I think you are allowing my critical posture regarding Bush to blind you to some realistic appraisal of why this administration has fallen flat in the last several months. I'm not hollering about stupidity. It's more a case of ineptitude, which is something altogether different.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 16:13|| 2006-12-06 16:13|| Front Page Top

#14 Not watching TV is not a badge of courage or intellectual superiority - it's cutting off available information. Nothing more. Quit being a snob - it's simply foolish.

Actually, the network outlets do not consider us to be at war, merely entrenched in a bloody quagmire that is solely Bush's fault. It's not WW-II and FDR's dead. So is patriotism in the MSM. Nevermind that every leading DhimmiDonk was in favor, vocally so, about going into both Afghanistan and Iraq - WMD's were only part of their reasoning regards Iraq, same as Bush - that is all conveniently and conspiratorially forgotten. So no, the MS outlets won't be giving Bush a steady diet of their valuable airtime. He does interviews regularly, so their newsies get that valuable face-time, where he makes his pitch and points. Since you've cut yourself off, you don't actually know bupkus - cuz the rest of the MSM only mines them for mistakes or faux pas - gotcha journalism.

You know I agree about selective whacking - you talk mainly about imams - I agree: a most worthy collection of targets. I am even more interested in domestic wetwork, which definitely puts me outside the pale. To say more would be stupid, but I believe our grief starts here at home and our solution must also start here. It's only getting worse, domestically, too. We can thank the MSM - no pass from me.

Bush is a guy who does what he thinks is right. We'll always, all of us, wish for more or different focus and intensity. Such is reality. He's said he will not allow the Mullahs to get nuclear weapons. I believe him. That's it.

You do, regularly, dismiss 6 years in which Bush has done what he thinks is right - and it overlaps considerably with the goals we both desire, I believe. Where it doesn't, you sometimes wax nasty or, at the least, are unwilling to accept that you do not know what he knows, you do not know what he plans to do, you do not know what resources he has to work with, and you do not acknowledge the restraint under which he must operate.

We're on the same side, but bashing the team captain is mostly non-productive and a morale-killer. That's my take.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 16:40|| 2006-12-06 16:40|| Front Page Top

#15 Not watching TV is not a badge of courage or intellectual superiority - it's cutting off available information. Nothing more. Quit being a snob - it's simply foolish.

Where do I make any claims like that? I hate commecial broadcast television and that's that. The Internet is proving itself to be a superior avenue for news gathering and blogs like Rantburg are proof it.

We're on the same side, but bashing the team captain is mostly non-productive and a morale-killer.

So, no one is suppoed to speak up if the coach begins making the wrong calls? There has to be a balance struck somewhere. Perhaps, that is what is being explored at places like this. I would certainly say so in light of my own avowed determination to publically defend Bush against impeachment for any pre-emptive strikes against Iran or North Korea.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 16:52|| 2006-12-06 16:52|| Front Page Top

#16 I am even more interested in domestic wetwork, which definitely puts me outside the pale.

Your own take on "Think globally, act locally", eh?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 16:54|| 2006-12-06 16:54|| Front Page Top

#17 Lol, c'mon. Your snobbery literally screams, lol. That's some funny shit.

You can criticize the Team Captain, if it makes sense. Sometimes what you say doesn't take that nasty little bitch called reality into account. You expect to get what you want. We'd all like that, lol, but when's the last time it happened when it was up to hundreds of others, approx 536 others, to make it so? I'm as frustrated as you. Hell, maybe more... cuz what follows is so far from the foreign actions needed.

I definitely would go straight to jail if what I wanted to do "locally" was declared publically and perceived as threat, lol, so I refrain. The strain is killing me, too, lol.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 16:59|| 2006-12-06 16:59|| Front Page Top

#18 Hell, maybe more... cuz what follows is so far from the foreign actions needed.

Sheesh, what hash, lol.

