I know history is doomed to repeat, but quite this quickly?

Look, I'm as much of a fan of practical jokes as the next man, but one really needs to be a bit more original when the first one falls so flat.

It appears the fantasy-mongers in the White House are beginning again by fabricating evidence against Iran. Why they think Iran would be arming the largely Sunni insurgency escapes me, but maybe "think" in this context is the wrong verb.

Don't you just love the new designation for roadside bombs: "Explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs)! What repressed policy wonk came up with that one? :laugh4:

Are even the die-hard apologists for Bushyworld going to buy this line?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Target Tehran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation

By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 12 February 2007

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.

"We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government," said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq.

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children's toys or to open garage doors.

Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when "shaped charges", similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name - explosive formed penetrators - may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq.

In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations.

The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein's elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

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.

The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.

Well it's not that far fetched, why would Iran allow Iraq to become stable oil-producing power again if they can help it.

Hmm, how to put this in terms that the White House will understand?

:idea2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well it's not that far fetched, why would Iran allow Iraq to become stable oil-producing power again if they can help it.

---

Because if Iraq retains its weak Shia majority government (so neatly installed by the US invasion) its oil effectively belongs to Iran.

Iran wants a Shia puppet government in Iraq. The insurgency is Sunni, and Americans are being killed by Sunnis. The Sunnis hate Iran.

If the Sunni insurgency is being armed externally, it is by Syria and Saudi Arabian interests in a desperate attempt to counter Shia ascendancy.

Iran is certainly meddling in Iraq, but it is to arm and strengthen the Shia militias that underpin al-Maliki's government. Even then they're not going too far, as al-Sadr for one is not particularly pro-Iranian. They want pliable puppets on the border, not heavily armed jihadists.

The invasion of Iraq was a dream come true for Iranian foreign policy. They have no interest in prolonging the US occupation, for the moment the Americans leave, they have a new oil-rich province and an ancient foe neutered. This is exactly what Bush senior was told the first time round - the difference being, he listened. This is exactly what the Iraq Study Group noted, and suggested it might be a good thing for this to happen with some degree of US input by negotiating with Iran.

Everybody knows it but Shrub.

To me it seems entirely plausible that Iran could have been funding terrorists.

a) They hate America
b) They are geographically in a position to fund anti American violence and weapons.
c) Imagine you are Ahmaddinajeed (or however his name is spelt); why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

To me it seems entirely plausible that Iran could have been funding terrorists.

a) They hate America
b) They are geographically in a position to fund anti American violence and weapons.
c) Imagine you are Ahmaddinajeed (or however his name is spelt); why not?

---

Sir, your job in the White House awaits you. You may have to dumb your reasoning down a bit though. The case was made after (a). (b) and (c) may confuse the president, especially as they contain long words like "geographically"

Found a few firecrackers

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?p=2302000

Excellent Fragony.

Look, there's more:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...iraqweapon.gif

This is so weak it's just appalling.

White House needs to pull the finger out and start making up convincing evidence if it wants to be believed, or at least employ authors who understand the local situation.

This is quite a good explanation of it all I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well it's not that far fetched, why would Iran allow Iraq to become stable oil-producing power again if they can help it.

---

That is true.
As long the Americans are here and suffer losses it suits Iranian foreign policy perfectly.
Besides a democratic (Sunni or Shia) country with autonomous Kurdish region can only cause more problems to the theocratic rulers.

The same case with Northern Korean support for HR fighters in Southern Korea - as long as they are against the enemy government they are 'good guys' whatever they preach.

It is so old trick that I am suprised anyone finds it strange...:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Hmm, how to put this in terms that the White House will understand?

:idea2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

---

You're assuming that they understand parables...:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Found a few firecrackers

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?p=2302000

---

What makes me really curious about those firecrackers is that Iran would give firecrackers to terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents/guys who need anger therapy and write "recently produced by Iran, contains really bad high explosives" onto them in english.:inquisitive:

On a sidenote, the dates are xx.xx.2006, isn't it something around xx.xx.1000 or so in Islam and with Iran being an islamic state, wouldn't they use islamic dates?

