US accuse Iran of supplying bombs to Shiite militants in Iraq.

purple'n'gold

US accuse Iran of supplying bombs to Shiite militants in Iraq.
With the US history of lies and disinformation is this a genuine concern?

Akrasia

it's more lies.

The huge concern is that the U.S. are building up an attack force in the persian gulf with which to start world war 3

DadaKopf

There was a dude from the International Crisis Group on the radio today saying how many, if not most, Shiah groups fighting in Iraq have absolutely no connections to Iran. More than that, some hate them.

So, it seems like more spin and lies to me.

purple'n'gold

DadaKopf wrote:

There was a dude from the International Crisis Group on the radio today saying how many, if not most, Shiah groups fighting in Iraq have absolutely no connections to Iran. More than that, some hate them.

So, it seems like more spin and lies to me.

My sentiments exactly. But this could really get nasty, even the Russians (Putin recently) are getting a tad fed up with the naked aggression that the USA under Bush is demonstrating. Its quiet scary, the guy just keeps looking for more trouble.

DadaKopf

A lot of governments will be hedging come the next presidential election, I'd say. And there's probably more than a little bit of "kick them when they're down" mentality behind it.

I think governments are sensing that American power is on the wane.

Moriarty

The UK armed forces have been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand in any case. Various Iranian groups are mixed up in happenings at a number of levels in Iraq from what I've seen.

Akrasia

Moriarty wrote:

The UK armed forces have been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand in any case. Various Iranian groups are mixed up in happenings at a number of levels in Iraq from what I've seen.

so they should attack Iran and turn a trickle of iranian support for Iraqi militants into a massive flood of anti Western violence across the whole world?

Judt

Akrasia wrote:

so they should attack Iran and turn a trickle of iranian support for Iraqi militants into a massive flood of anti Western violence across the whole world?

I wouldn't say that... Saying that Iran has been providing weapons to some Iraqi insurgent groups, it does not follow that invading Iran is the next logical step.

Personally, I wouldn't dismiss this idea out of hand, but invading Iran is out of the question after the Iraq adventure. The US is just ticked that Iran has been the big winner out of the failed middle-eastern strategy post-9/11. Iran is building its nuclear program, Iran has backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, playing Israel like a fiddle... The US doesn't like Iran, but short of bringing in the draft the US doesn't have the ability to occupy Iran. Invade it yes, but occupy? No way.

As I say, it does not follow from "Iran is providing weapons" to "Invade Iran", particularly considering that Iran holds all the cards. With one missile Iran could cut off 20% of the worlds oil supply, for one...

Akrasia

well i didn't say invade Iran, I said attack it, and it doesn't matter that this is the worst idea of all time, the people who are likely to make that decision are completely bat**** crazy.

Judt

Akrasia wrote:

well i didn't say invade Iran, I said attack it, and it doesn't matter that this is the worst idea of all time, the people who are likely to make that decision are completely bat**** crazy.

And the Iranians are sane?

It depends on what Iran does. If indeed Iran is building the bomb, then we don't need to worry about the US bombing them with B-52's, Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa. That's the game that's being played here... the US is just posturing.

Ideo

did the iranians not say last week that if they are attacked they will damage US interests and then the US comes out with this bull****! think ill start building my bomb shelter now...

purple'n'gold

Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa.

No, that just would not happen. Israel would not dare do anything like that without the full backing of the USA. If they did, there is a great possibility that Russia would nuke Israel for exploding nuclear weapons in their back yard. Don’t forget Israel is only in its dominant position because of total US backing (and money), on their own they are not that brave.

bk

purplengold wrote:

Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa.

No, that just would not happen. Israel would not dare do anything like that without the full backing of the USA. If they did, there is a great possibility that Russia would nuke Israel for exploding nuclear weapons in their back yard. Don’t forget Israel is only in its dominant position because of total US backing (and money), on their own they are not that brave.

