Bernie supported the 1979 Embassy takeover

[Derec]

This is 100x worse than the Kyle Jurek scandal and googolplex times worse than Warren's silly tiff with Bernie.

When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran’s Defenders

On April 1, 1979, the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had returned to Iran from exile to assume command of the revolt, became Supreme Leader in December of that year. His rise was accelerated by the seizure on Nov. 4 of 52 American diplomats and citizens, and citizens of other countries, at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The hostage crisis became the means by which the Ayatollah crushed political opponents in Iran. Dealing with the hostage taking became the overwhelming political crisis for President Jimmy Carter. It lasted 444 days. Virtually all Americans—Democrats, Republicans and independents—united in support of the hostages and the international call for their freedom. One prominent political figure on the 2020 stage, then almost completely unknown, stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders.

If Bernie's Democratic opponents had any balls (or ovaries, in case of Klobuchar and Warren), they'd use this to great advantage. But appearing to say anything negative about the theocratic regime in Iran is not exactly popular among Democrats these days, so they most likely won't.
However, should Bernie become the nominee, be assured that Trump (or Republican to be named later) WILL use it.

If Sanders were to become the Democratic presidential nominee, all this will come pouring out in Trump ads on television and social media. Voters will see TV clips of the American hostages, blindfolded and abused, alongside Sanders as the Trotskyist elector supporting the Iranian kidnappers. Rest assured, Trump will make absolutely sure that it is Sanders’ own past that will bury him and perhaps the Democratic Party.

 

[repoman]

Huh, interesting Wikipedia page on the author Ronald Radosh. Cache it quick before lots of changes are made. Seems like a very anti communist Jewish guy similar to David Horowitz. He has written a lot for FrontPageMag. Concluded that the Rosenbergs were KGB agents.

Normally I would bet that the Daily Beast would not publish him. But it is anti Bernie.

 

[repoman]

I read itvand there is some smoke but not a fire.

But there must be Warren and Trump people looking for Sanders having given direct approval for these positions.

I sort of agree with most of it except the hostages being mostly spies.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This is 100x worse than the Kyle Jurek scandal and googolplex times worse than Warren's silly tiff with Bernie.

When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran’s Defenders

On April 1, 1979, the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had returned to Iran from exile to assume command of the revolt, became Supreme Leader in December of that year. His rise was accelerated by the seizure on Nov. 4 of 52 American diplomats and citizens, and citizens of other countries, at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The hostage crisis became the means by which the Ayatollah crushed political opponents in Iran. Dealing with the hostage taking became the overwhelming political crisis for President Jimmy Carter. It lasted 444 days. Virtually all Americans—Democrats, Republicans and independents—united in support of the hostages and the international call for their freedom. One prominent political figure on the 2020 stage, then almost completely unknown, stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders.

If Bernie's Democratic opponents had any balls (or ovaries, in case of Klobuchar and Warren), they'd use this to great advantage. But appearing to say anything negative about the theocratic regime in Iran is not exactly popular among Democrats these days, so they most likely won't.
However, should Bernie become the nominee, be assured that Trump (or Republican to be named later) WILL use it.

If Sanders were to become the Democratic presidential nominee, all this will come pouring out in Trump ads on television and social media. Voters will see TV clips of the American hostages, blindfolded and abused, alongside Sanders as the Trotskyist elector supporting the Iranian kidnappers. Rest assured, Trump will make absolutely sure that it is Sanders’ own past that will bury him and perhaps the Democratic Party.

Oh man. If you’re going to finish with “Who was that person?”, don’t give it away in the title. Furthermore, you need not name which ones have ovaries. We can infer from wardrobe.

1979. You can’t call it a youthful mistake. Pete wouldn’t have erred such.

I do think Sanders is the preferred candidate of the Trump Regime. It’s probably all they can do to not openly campaign for him.

Buttigieg 2020.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?

 

[Toni]

I can see Sanders in favor of overthrowing the Shah but not supporting the establishment of any theocracy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you read carefully, it's similar to Alex Jones saying Sandy Hook families were CIA actors. In fact, it's less intense since Sandy Hook persons were killed.

Now the analogy would be saying 20 years from now that Trump supported the Sandy Hook shooter because he said nice things about Alex Jones. This is guilt by association to association of guilt.

Are there any direct statements by Bernie or receipts of funds he sent? I mean more than evidence against Ronnie Raygun for supporting them...