Hell, maybe more... cuz I want what follows and it is far less likely than the foreign actions needed.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 17:02|| 2006-12-06 17:02|| Front Page Top

#19 In September 1988, the minelayer Iran Ajr was captured and scuttled during Operation Prime Chance. On 14 April 1988, Iranian mines nearly sank the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58); four days later, U.S. forces retaliated by sinking the Iranian warships Joshan and Sahand and several small armed powerboats in Operation Praying Mantis.

Iran added patrol boats, submarines and surface-launched anti-ship missiles in the 1990s. Iran replaced Western ships with purchases from Russia, China, and North Korea. It engaged in naval exercises with Pakistan and India.

Posted by Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-12-06 17:18|| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Navy]">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Navy] 2006-12-06 17:18|| Front Page Top

#20 And to think that Iran was coming to the US begging for talks - now look

What a bunch of losers the bush administration was

Posted by Rabbi Chin 2006-12-06 17:50|| 2006-12-06 17:50|| Front Page Top

#21 Lol.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 17:52|| 2006-12-06 17:52|| Front Page Top

#22 You expect to get what you want.

Ummm ... no. I expect only one thing, the right to free speech, which this site does a particularly superb job of protecting. Thank you Fred and all the moderators.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 17:53|| 2006-12-06 17:53|| Front Page Top

#23 You really are a "Chin", I guess, posting from Taipei. Oh look! The Big Chin wants to swallow the little, tiny, micro Chin. So yeah, bash Bush. I'm sure he'll come rushing to save you when the Big Chin gets hungry...

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 17:56|| 2006-12-06 17:56|| Front Page Top

#24 *sniff*

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 17:57|| 2006-12-06 17:57|| Front Page Top

#25 And to think that Iran was coming to the US begging for talks

And we all know just how incredibly productive the last several years worth of "talks" between Iran and Europe have been. Why don't you try having some "talks" with the Chinese communists. I'm certain they'll make all sorts of glowing, wonderful promises to you. Just like they did with that cemetary of human rights, Hong Kong.

You live in one of the most dynamic and productive democratic powerhouses in all of Asia, if not the world and have the unmitigated gall to drop in and sneer at those who are most dedicated to defending your tiny nation against one of the single largest remaining global threats.

Do me a favor, go brew a nice big pot of scalding hot tea and then spill it in your lap.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 18:15|| 2006-12-06 18:15|| Front Page Top

#26 Heh, I'm down wid dat.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 18:18|| 2006-12-06 18:18|| Front Page Top

#27 I'm very interested in this MSM & the administration get the word out angle you guys have touched on. I've thought about this situation some. Hence, I'd like to raise some constructive criticisms for conjecture. Seems to me that Tony Snow is just one man but does have great access to FOX. Q: Could the present admin not hire several Tony Snow types to flood the other msm outlets? I.E. - a group of media "fixxer teams" that counter all the lies, half-truths, and deceits by omission propogated by the msm wrt Iraq/WoT/Iran etc. It would take some money and finding some people w/talent, but I dare say this website not only attains the right info to counter strike the msm & the ignorance of the average folk but also has the right minds and articulate posters to back it up. I realize the msm may not give a lot of time to alternate (i.e. conservative) view points (except for fox) but I have to think if pestered enough and if the admin was aggressive enough, the msm would have to air it. Another factor is that imho the admin needs to harshen up their tone wrt islam. No more religion of peace references. That only placates the lefty whackos. I really think that the 70% of Americans in the middle know deep down the real deal. Any thoughts?

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-12-06 19:04|| 2006-12-06 19:04|| Front Page Top

#28 There are Pubbie "consultants" that roam the airwaves - trying to get on the talking head shows, FOX is the easy one, since they always put one of each on to spit at each other, lol.

The other outlets don't invite them very often and, of course, what topic are open and what a operative is allowed to say is tightly controlled by the host.

The exceptions are things like Lynne Cheney - who took Wolfie Blitzer's head off for being a disingenuous ass. One of the funniest things I've ever watched, heh.

Sometime Russert allows some pretty open wheeling and dealing, but he wants the Pols, not operative, so you need to get the real Pubbies on - and give them a steroid shot beforehand.