I hate to break it to you, but Russia, simply isn't a military power anymore. What is left of the Russian military is focused on defence (and selling weapons to India, China, etc.) and it really has no reason to mess with Israel. A small tactical nuke on Iran would have no effect on Russia. Sure there would be world wide condemnation, but no one would do anything in response other then economic sanctions and many would be quietly pleased (including many Arabic countries).

Anyway Israel using nukes is very unlikely, far more likely would be a conventional attack, like it carried out in 1981.

Judt

purplengold wrote:

Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa.

No, that just would not happen. Israel would not dare do anything like that without the full backing of the USA. If they did, there is a great possibility that Russia would nuke Israel for exploding nuclear weapons in their back yard. Don’t forget Israel is only in its dominant position because of total US backing (and money), on their own they are not that brave.

Do you want to bet your last penny on that? Israel went into Egypt without US backing before. Besides, in case you hadn't noticed the US doesn't like Iran. If it doesn't have to do the dirty in Iran then so much the better. The Israeli's would use conventional weapons first, but if they felt backed into a corner then they'd cut through Damascus for a shortcut and damn the consequences. It's that or destruction, for them.

The most likely situation is that Israel attacks Iran with the backing of the US.

Russia? Half their weapons don't work anymore...

purple'n'gold

I have a life, thank you, and far cleverer people than you have underestimated Russia.
Check out this link, posted on yahoo news to-day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070212/ts_csm/orussiamil;_ylt=AkHYytxXvu58J5jqOvWmY2zMWM0F

FYI

"It depends on what Iran does. If indeed Iran is building the bomb, then we don't need to worry about the US bombing them with B-52's, Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa. That's the game that's being played here... the US is just posturing."

It is pretty matter of fact that Israel has the ability to nuke Tehran, before Iran could nuke Israel, since Israel is the only of these two to possess nuclear weapons. The consensus is that Iran is about 10 years (definitely more than 5) from attaining 'the bomb', though no one has much evidence to suggest they intend developing this capability.

The IAEA has yet to state that Iran has violated the NPT, whereas those countries floating all this speculation and insinuation of its mendacity, the UK and US are continually expanding their nuclear capabilities (in addition to providing other countries with the potential). A clear breach of the NPT.

The US 'claims' of Iranian meddling are no doubt intended, in conjunction with scaremongering about nuclear capabilities, to soften public opinion for the option of 'strategic' attacks on Iranian facilities, and it is anyone's guess whether this will be a precursor to all out war.

Clearly the US have been caught in a lie (within a lie no doubt) here as well, now admitting they over egged the attacks on US forces:

http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1171301639.html

Israel have said they could attack Iranian facilities alone, though doubtful this will happen given their defeat at the hands of Hezbollah.

These 'claims' are reminiscent of British claims not so long ago, which were revealed to be false. The truth being that the IED technology had links to the British government through alleged IRA channels.

http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1171286350.html

bk

purplengold wrote:

I have a life, thank you, and far cleverer people than you have underestimated Russia.
Check out this link, posted on yahoo news to-day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070212/ts_csm/orussiamil;_ylt=AkHYytxXvu58J5jqOvWmY2zMWM0F

I'm sorry but you are far overstating the capabilities of the Russian Military, here are a few comparisons:

Number of Aircraft Carriers:
US: 12
Russia: 1 (currently out of service for major overhaul and repair, some analysts say it isn't been repaired as it is just to expensive to repair and operate).

Number of Nuclear Sub:
US: SSBN: 18 SSN: 55+
Russia: SSBN: 10 SSN:10

In 2004 a major exercise was held to show how great the Russian Navy was, it didn't look good when two test Nuclear Ballistic Missiles (sans warhead) failed to launch, answering the suspicion that many western analyst had that most of the Russian Navy is just for show.

Yes Russia is having great success selling many weapon systems like the SU-30 to countries like China, Pakistan, etc. But most of the weapon systems they are selling were developed just before the end of the cold war. Little development has happened since then, so while the SU-30K is a very good aircraft, it barely competes with US 4th generation aircraft (like the F15, F16), never mind the large numbers of 4.5 (F/A18 Super Hornet) and 5th generation (F22, F35) aircraft that the US is building.

