monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

It's an insult to any reader's intelligence.

Notice that McGentrix doesn't cite a single statement where Brooks indicates any sympathy for terrorism. No, he just copies the administration's line where any questioning of our policy in the Mideast is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists. It's an insult to any reader's intelligence.

An $80million bounty has been placed on Donald Trump's head in Iran in the wake of General Qasem Soleimani's assassination.

During the televised funeral, an unidentified eulogist speaking on official state television said one US dollar should be tabled for every Iranian in the country, with the cash going to whoever killed the US President.

“Iran has 80 million inhabitants. Based on the Iranian population, we want to raise $80million (£61million) which is a reward for those who get close to the head of President Trump,” it was announced, according to en24.

It is not thought the bounty has been backed by government officials.

Quote:

Sssshhhhh, let them have their wet dreams.

Why do you need to be so coarse? Do you really think that there's a sexual component to speculation concerning the Trump administration's intentions in regard to Iran? If you do, you're stupid. If you don't, why use such tired and inaccurate terminology? Let them have their fantasies, let them have their silly conceits, let them indulge in their mistaken and ideologically suspect theories — why not use your brain instead of just firing off vulgar and erroneous cliches?

Notice that McGentrix doesn't cite a single statement where Brooks indicates any sympathy for terrorism. No, he just copies the administration's line where any questioning of our policy in the Mideast is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists. It's an insult to any reader's intelligence.

I was a Middle East correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. My job was to understand and explain why what may have been the largest crowd of mourners ever assembled wept hysterically for a man my readers considered monstrous.

In a speech on 1 February 1979 delivered to a huge crowd after returning to Iran from exile, Khomeini made a variety of promises to Iranians for his coming Islamic regime: a popularly elected government that would represent the people of Iran and with which the clergy would not interfere. He promised that "no one should remain homeless in this country," and that Iranians would have free telephone, heating, electricity, bus services and free oil at their doorstep.

Under Khomeini's rule, Sharia (Islamic law) was introduced, with the Islamic dress code enforced for both men and women by Islamic Revolutionary Guards and other Islamic groups. Women were required to cover their hair, and men were not allowed to wear shorts. Alcoholic drinks, most Western movies, and the practice of men and women swimming or sunbathing together were banned. The Iranian educational curriculum was Islamized at all levels with the Islamic Cultural Revolution; the "Committee for Islamization of Universities" carried this out thoroughly. The broadcasting of any music other than martial or religious on Iranian radio and television was banned by Khomeini in July 1979. The ban lasted 10 years (approximately the rest of his life).

According to Janet Afari, "the newly established regime of Ayatollah Khomeini moved quickly to repress feminists, ethnic and religious minorities, liberals, and leftists - all in the name of Islam."

Today, three decades of diplomatic failure later, I watch from afar on cable news as a similar crowd in Iran, this time a deadly one, mourns Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. I’m not a journalist anymore, so I’m reduced to groaning at the TV when commentators don’t help us understand what’s going on, but instead confound our understanding by providing incorrect information.

General Suleimani has American blood on his hands, as we are reminded repeatedly, not only by President Trump but also by Democratic presidential candidates. This is true. But is it wrong to remind ourselves of the Iranian blood we have on ours?

General Suleimani killed Americans and, we are told, had plans to kill more.

In fact, exactly eight years ago this week, Trump predicted that Obama was so desperate for a political boost, there would be "some kind of a war" with Iran prior to that year's election. Sean Hannity responded at the time, "That would be the single most chilling abuse of power in American history."

Except Trump hasn't attacked Iran, he killed one of their terrorists Generals

You seem fairly intelligent...

Today, three decades of diplomatic failure later, I watch from afar on cable news as a similar crowd in Iran, this time a deadly one, mourns Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. I’m not a journalist anymore, so I’m reduced to groaning at the TV when commentators don’t help us understand what’s going on, but instead confound our understanding by providing incorrect information.

We should definitely have awesome diplomatic relations with that government...

But is it wrong to remind ourselves of the Iranian blood we have on ours?

"we are told"... as though we should doubt that?

Geraldine is a dyed in the wool sympathizer...

No, she's someone just with a greater understanding of Iranian culture and more concern for the plight of the Iranian people. Nothing about that indicates support for terrorism. You should be embarrassed for drawing that conclusion.

"Sophomoric and Unconvincing"

"Sophomoric and Unconvincing"

Beginning to look like we might have war crimes going on here.