Truth is, the message doesn't get out because the MSM controls the avenues to their outlets pretty carefully and don't allow anyone to wander too far, unless it's a Bush-Bash, of course - that's always welcome. The fact that Olbermann and O'Donnell still have jobs sorta proves that point.

I dunno. They own the game. Fox is pretty much IT in the TV world. We can count the reliable online / print outlets with any audience size on one hand.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 19:13|| 2006-12-06 19:13|| Front Page Top

#29 Good points. I guess that's why talk radio is so popular and has taken over a lot of news business from the traditional outlets. I would really like just once for GWB to have a press conference and call shenannigans/bullshit on certain stories and those msm outlets that perpetuated them. Heck, I'd love for him to dime out a whacky journalist or some editorial page by name and call them on their idiocy. Some Dennis Miller-like sarcastic thrashing would be awesome (though GW seems like too nice of a guy to do it). Speaking of which, GW needs a Miller type to thrash morons in the media on a regular basis - too bad that isn't part of Snow's job description - now that would be entertaining.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-12-06 19:58|| 2006-12-06 19:58|| Front Page Top

#30 We'll Carry Out Suicide Operations in Gulf Countries

Oh the horror. Yawn. Gee, do you suppose they'll sit still for that? Or come over and beat on you. I guess that would leave you hoping that the other nations will blame the US and beat on them instead, or the US will somehow protect the MMs' sorry a$$es.

Posted by gorb 2006-12-06 20:17|| 2006-12-06 20:17|| Front Page Top

#31 I think you've nailed something about Bush that goes to the core of the problem - and it's as much perception as anything. He's a guy who thinks like a Yale MBA - sort of a genial CEO. Loyal to a fault - I think Tenet and Minetta prove that one. Delegates, truly delegates to subordinates - and authority is commensurate with responsibility... think Rummy. And he forgives them when they fail - expects them to learn and try again... think Abizaid, Casey, et al. I used to work for a guy like that, and when he retired I immediately left, his replacement was an authoritarian asshole who didn't know fuckall about the computer services biz, and ran off to Saudi as a contractor, lol.

It's clear Bush has stainless steel or titanium skin. He is not freaked out, like everyone else is - and assumes he must be. Calm, nonplussed, plugging away doing what he thinks is right. Interviewers figure it out - the public perception is dead wrong. That's why I'm sure he'll keep his word on Iran.

If he had an alligator, someone who could and would go after the zoomers, chew some ass, scare the bejeezus out of 'em, it would be very sweet - at least for us. Not sure if it would actually "rally" the public - that's a perception / belief born of this echo chamber, lol... untested out there among the majority who're fed Katie Couric and Wolfie Blitzer everyday. Funny thing is, it would not change Bush one iota. He'd still be doing what he's doing. And everyone would still be infuriated and frustrated and freaked out and bubbling with BDS.

Lol.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 20:31|| 2006-12-06 20:31|| Front Page Top

#32 Am I right that Wolf Blitzer is CNN? And CNN has been losing market share steadily for years... as have the worst of the BDS-suffering mainstream media producers, like the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. And the market share of conservative talk radio keeps rising. So I suspect the number of people who actually believe the vicious nonsense so unrelated to reality that's been pumped out by the MSM continues to fall to some asymtote correlatable to the number of donors to the Democratic Party (a smallish number, most of whom like to throw good money after bad in large amounts). It's just that so many of the believers actually work in the journalism-related industries, and tend to be awfully noisy.

And of course, sites like Rantburg are largely parasitic on the journalism profession, so we get a concentrated dose here... Now I'll go read the article, after trying to digest everything y'all said in the thread. I hope it's as interesting! ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-06 20:52|| 2006-12-06 20:52|| Front Page Top

#33 Oh yeah, Wolfie's at CNN. And CNN and MSNBC have just about dropped off the radar in cable ratings.