Judt

purplengold wrote:

I have a life, thank you, and far cleverer people than you have underestimated Russia.
Check out this link, posted on yahoo news to-day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070212/ts_csm/orussiamil;_ylt=AkHYytxXvu58J5jqOvWmY2zMWM0F

Ohh ye Gods, someone else who has seen my test scores!

That aside, the Russian military is an empty shell. Russian power lies in its control of most of the gas that goes to Europe. They do have sway there, but if you're going to make wild assertions that Russia has any power in the world, at least point to where they have the power. Russia isn't going to nuke the US and A for bombing Iran. They're capitalists now, they know how expensive that business can be. Besides, we'd only laugh at their duds.

For the Iran point, whatever about the US being the current whipping boys, does anyone in the room seriously consider arming the Islamic Republic of Iran with a nuclear bomb to be a good thing? Nukes are no joke, in case you've forgotten from the years of duck and cover.

purple'n'gold

Judt wrote:

Ohh ye Gods, someone else who has seen my test scores!

That aside, the Russian military is an empty shell. Russian power lies in its control of most of the gas that goes to Europe. They do have sway there, but if you're going to make wild assertions that Russia has any power in the world, at least point to where they have the power. Russia isn't going to nuke the US and A for bombing Iran. They're capitalists now, they know how expensive that business can be. Besides, we'd only laugh at their duds.

For the Iran point, whatever about the US being the current whipping boys, does anyone in the room seriously consider arming the Islamic Republic of Iran with a nuclear bomb to be a good thing? Nukes are no joke, in case you've forgotten from the years of duck and cover.

With the greatest of respect and all nonsense aside, do you seriously think the USA is going to allow Israel to start world war 3 ?

Judt

purplengold wrote:

With the greatest of respect and all nonsense aside, do you seriously think the USA is going to allow Israel to start world war 3 ?

Bombing Iran is going to start world war 3 now, is it? People said the same thing to me on September 12th 2001. World Wars are difficult affairs to start. They cost too much money.

InFront

This is a war cry we have seen before:

"They're a threat to security" (this time Iraqi peace, threat to Israel)
"They have the capability to get/ use weapons of mass destruction." (nukes)
"The enemy is evil" (in fairness Ahmadinejad is anti Jewish, but why would he want to wipe a territory claimed by Muslims off the map?)

These are the traditional methods by which people are drawn to fight. The enemy is despicable, he wants to hurt you, he's insane (in this case Ahmadinejad is a blessing). What could be more compelling than a lunatic with a nuke? And most importantly they say 'we've got God on our side'... "God Bless America".

At a recent prayer breakfast with fellow politicians and military officials, among others, he said:

The greatest gift a citizen of this country can give those of us entrusted with political office is to pray for us. And I thank those in our nation who lift all of us up in prayer. (Applause.)

Our troops must understand that every day -- every day -- millions of our citizens lift them up in prayer. (Applause.) We pray for their safety; we pray for their families they have left at home; we pray for those who have been wounded for their comfort and recovery. We remember those who have been lost, and we pray that their loved ones feel the healing touch of the Almighty. During this time of war, we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us.

One thing we haven't really heard yet is the role of the oppressor. That soldiers invading Iran would be rescuing a poor oppressed people who desperately need their help. However we are getting hints of it.

January 29th statement

While Lebanon's friends seek to help the Lebanese government build a free, sovereign, and prosperous country, Syria, Iran, and Hizballah are working to destabilize Lebanese society. Their goals are clear. They foment violence in order to prevent the establishment of a Special Tribunal in response to former Prime Minister Hariri's assassination, to prevent full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Hizballah's disarmament, and to bring down Lebanon's democratically elected government, in violation of its constitution. The United States will continue to support Lebanon's government as it seeks a peaceful and prosperous future for all the people of Lebanon.