That would be evidence.

 

[Derec]

So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?

Transitive property of supporting evil regimes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?

Transitive property of supporting evil regimes.

So Ronnie Raygun supported them too.
Also, Trump supported the Sandy Hook shooter.
And Jimmy Carter supported the 9/11 hijackers.

 

[Derec]

Oh man. If you’re going to finish with “Who was that person?”, don’t give it away in the title. Furthermore, you need not name which ones have ovaries. We can infer from wardrobe.

I wrote that post quickly because it was getting late. Besides, you can't always infer from the wardrobe these days.

1979. You can’t call it a youthful mistake. Pete wouldn’t have erred such.

Indeed. Bernie was 38 at the time and should have known better.

I do think Sanders is the preferred candidate of the Trump Regime. It’s probably all they can do to not openly campaign for him.

True. But then again, Trump was the preferred candidate of many Democrats who saw him as being easiest to beat. So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[Derec]

Ronnie Raygun supported them too.
Also, Trump supported the Sandy Hook shooter.
And Jimmy Carter supported the 9/11 hijackers.

Socialist Worker Party directly supported the hijackers and Bernie was a supporter of SWP at the time.
That is very different than your examples.

 

[Derec]

I can see Sanders in favor of overthrowing the Shah but not supporting the establishment of any theocracy.

I do not think he supported the theocracy, but there was a lot of naivete on the American Left about the Islamic Revolution. This is for example what Andrew Young, a member of the Carter administration, thought about them.

Young Praises Islam as ‘Vibrant’ And Calls the Ayatollah ‘a Saint’

Andrew Young, the chief United States delegate to the United Nations, praised Islam yesterday as “a vibrant cultural force in today's world” and said that Ayatollah RuhoBah Khomeini, the Iranian Islamic leader, would eventually be hailed as “a saint.”
[..]
Although he acknowledged that Ayatollah Khomeini had been accused of antiChristian ‘and anti‐Semitic remarks, Mr. Young, who is an ordained minister in the United Church pf Christ, predicted that “Khomeini will be somewhat of a saint when we get over the panic.” While anticipating “a rough year ahead” in United States‐Iranian relations, the United Nations delegate predicted that “in two years, our relations with Iran will be on a pretty even keel.”

The difference between Young/Carter and Bernie/Socialist Workers Party is that the former did not continue to support the Revolution after they invaded and occupied our embassy.

For outright Marxits as Bernie was at the time, two other things come into play. One is that local, Iranian Marxists also supported the revolution (before the weird beards turned on them). The other is that the far Left will instinctively back the enemies of the United States/West in a foreign policy conflict.

You'd think Bernie would have learned about dangers of siding with Islamists. But no, he has in 2020 appointed Islamist Linda "the Cockroach" Sarsour as one of the main surrogates.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ronnie Raygun supported them too.
Also, Trump supported the Sandy Hook shooter.
And Jimmy Carter supported the 9/11 hijackers.

Socialist Worker Party directly supported the hijackers and Bernie was a supporter of SWP at the time.
That is very different than your examples.

Yes, it's different because Ronnie Raygun gave money to Iran and Carter gave money to Mujahadeen. Twitler also told Alex Jones he was doing a good job.

Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.

This was after Alex Jones was saying the Sandy Hook victims were actors.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible. Using diplomats and the cover of embassies is just something that governments do on occassion. And in a case where a foreign embassy supports one group over another in the domestic locale, there is a strong likelihood that some countries would engage in interventions or at a minimum information gathering for that purpose. This tactic was probably especially prevalent during the Cold War by both the US and USSR but also extends to modern times.

Related material:
When is a diplomat really just a spy?
Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats
Federation of American Scientists: Secrecy & Government Bulletin Issue Number 70

I recommend that last link.

 

[fromderinside]

FAS has always been a "hair on Fire" collection of mostly nuclear scientists that morphed into a professional advocacy group after winning support (funding) from the MacArthur Foundation. It's important that nuclear policy both civilian and military responsibility for which I give the group credit. Going from concerned scientists to professional advocates seems a bit of a strange shift though.

As for the Beast article it seems a bit like the new kid on the block throwing a live grenade from the past written by a partisan about an event with almost no impact other than 40 supporters into a national campaign to see if it can blow up a current legitimate dedicated left leaning hero!

