Custom Search

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

When a Terrorist Offers to Help- Do You Accept?

Two stories caught my eye this morning. First the Washington Times says
Iran Vows to Help Iraq with Security.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would do whatever it could to help provide security to Iraq amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war.

How sweet. Doesn't that just give you a warm, fuzzy feeling?

Ahmadinejad's idea of help though is like asking a murderer to shoot you in the head instead of the heart, either way you are dead, but by giving in to your request, the murderer helped huh?

The help Ahmadinejad is actually giving is in the second story I read today from the New York Times, stating that Iran's little boy toys, Hizbullah, is helping al-Sadr's militia.

A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.

Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.

I asked yesterday if You would negotiate with Hitler. Those that suggest any negotiations with Iran is no better than trying to negotiate with Hitler. Once again, his offer, in the midst of his idea of "help" proves yet again the man is a liar and a lunatic and cannot be trusted.

A deal, where only one person is acting in good faith is not a deal at all.

The New York Times seems almost disappointed that this information confirms what Bush has been saying all along.

The claim about Hezbollah’s role in training Shiite militias could strengthen the hand of those in the Bush administration who oppose a major new diplomatic involvement with Iran.

The specific assertions about Iran’s role went beyond those made publicly by senior American officials, though Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, did tell Congress this month that “the Iranian hand is stoking violence” in Iraq.

The American intelligence on Hezbollah was based on human sources, electronic means and interviews with detainees captured in Iraq.

American officials say the Iranians have also provided direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, and training for several thousand fighters, mostly in Iran. The training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, they say.

So, for those of you that have been endorsing our negotiating with Iran to help in Iraq... what say you NOW?

Is this the type of "help" you have been advocating?

Captain's Quarters says it very elequently:

That is why notions of engagement with these two notorious terrorist-supporting states should be a non-starter. Nothing they have done indicates that they see the Middle East in terms other than completely hostile to our interests or the interests of liberty and self-determination, even where one might make an argument that the two diverge. The only items that Iran and Syria want to discuss with us regarding Iraqi democracy are the terms of our surrender and retreat. So-called "realists" want to endorse diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria but fail to acknowledge that reality in any manner, making them even more Utopian than the so-called neocons who want to work towards the ultimate goal of ending Iranian and Syrian hegemony through terrorism.

At one time, we decided to fight the war on terrorists and their state sponsors in order to end the use of terrorism as a technique for extortion. Now many want to acquiesce to Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored terrorists in order to more quickly surrender.

I also have a quick question for Kofi Annan: Are you happy now Kofi? He was SO quick to condemn Israel for taking extensive action against Hizbullah, was accusing Israel of war crimes for taking out Hizbullah rocket launcher sites which were hidden among civilians and firing rockets into Israels towns.... is Kofi happy now? Hizbullah could have been stopped, damaged and perhaps, for the most part, wiped out.... but Kofi and the UN had to stick their noses into it... now Hizbullah and Iran are causing more stress in Iraq.

This business of leaving the job half done is proving to do us more damage in the long run and yet it continues. I show it here and here.

We can only hope Iraq does not join in the ranks of a job half done that comes back to bite us in the ass at a later date. Make no mistake, if we do NOT stabilize Iraq, if we give up and run with our tails between our legs....we WILL be back there, sooner rather than later, with an even bigger mess to clean up.

My related post:
Definition of Civil War: Is it Exactly a Bad Thing?
Appeasement Doesn't Work.

Others discussing this:
Blue Crab Boulevard.
Outside the Beltway.
Jules Crittenden.
Right Wing NutHouse.