I hope that things will fizzle out in the middle east, I'm not sure to what degree that is a realistic idea.

Hobbes

The whole thing is a dog and pony show (Iran supplying weapons). Go read up on it.

First up CIA have said that while the weapons may be coming out of Iran is a serious stretch of the imagination to claim that the Iranian government is funding/supplying these operations.

Secondly the "show of evidence" recently Western press were brought to an area. Told to remove all recording equipment, then were given a show of a powerpoint presentation (with photos) by a person who refused to name themselves to the press or allow them to take their picture.

Add to that no one from the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence or the State Department would take part.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100479.html

Sounds like total BS to me.

PixelTrawler

Its war pimp propoganda, pure and simple

Sponge Bob

Joebloggs4817 wrote:

Its war pimp propoganda, pure and simple

It has some basis as long as you realise Iran has 2 governments

1. the religious one in qom with its own forces , the revolutionary guard/pasdaran ?

2. the secular(ish) one in Tehran which also has an army , but its smaller than the pasdaran

so if 1. is ...most likely as the US asserts ...meddling in Iraq and supplying materiel then 2. could deny responsibility and be correct in so doing .

The US has plenty of previous for outright warmongering and in lying to support their case for outright warmongering but I believe they have a case this time .

Note the claim came entirely from the military themselves in Iraq and not from the discredited security apparatus in Washington.

There is an excellent article in the Independent today by Patrick Cockburn who is, however, very scathing about the US claims. He makes an interesting point about 2007 claims juxtaposed with 2003 claims .

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2261526.ece

The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

I suppose the lies of 2003 are still haunting them

andrew

Why would Iran supply weapons to a country which it was at war with for 8 years in the 1980's? After the war, some in Iran said (and still say) that the day that ceasefire was called was the worst day of their life. On top of that, Iran is a mostly Shi'ite Muslim (89%) country, while Iraq is a mainly Shi'a Muslim country (60%-65%), and they're not exactly fond of each other.

Seems like this is just a continuence of America's propaganda campaign against Iran, a propaganda campaign which started during the Iran Iraq war, during which the Americans supported outright the Iraqis against Iran. While I don't support Iran (what with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being militantly anti-semetic) I don't feel that this accusation has any real substance to it.

Also, Re. Israels response to Iran's attempts at aquiring the bomb, I doubt that Jerusalem would just go ahead and nuke Tehran because they felt threatened. More likely would be a direct attack on their nuclear facilities, with or without American backing. Israel have the most powerful army in the middle east, and have already shown their willingness to stop other nations in the middle east from obtaining nukes. Israel simply wouldn't tolerate nukes in their own back garden. Also, I don't understand why Russia would even come into this discussion, as starting anything in the middle east would be pretty much pointless (and probably impossible) for them to do. And finally, how could a WW3 emerge from a conflict in the middle east? Both preceding world wars involved large parts of the world and large armies on both sides. This is not the case with this 'conflict' or whatever you want to call it.

AbusesToilets

At a recent prayer breakfast with fellow politicians and military officials, among others, he said:

Quote:
The greatest gift a citizen of this country can give those of us entrusted with political office is to pray for us. And I thank those in our nation who lift all of us up in prayer. (Applause.)

Our troops must understand that every day -- every day -- millions of our citizens lift them up in prayer. (Applause.) We pray for their safety; we pray for their families they have left at home; we pray for those who have been wounded for their comfort and recovery. We remember those who have been lost, and we pray that their loved ones feel the healing touch of the Almighty. During this time of war, we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us.

What point are you making here,that Bush is a man with religious convictions? How shocking :eek:
I don't think the US is looking for an excuse to invade or attack Iran.I think they are in the position where it knows that Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq but at the moment can do nothing really to stop the Iranians from doing this.Therefore it is putting out this information to the media in order to strengthen it's international standing and hopefully influence world opinion against Iran.Which is important right now, given their current push for nuclear power and more regional influence.
I think this is the best thing that the US can do to counter Iranian intentions;to show Iran as a government intent on fostering and increasing the violence in Iraq and increasing it's chances of an armed confrontation with foreign powers.This all plays to destabilising the current government in the eyes of the burgeoning young political movements in the country,who in turn might succeed in weakening the position of the ruling religious caste.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

First up CIA have said that while the weapons may be coming out of Iran is a serious stretch of the imagination to claim that the Iranian government is funding/supplying these operations.

