Pakistan = Supposed Terrorists. So Why Iran?
When I picked up Sunday's Los Angeles Times, I saw this curious headline: "Terrorists in training are going to Pakistan". The article, by Dirk Laabs and Sebastian Rotella, documents an alarming cycle of militants traveling from countries such as Germany to Pakistan for the purpose of militant training at Al Qaeda training camps. Now, I don't know about you, but I haven't heard all that much about Pakistan in the media before this article. Do you know what I've been hearing about? Iran.
According to the article, "...an increasing number of militants from mainland Europe are traveling to Pakistan to train and to plot attacks on the West...". As I said, I've heard quite a bit about Iran lately, and nothing this serious. Now, one could theoretically debate just how seriously to take this comment, but it makes me wonder where all of this is going.
Many of you, I suspect, remember what it was like before we went into Iraq in 2003; the media seemed to be having a bloody field day over it. There was debate if Iraq was a ticking time bomb: how much time did we have left until it went off? What really worries me is that the same thing seems to be happening with Iran. For one thing, I am officially stating that I don't think we should go into Iran; I've thought this for a while. However, if the country is indeed gearing up to that point, I would just like to bring up this article once more. Iran does not seem to be playing that significant a role in world terror, at least as of this point. If this article is to be believed, we should turn our focus to Pakistan, not Iran. Now, I'm definitely not saying that we should invade Pakistan. If anything, our governments should work together to somehow find and shut down these Al Qaeda training camps.
So, if Pakistan is supposedly the threat, then why are we focusing on Iran? Is there a reason that's being kept secret from the public? There has been speculation that we went into Iraq for revenge purposes: what if that's what Bush is trying to do with Iran? At that point, I would seriously be worried. Whether that speculation is true or not, one cannot truly know. Maybe we don't want to know why we went into Iraq; maybe we don't want to know that we've been duped into a war, maybe we don't want to know that so many soldiers have died in vain, for a false cause. If the same thing happens with Iran, then I think we're the terrorists, more than anyone else.
- flag this
- The Clafabio's blog
- Login to post comments
Threat from Iran
Iran must be dealt with, and it will probably be very soon. My guess is that Israel will handle it without our help or input. This is a country whos leaders have openly, and repeatedly, called for the destruction of the Little Satan, Israel, and the Big Satan, The United States. They are ancient enough in their "the end justifies the meens" thinking that they would use a nuclear weapon if they had it available. This is just one reason they must be dealt with soon.
The second reason, and I think I've posted them backward because this is the reason we should have already done something, is the conservative estimate that one in three coalition deaths in Iraq is a result of Inanian supplied weapons! I believe that they have already declared war on us. Their military have been captured in Iraq. This is not a rogue group, this is government sanctioned.
Julia, perhaps you have not noticed, but they are refering to the insurgent murderers as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Osama has released a video asking forgivness for their mistakes.
Autobob
Pakistan [terrorists]. Terrorists [Iran].
Clafabio. My little word diagram above isn't perfect, but before I even explain it, let me say upfront I also am worried about the anti-Iran drum beat coming from the White House and am happy you wrote this post as I think America might very well wake up one day after we've bombed Iran and say "What, again?" From the people I know who hang with Washington insiders, it's at least a 50% chance Bush will bomb Iran before he retires - and, no, it won't be good for America.
With that said, I thought I should point out the big difference between Pakistan and Iran. In many ways they're mirror reflections of each other. Pakistan currently has a secular military dictatorship that is friendly to the US but that is sitting on top of an increasingly restless population, many of whom are willing to be lead by Islamic fundamentalists. Iran has an Islamic fundamentalist authoritarian regime that is hostile to the US but which is sitting on top of an increasingly restless population, many of whom are eager for a more secular, democratic rule.
As for the terrorists - Pakistan has a bunch, but they're out of the control of the central government (which is engaged in an increasingly precarious power play with local tribal leaders) while Iran makes no bones about supporting terrorists that are anti-Israel. Pakistan probably wishes it could control its terrorists, but it can't. Iran probably could control its terrorists, but it won't.
So, at one level, it makes sense why the US is friendlier to Pakistan's leadership than to Iran's.
At the same time, over here in the US we have more to fear from Pakistan's terrorists - as they're of Al Qaeda stock and we know what that means. Iran, as just mentioned, supports terrorists that are more concerned about bringing Israel down.
But we're not going in to Iran for the terrorists (if we do, indeed, go in). I'm not certain why we would, but I also don't think it has to do with revenge.
My best guess, is that if Bush does decide to bomb Iran, it will be for two reasons, which are connected: first, to deflect blame of the disaster in Iraq from us to Iran, and second to leave what he hopes will be a more positive legacy as a world leader.
I know some are guffawing, but I do think Bush really believes Iran is a threat (which he's not completely making up - they are after all getting closer to making an atomic bomb) and that he may do the world some good by removing that threat. Now, I think he's wrong - Iran is not as much of a threat as he believes but bombing will serve to make them a worse threat - but he is being sincere in his wrongheadedness.