Regards the talk radio growth -- that's a great observation. :-)

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 21:11|| 2006-12-06 21:11|| Front Page Top

#34 I realize the msm may not give a lot of time to alternate (i.e. conservative) view points (except for fox) but I have to think if pestered enough and if the admin was aggressive enough, the msm would have to air it. Another factor is that imho the admin needs to harshen up their tone wrt islam. No more religion of peace references. That only placates the lefty whackos.

All good points which I myself have been making as well, Broadhead6.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-06 21:26|| 2006-12-06 21:26|| Front Page Top

#35 I became convinced that the President would go after Iran, when he put the current crisis in context of future "generations" of Americans. I became more convinced when he only said that ONCE. Similarly, the great President Reagan would make singular statements and when he moved he would say, I told you so.

GWB: whatever you do, do it quietly and brutally and we will read about it in our morning papers and NOT in some leak to CNN weasels.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-06 21:30|| 2006-12-06 21:30|| Front Page Top

#36 True, Bush obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about polls, and I admire that. (unlike the Huxter who was so frickin' co-dependent he needed to be liked no matter what that did to the posterity of the country). However, I wish Bush had some hard-ass guy out there telling the real story and going after the assholes in the media. Here's a thought - Maybe a job for Bolton?

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-12-06 22:03|| 2006-12-06 22:03|| Front Page Top

#37 Oh yeah - Bolton... Lol. That's a stroke of genius!

Just remove 80% of his vocabulary so the politicians and reporters would, like, know when they were being dissed and... Lol.

Posted by .com 2006-12-06 22:09|| 2006-12-06 22:09|| Front Page Top

#38 Bolton for Press Secretary/MSM breaker. Melikey. And, when he's busy doing his hair, maybe Ms. Coulter could step in?

Of course, there's always JOE M too! That'd REALLY throw 'em!

My take...Yes, Bush needs to "get the word out" more and more eloquently. However, I truly do believe that the majority of "flyover" country gets it. They may not be visiting RB every day, but Fox News is creaming the Cable competition full-tilt. Yeah, we lost some during the last election, but that was AFTER constant 24/7 wailing and nashing of teeth by the MSM, the Newsrags, the Newsmags, etc. I truly believe (as some have stated here before) that as the younger generations age to voting age, they'll come around to our side. They're not afraid of the internet, and in fact, use it for non-mainstream news.

Add to that, that 98 of the 100 top fastest growing Counties in the nation vote Repub full-tilt. Throw on top of that the "Roe effect" that Taranto (Opinion Journal) screams about, and the future does TRULY look brighter, as long as the Repubs don't go off the reservation too much more (spending, illegal immigration, etc.).

One final court of public opinion is slowly being taken away from the LLL too. The Supreme Court. In some ways, I believe Bush's picks to sit on this bench are as important domestically as the WoT is globally. In fact, when the "Human Rights" groups/ACLU/Amnesty Int'l/et al get through with their crusade to give the jihadis every "right" in the book, this could very well backfire. Like .com said, Bush is not only sticking to his guns by what he's DOING, but he is a "big picture" or "long term" thinker. I take him at his word that he'll deal with Iran as needed. I truly believe his eye is not only on what needs to be done immediately, but looking long term and how to "hand off" this war, as it will NOT be completed by Jan. 2009, when he leaves office. For that, I'm completely thankful, and willing to take our lumps in the media department. Truly a "watch the hand, not the mouth" situation.

Posted by BA 2006-12-06 22:32|| 2006-12-06 22:32|| Front Page Top

23:51 mhw
23:43 trailing wife
23:27 Elmeregum Ebbeasing7785
23:24 anonymous2u
23:21 Grunter
23:16 Elmeregum Ebbeasing7785
23:16 Captain America
23:16 trailing wife
23:14 Captain America
23:13 Zenster
23:04 Zenster
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:00 Seafarious
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:51 trailing wife
22:32 BA
22:29 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:11 DigitalPatriot
22:10 Zenster
22:09 .com
22:09 BA
22:07 trailing wife
22:03 Broadhead6
21:59 Pappy