Link?

Hobbes wrote:

Secondly the "show of evidence" recently Western press were brought to an area. Told to remove all recording equipment, then were given a show of a powerpoint presentation (with photos) by a person who refused to name themselves to the press or allow them to take their picture.

Military intelligence people not wanting to be identified. You're right, they're up to something.

Hobbes wrote:

Add to that no one from the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence or the State Department would take part.

The CIA or any other agency did not take part. I can't find a single mention of them refusing to take part like you imply.

Joebloggs4817 wrote:

Its war pimp propoganda, pure and simple

I'm sure the irony of regurgitating anti-war/whatever propaganda is lost on you too, which is the funniest part of all. Fight propaganda with.. uh.. more propaganda! Surely a formula for success if ever I've seen one.

andrew wrote:

Why would Iran supply weapons to a country which it was at war with for 8 years in the 1980's? After the war, some in Iran said (and still say) that the day that ceasefire was called was the worst day of their life. On top of that, Iran is a mostly Shi'ite Muslim (89%) country, while Iraq is a mainly Shi'a Muslim country (60%-65%), and they're not exactly fond of each other.

.. what?

Shi'ite/Shi'a.. it's different names for the exact same religious denomination.

...

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think they are in the position where it knows that Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq but at the moment can do nothing really to stop the Iranians from doing this.Therefore it is putting out this information to the media in order to strengthen it's international standing and hopefully influence world opinion against Iran.Which is important right now, given their current push for nuclear power and more regional influence.

What information? Supported by what evidence?

From the BBC:

"However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.

"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

"Current push for nuclear power"!

What's the problem with that then?

InFront

AbusesToilets wrote:

What point are you making here,that Bush is a man with religious convictions?

Sigh. The point I was making, which I don't see how you could have missed, is that countries who want to drum up support for a war (among the other things I mentioned) tend to put God on their side. hence the quote from Bush: "we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us", "God bless America", etc.

The same can be said of Iran. God is a useful tool for drumming up support for a war. That's my point.

andrew

Moriarty wrote:

.. what?

Shi'ite/Shi'a.. it's different names for the exact same religious denomination.

...

Whoops, i ment sunni/shiite. how embarassing. That would make my whole argument about the religious animosity wrong then. The rest still stands - they really don't like each other (iran and iraq that is).
Thanks InFront

InFront

Nevermind:)

Dr_Teeth

I don't really understand where the US is coming from. Their troops are being blown up almost exclusively by Sunni insurgents. The same goes for the general populace. The Shia militias have no real need for carbombs and IEDs - they can quite happily drive around and kill Sunnis with their death squads since they are in the majority and seem to have a degree of control in the government and police force.

From what I've read, bombs=sunni deathsquad=shia, and the Sunnis sure as hell aren't getting supplied by Iran!

AbusesToilets

InFront wrote:

Sigh. The point I was making, which I don't see how you could have missed, is that countries who want to drum up support for a war (among the other things I mentioned) tend to put God on their side. hence the quote from Bush: "we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us", "God bless America", etc.

The same can be said of Iran. God is a useful tool for drumming up support for a war. That's my point.

Yeah, i get that but it's not saying anything particularly revelatory,it seems more like you were trying to paint Bush as religious fundamentalist,akin to those in Iran for instance.I'm not a fan of Bush but i'm not going to fall into the cliche of bashing him because he is a Christian.Do you think that his first consideration when presented with a situation or problem is whether or not it stricly adheres to the tenants of Christian doctrine? In the quote above i don't think he's using religion to drum up support for an invasion of Iran.I haven't seen anyone from the US government come out and say the we should invade Iran because it's the Christian thing to do.