Source for us? Derec, the purveyor of images of persons of color in handcuffs at every table. Who else. Indeed.

 

[Derec]

Yes, it's different because Ronnie Raygun gave money to Iran and Carter gave money to Mujahadeen.

Reagan's administration (no evidence of R²'s involvement) paid money to Iran as ransom for American hostages Iran-controlled Hezbollah took. Whatever you may think of the tactic, nobody would think that paying ransom to a hostage taker makes you a supporter of said hostage taker.
Carter is more complicated, as he and his administration did have a generally positive view toward political Islam.

Twitler also told Alex Jones he was doing a good job.

But enough of that particular derail.

 

[Derec]

I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible.

Of course it is plausible that some embassy employees work for CIA under diplomatic cover. As they say in those Geico commercials, "everybody knows that". But that doesn't mean that all or most are CIA. And it certainly doesn't justify a foreign country invading and occupying an embassy and taking embassy personnel hostage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible.

Of course it is plausible that some embassy employees work for CIA under diplomatic cover. As they say in those Geico commercials, "everybody knows that". But that doesn't mean that all or most are CIA. And it certainly doesn't justify a foreign country invading and occupying an embassy and taking embassy personnel hostage.

I did not say it did. Neither did Sanders.

Look at the hitpiece more closely. From the introductory summary:
"...but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders. "

Summary claims:
1. Bernie Sanders thought all the hostages were CIA agents.
2. Doing so is eqivalent to justifying the hostage taking.

The second claim (2) is false but probably a popular thing to say. Technically, it is not a logical deduction.

As for the first claim (1) it is very much also not supported and hyperbole. Apparently, the evidence later in the article is that some other guy named Pulley said, "we can be sure that many of them are simply spies… or people assigned to protect the spies." He did not say ALL but instead "many." He also did not say it justified the taking of the hostages. If he did it would have been quotemined like the rest of the article. Pulley of course had support by Bernie to speak at a university but it in no way means Pulley and Bernie had the same opinion.

Even if they did it does not follow that Bernie supported the hostage taking.

If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.

 

[Derec]

Source for us? Derec, the purveyor of images of persons of color in handcuffs at every table. Who else. Indeed.

[citation needed]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, it's different because Ronnie Raygun gave money to Iran and Carter gave money to Mujahadeen.

Reagan's administration (no evidence of R²'s involvement) paid money to Iran as ransom for American hostages Iran-controlled Hezbollah took. Whatever you may think of the tactic, nobody would think that paying ransom to a hostage taker makes you a supporter of said hostage taker.
Carter is more complicated, as he and his administration did have a generally positive view toward political Islam.

Twitler also told Alex Jones he was doing a good job.

But enough of that particular derail.

Hahaha, good one. I was actually talking about Iran-Contra. No, it's not a derail at all. It's about the falsity of guilt by association. I gave specific logical counterexamples. Clearly, you just want to throw support to your own candidate by allowing such terrible article with ellipsis phrase quotemines, hyperbole and bad logic to stand. This bad logic even now applies to your own post. Calling countetexamples to the false logic a "derail" won't make your problem go away.

If you actually want to have an honest conversation, I will freely admit I worry about Bernie's chances right now. Yup, it's true. I can see that CNN is more closely aligned to mainstream Democratic Party as well as the Daily Beast. As soon as Bernie took the lead, he's gotten all kind of attacks. I don't know if it's Bloomberg's connection to media, Warren made a secret survivor-style deal with Biden, Trump, or a combination of actors. However, I suspect that shills and payoffs are being orchestrated by Trump to sow division among his competition. All the negativity will be gathered and repeated in the general and his back room dealings extend to working with anyone, even Dershowitz.

While this particular hit-piece is illogical, it's inconsequential. The corporate and conservative media are strong. Bernie will be destroyed by the onslaught eventually. But they will also label whatever Democrat is left as a communist who wants to take your money and guns and has no plan for your security. The biggest difference with Bernie is that here and now he can say, "Yeah, so what? I AM a socialist." He doesn't have to quibble or give a half-assed answer about special rules of when to fight in the Middle East because his principles actually make sense. Nor does he have to give a half-assed answer about healthcare (except when CNN asks a loaded debate question).

He can speak directly to the economics of swing state voters about their true enemy. In swing state areas, his message is popular. It is something needed right now (whether you want to do Trump's dirty work for him or not).