Whose side are they on?

"They" are of course the MainStreamMedia (MSM).

I got quite angry listening to Mark Colvin on PM on Monday night.

Mark got his undies in a knot with regards to the claim made by Seymour Hersh in a "long" article (obviously well thought out) in the New Yorker, that the US was ready to use nuclear weapons against Iran, in order to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons:

Drop the bomb to stop the bomb. That's the peculiar logic of reported American planning to use aerial bombardment, including possibly nuclear weapons, against Iranian nuclear sites.

Mark Colvin dropped the following quote made by Seymour Hersh (who was quoting an anonymous source - anyone want to bet that this anonymous source won't be prosecuted from leaking matters of national security?) on CNN:

The people I'm talking to are very apprehensive about the attitude of the President and the Vice President, which seems to be that this is a Government that cannot be allowed to even get the knowledge of how to make a bomb. And they want it "almost messianic" is the phrase I actually quoted somebody as saying.

Oh no! George Bush is being all religious again and wanting to defend his country and allies from the Iranians Imams! My, my....

Mark Colvin then proceeds to interview an expert from the Lowy Institute and asks the following question:

But what about this nuclear option? Do you think that the Americans are really considering dropping nuclear weapons on a state with which they're not even at war?

First, before we proceed. Technically speaking the US could declare war on Iran legitimately. The Iranians are covertly supporting the Iraqi insurgency and thus supporting the people attacking US troops and Iraqi civilians.

Now back to the matter at hand. Mark is obviously horrified that the US would seek to strike Iran before it gets its hand on some nukes. The problem is this: A recent report has indicated that the Iranians already have 250 ex-Ukranian nuclear warheads. If that's the case, then first strike definitely needs to be considered.

And this is a really shocking tell tale signs of your heart being in the wrong place:

But the London Sunday Times has a chart involving those weapons in which it points out just how much, in terms of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of nuclear dust or contaminated dust would be thrown up even by one of these bunker busters. Would they really be thinking about this?

Also, the following exchange is disturbing:

ANTHONY BUBALO: We're talking, in all probability, about air strikes…

MARK COLVIN: A lot of them, according to this article.

So Mr Colvin is concerned about air strikes (I guess he wants an invasion), is horrified about the environmental fallout (as bad as it will be)? Why do I find a problem with this? Why should we worry about the Iranians Imams and President with nuclear weapons? Why should we act pre-emptively? (In case you forget, "we" means the West.) Read on...

Now, first: why should we not be nice to the Iranians, like we are to the Indians? Well for one, the Indians are not barking about wiping Pakistan off the map. Another reason is that the Indian Prime Minister isn't declaring that he is on a divine mission to hasten the End of Times:

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad (Iranian President) now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

And why is the environmental fallout not important in the scheme of things? Well, because if we don't hit them first, the Iranian Imams and President will at one point in time or another either kill millions of Israelis (as they themselves profess openly) or they will be able to hold the world to ransom as Hitler did thanks to the Allies' policy of appeasement prior to World War II.

So Mark Colvin in two segments devoted to this story (the story itself and then the interview with Anthony Bubalo), has failed to unambigiously enunciate the clear and present menace that Iran poses to HIS civilisation, to HIS society: The Iranians probably have the warhead, they are definitely able to weaponise it, and they definitely have a target.

Instead he focuses on the supposed religious fanatacism of the President of the USA, he frets over the environmental impact of bunker busting nuclear weapons the US may have to deploy in order to destroy the Iranians' nuclear capability and he slobbers over the LARGE SCALE air strikes the US will probably use in any pre-emptive action. Anyone smell an irate lefty?

No wonder our society and civilisation is unable to confront security threats in the 21st century with the same passion that Churchillians did in the last. We have blabbering idiots like Mark Colvin and Seymour Hersh betraying their own countries security interests for some else's. They are Muggeridge's brontosauruses.

Whose side are they on?

"They" are of course the MainStreamMedia (MSM).

I got quite angry listening to Mark Colvin on PM on Monday night.

Mark got his undies in a knot with regards to the claim made by Seymour Hersh in a "long" article (obviously well thought out) in the New Yorker, that the US was ready to use nuclear weapons against Iran, in order to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons:

Drop the bomb to stop the bomb. That's the peculiar logic of reported American planning to use aerial bombardment, including possibly nuclear weapons, against Iranian nuclear sites.

Mark Colvin dropped the following quote made by Seymour Hersh (who was quoting an anonymous source - anyone want to bet that this anonymous source won't be prosecuted from leaking matters of national security?) on CNN:

The people I'm talking to are very apprehensive about the attitude of the President and the Vice President, which seems to be that this is a Government that cannot be allowed to even get the knowledge of how to make a bomb. And they want it "almost messianic" is the phrase I actually quoted somebody as saying.

Oh no! George Bush is being all religious again and wanting to defend his country and allies from the Iranians Imams! My, my....

Mark Colvin then proceeds to interview an expert from the Lowy Institute and asks the following question:

But what about this nuclear option? Do you think that the Americans are really considering dropping nuclear weapons on a state with which they're not even at war?

First, before we proceed. Technically speaking the US could declare war on Iran legitimately. The Iranians are covertly supporting the Iraqi insurgency and thus supporting the people attacking US troops and Iraqi civilians.

Now back to the matter at hand. Mark is obviously horrified that the US would seek to strike Iran before it gets its hand on some nukes. The problem is this: A recent report has indicated that the Iranians already have 250 ex-Ukranian nuclear warheads. If that's the case, then first strike definitely needs to be considered.

And this is a really shocking tell tale signs of your heart being in the wrong place:

But the London Sunday Times has a chart involving those weapons in which it points out just how much, in terms of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of nuclear dust or contaminated dust would be thrown up even by one of these bunker busters. Would they really be thinking about this?

Also, the following exchange is disturbing:

ANTHONY BUBALO: We're talking, in all probability, about air strikes…

MARK COLVIN: A lot of them, according to this article.

So Mr Colvin is concerned about air strikes (I guess he wants an invasion), is horrified about the environmental fallout (as bad as it will be)? Why do I find a problem with this? Why should we worry about the Iranians Imams and President with nuclear weapons? Why should we act pre-emptively? (In case you forget, "we" means the West.) Read on...

Now, first: why should we not be nice to the Iranians, like we are to the Indians? Well for one, the Indians are not barking about wiping Pakistan off the map. Another reason is that the Indian Prime Minister isn't declaring that he is on a divine mission to hasten the End of Times:

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad (Iranian President) now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

And why is the environmental fallout not important in the scheme of things? Well, because if we don't hit them first, the Iranian Imams and President will at one point in time or another either kill millions of Israelis (as they themselves profess openly) or they will be able to hold the world to ransom as Hitler did thanks to the Allies' policy of appeasement prior to World War II.

So Mark Colvin in two segments devoted to this story (the story itself and then the interview with Anthony Bubalo), has failed to unambigiously enunciate the clear and present menace that Iran poses to HIS civilisation, to HIS society: The Iranians probably have the warhead, they are definitely able to weaponise it, and they definitely have a target.

Instead he focuses on the supposed religious fanatacism of the President of the USA, he frets over the environmental impact of bunker busting nuclear weapons the US may have to deploy in order to destroy the Iranians' nuclear capability and he slobbers over the LARGE SCALE air strikes the US will probably use in any pre-emptive action. Anyone smell an irate lefty?

No wonder our society and civilisation is unable to confront security threats in the 21st century with the same passion that Churchillians did in the last. We have blabbering idiots like Mark Colvin and Seymour Hersh betraying their own countries security interests for some else's. They are Muggeridge's brontosauruses.