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

What information? Supported by what evidence?

From the BBC:

"However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.

"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

"Current push for nuclear power"!

What's the problem with that then?

I have plenty of problems with Iran having nuclear power,given their current governments repeated allusions to the desire to annihilate Israel. Also seeing as they have already supplied Hezbollah with arms and material for decades and most recently in Lebanon,what exactly is hard to believe in them supplying Shi'ite fighters in Iraq? They gain from American hardship in Iraq,it keeps them from taking a harder stance against them in global affairs. For example Irans nuclear ambitions

Manic Moran

I think it's all a matter of degree and official sanction. Ahmadinejad may be quite correct when he's denying that his government has anything to do with Iraq. That's not to say that there many not be other Iranian officials involved, and I think it's naive to say there's no Iranian involvement at all.

About a year ago, there was a fair bit of discussion on American firearms boards about Steyr's decision to sell .50 cal rifles to Iran. The US expressed a preference that they wouldn't, on the basis that they had a feeling that they'd be up against them soon enough.

The things cost E15,000 each, Austria shipped 800 of them. According to today's Telegraph, a hundred have been found in Iraq. That's quite a bit of high-dollar-value equipment that doesn't just go missing, and the rifles are a hell of a lot rarer than an AK that could have come from anywhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

NTM

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Link?

Saw it on Obermann when he was going over Bushs State of the Union speech. The YT link is gone (person posting it gets nuked a lot). Will dig it out again for you.

Military intelligence people not wanting to be identified. You're right, they're up to something.

Anytime a story says "Unnamed sources" it is generally bullsh!t. Also there is no reason why a government official can't give a name towards an official statement. That's why they have spokes people in each department. So as to protect those undercover.

However I did actually dig out the persons name involved. It appears that he refused to the Western Media to have his name attached to the presentation but had no problem with it being attached when going on VOI (Voice of Iraq) iraq media.

His name is Major General William Caldwell. He has already been outspoken about Iran supplying Iraq with weapons, so why refusing to put his name to this report?

No one wants to put their name to it because they know its full of crap. Same reason no one from Intel departments had anything to do with it. After the iraq WMD mess no one is going to put their head on the line with such flimsy crap.

TBH the whole thing is like a badly implemented PSYOP program.

Hobbes

The things cost E15,000 each, Austria shipped 800 of them.

Hmmm, I am pretty sure the US export laws would forbid such a shipment, even if Austrian government OK'ed it. Would be intrested to know the name of the company.

bk

Hobbes wrote:

Hmmm, I am pretty sure the US export laws would forbid such a shipment, even if Austrian government OK'ed it. Would be intrested to know the name of the company.

Steyr, one of the most famous weapons manufactures in the world and the same company who produce the excellent Steyr AUG assault rifle that the Irish defence forces use.

Hobbes

I wonder how they got around the US export laws? Basically shipping stuff to a controlled country would get your export/import license to the US revoked, huge fines/possible jail time and added to the "Do not supply" list.

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I have plenty of problems with Iran having nuclear power,given their current governments repeated allusions to the desire to annihilate Israel. Also seeing as they have already supplied Hezbollah with arms and material for decades and most recently in Lebanon,what exactly is hard to believe in them supplying Shi'ite fighters in Iraq? They gain from American hardship in Iraq,it keeps them from taking a harder stance against them in global affairs. For example Irans nuclear ambitions

'Allusions to the desire', you really are grasping at straws with this one. You are probably referring to the misinterpreted words of President Ahmadinejad. 'Wiping Israel from the map of time' or something.

The actual quote, which rarely (or never) gets reported:

[Washington based research institute MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), gives this as the correct translation: ""'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan stated in an off the record email exchange: "I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.

The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."]

http://toirtap.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

At any rate it is obviously Israel that is the one that is intimidating Iran, not the other way round. Iran is in no position to bully. In fact Israel has made it clear it is just waiting for the nod from the US to launch 'strategic' strikes.

Supplying Hezbollah with weapons? Well, the extent to which this actually happened/happens is no doubt much less than we are led to believe. However, the US/UK supplied much more powerful weapons to Israel in the latest conflict. And lets not forget who the aggressor is, Israel.

'Irans' nuclear ambitions', this is straight out of a Bush/Blair speech. There is no evidence yet that Iran has dangerous 'nuclear ambitions', the only real voices professing they have are the ones with the most vested interests. Not to mention they are the ones conducting an illegal war in a neighbouring country, based on FAULTY INTELLIGENCE, or for the lay man, LIES.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

I wonder how they got around the US export laws? Basically shipping stuff to a controlled country would get your export/import license to the US revoked, huge fines/possible jail time and added to the "Do not supply" list.

That was part of the problem, apparently, and the reason it came up on firearms boards.

The US has had a policy since the mid 1980s prohibiting the import for domestic sale of foreign built rifles. This, unfortunately, includes the AUG, Scout, and a bunch of other excellent systems by Steyr. (and other companies, such as H&K). The domestic US firearms market is worth millions. Steyr, reasonably enough, is out to make money. It suggested to the US that if the import ban were lifted, it might make its money in the US instead of selling to Iran. The concept of allowing AUGs back into the country would get firearm enthusiasts salivating: The few AUGs which were imported before the ban took effect currently sell for near $4000 apiece (And are 20 years old), whereas new-build ones would theoretically go for about $600. The US said no, so Steyr did what they do: Sold their firearms to a legitimate importer. There would be no great loss in US government sales, because the US tends not to buy foreign rifles anyway. Customs and Excise, and a few of the police agencies are notable exceptions, they use AUGs.

[Edit: Apparently they did get slapped with a ban: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4564698.stm]

NTM

Frederico

Moriarty wrote:

I'm sure the irony of regurgitating anti-war/whatever propaganda is lost on you too, which is the funniest part of all. Fight propaganda with.. uh.. more propaganda! Surely a formula for success if ever I've seen one.

Haha! 'anti-war/whatever propaganda'? yes, its called the truth... you know?.. you remember what that is? You aren't ever gonna hear a report like this on the news..

"Today, according to a military official, two US apache chopper pilots, angered that a bradley fighting vehicle had been attacked earlier, fired missiles on a crowd, of mostly teenagers, and an Iraqi TV crew, killing 15 of them."

Its a war, theres propaganda, but the US propaganda is so extreme at this stage that its just creating more problems than its solving. Regardless of what 'evidence' the US administration puts forward about Iran, no offence, but only the rightwing warhawks and neanderthals are gonna believe them.

Manic Moran

Haha! 'anti-war/whatever propaganda'? yes, its called the truth... you know?.. you remember what that is? You aren't ever gonna hear a report like this on the news..

"Today, according to a military official, two US apache chopper pilots, angered that a bradley fighting vehicle had been attacked earlier, fired missiles on a crowd, of mostly teenagers, and an Iraqi TV crew, killing 15 of them."

The US routinely destroys equipment which it cannot recover. The AH-64 shot down in the initial invasion took a Tomahawk missile and an airstrike after the Tomahawk missed. Similarly, an Abrams, was destroyed by Americans during the Thunder Run after being immobilised by an RPG. The concept isn't new, a number of M1s for example were deliberately shot at by other American tanks to destroy them during the 1991 conflict.

NTM

Victor

Hobbes wrote:

I wonder how they got around the US export laws? Basically shipping stuff to a controlled country would get your export/import license to the US revoked, huge fines/possible jail time and added to the "Do not supply" list.

I presume the rifles were 100% Austrian and needed no American parts.

philologos

Akrasia wrote:

it's more lies.

The huge concern is that the U.S. are building up an attack force in the persian gulf with which to start world war 3

Indeed. I think that if the USA invade Iran, it will cause their allies in Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Syria among other nations to attack also, and possibly involve Israel in the mix and then the rest of the Arab world could potentially intervene. It is a recipe for disaster imo.

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

Yeah, i get that but it's not saying anything particularly revelatory,it seems more like you were trying to paint Bush as religious fundamentalist,akin to those in Iran for instance.I'm not a fan of Bush but i'm not going to fall into the cliche of bashing him because he is a Christian.Do you think that his first consideration when presented with a situation or problem is whether or not it stricly adheres to the tenants of Christian doctrine? In the quote above i don't think he's using religion to drum up support for an invasion of Iran.I haven't seen anyone from the US government come out and say the we should invade Iran because it's the Christian thing to do.

Didn't he say God told him he was doing the right thing in Iraq?

FYI

nacho libre wrote:

Didn't he say God told him he was doing the right thing in Iraq?

Mr Blair told show host Michael Parkinson: The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing according to your conscience."

He said: "I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

When asked if he had prayed to God on the matter, he replied: "I don't want to go into that... you struggle with your own conscience about it... in the end, you do what you think is the right thing."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4773124.stm

Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

bk

Jakkass wrote:

Indeed. I think that if the USA invade Iran, it will cause their allies in Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Syria among other nations to attack also, and possibly involve Israel in the mix and then the rest of the Arab world could potentially intervene. It is a recipe for disaster imo.

You are right, if the USA invade Iran, the rest of the Arabic world would likely join in on the side of the USA!!!!

You see Muslim politics is complicated, the Arabic Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are mostly Sunni Muslim and they mostly hate Shiite Muslims as represented by Iran. This is a hatred going back over a thousand years. They would love to see the US or Israel nuke/invade Iran.

That is why when Israel recently invaded the Lebanon, there was little complaint or condemnation from the Arabic states, because Israel was attacking Shiite Muslims who were supported by Iran and the Arabic nations hate them even more then they hate Israel.

InFront

That's not true. There is no big hatred "going back over a thousand years". That kind of division has been created artifically in recent years, and only really in Iraq.
Sunni power in Iraq was created to bring a leader to power and sustain him there, it doesn't really say anything about the rest of the world.

That is why when Israel recently invaded the Lebanon, there was little complaint or condemnation from the Arabic states, because Israel was attacking Shiite Muslims who were supported by Iran and the Arabic nations hate them even more then they hate Israel.

Again, that isn't correct. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300168.html

And when it comes to Israel, I would read more into the political interests of saudi as opposed to their personal religious beliefs. The Sunni-Shia thing is a red herring.

Manic Moran

The Arabs don't consider Iranians to be Arabs. Although until Iraq/Kuwait no modern Arab state had ever invaded another Arab state, they had little objection to the Iranians being invaded a decade earlier as they were considered Aryans.

Again, that isn't correct

You will note that the article makes reference to the initial Saudi response to the incident being to condem Hizbullah. There is no automatic 'they are muslim, we must be on their side' stance.

NTM

InFront

Manic Moran wrote:

The Arabs don't consider Iranians to be Arabs. Although until Iraq/Kuwait no modern Arab state had ever invaded another Arab state, they had little objection to the Iranians being invaded a decade earlier as they were considered Aryans.

What's that got to do with Shi'ite or Sunni Islam?

You will note that the article makes reference to the initial Saudi response to the incident being to condem Hizbullah. There is no automatic 'they are muslim, we must be on their side' stance.

Saudi initially criticised Hizbollah because of their special relationship with the USA.
They also aren't huge fans of Hizbollah in Saudi because Hizbollah are reformists and would like to create a 'soft' Egyptian model of state Islam.

It was nothing to do with Shi'ite Islam, it's a strange conclusion to draw because it was facing up to domestic (Sunni) outrage against Israel's war, that Saudi then took a tougher stance against it, as per the article.

Suggesting that Sunnis hate Shias more than Israel is pretty odd conclusion imo. It exaggerates the difference between Sunnis and Shias, and creates a sense of division when it just isn't there.