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources.
These are not assertions .
What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.''
:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Besides a democratic (Sunni or Shia) country with autonomous Kurdish region can only cause more problems to the theocratic rulers.

---

How so , the person who has most influence with Shia voters is linked to tehrans theocrats , and Sadr would not dare to oppenly oppose him or his "recommendations" on how people should democratically vote .
Likewise in the Kurdish region , Iran holds the winning cards there , it is their party and their militia that is dominant , an example of which would be the Kurdish elements in the Iraqi army refusing to deploy for the "surge:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: "action against the Shia militias .

Anyhow , damn you Banquo :thumbsdown: I was waiting for one of the bushyworld fantasy apologists to start a topic on this .

The Iranian army is about 100 times as strong as the Iraqi. Besides it will rain rockets on Israel. Next to that I think most Arabian country will stop supporting the USA.

Even Bush isn't that stupid ... I hope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Look, I'm as much of a fan of practical jokes as the next man, but one really needs to be a bit more original when the first one falls so flat.

It appears the fantasy-mongers in the White House are beginning again by fabricating evidence against Iran. Why they think Iran would be arming the largely Sunni insurgency escapes me, but maybe "think" in this context is the wrong verb.

Don't you just love the new designation for roadside bombs: "Explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs)! What repressed policy wonk came up with that one? :laugh4:

Are even the die-hard apologists for Bushyworld going to buy this line?

---

Wow, what a horribly one-sided article. :no:
It's pretty frightening when the American MSM is giving a fairer presentation than the article you've posted.

Incidentally, no one is claiming Iran is arming Sunni insurgents- they're claiming it's Shiite militias, such as the Mahdi Army. Also, EFP isn't a new designation for the same old IEDs- EFPs are designed to penetrate the current crop of up armored HMVs and kill the occupants with fragments of the armor/shell. They're now re-armoring HMVs with more flexible armor designed to absorb the EFP without sending fragments into the cabin.

Does anyone actually believe anything that comes out of the White House (or Downing Street for that matter) these days?

I bet half the employees in said institutions dont believe most of it.

The thing that worries me is that the persons in these top jobs actually believe the daily flow of garbage that they send out into the world.

Quote:

---

Does anyone actually believe anything that comes out of the White House (or Downing Street for that matter) these days?

---

Well thats a hard one Lancelot .
Perhaps you could note the post above yours .
An sample of its wooly thinking is.....

Quote:

---

Incidentally, no one is claiming Iran is arming Sunni insurgents- they're claiming it's Shiite militias, such as the Mahdi Army.

---

.......hmmmm the mahdi army ....errrr that would be the mahdi army that is in conflict with the Badr brigades........ummmmm the badr brigades would be the ones from Iran who are were armed and trained in errrrrrr......Iran . So Iran is arming a militia that its militia is fighting to disarm .
Blimey them Iranians must be really bloody stupid , they are arming the very people that they are trying to get rid of :juggle2:
Do you think they could get a job as an advisor to Bush :laugh4:

Hey anyone notice from the photo "evidence" the items from the Diwaniyah operation ? An operation where the Coilition forces, the Iraqi army and the Badr brigades acted together against the Mahdi army .:yes:

Rambo III was on TV last night. That is the one with our beloved John Rambo in Afghanistan. I sincerely hoped that just for irony's sake God was watching it too. Or someone in the White House.

As of this one, well, fair enough. It is plausible that Iran could be arming insurgents, but then again, they will sell weapons to whoever buys them, just as everyone else. And it is hypocritical to accuse them of doing so.

Thing is, it seems like Uncle Sam has his hands full with the already occupied middle Eastern countries. Adding another one to the list would be anything but intelligent. How many more thousands of soldiers will be needed? For how long? and who will be supplying the bombs next? Syria? Pakistan? Kazakhstan?

[QUOTE=Tribesman]

Quote:

---

How so , the person who has most influence with Shia voters is linked to tehrans theocrats , and Sadr would not dare to oppenly oppose him or his "recommendations" on how people should democratically vote .

---

There are other Shia factions.

Quote:

---

Likewise in the Kurdish region , Iran holds the winning cards there , it is their party and their militia that is dominant ,

---

The same party had exactly the same power in 2003. Nothing has changed really. They try to stay away from the entire mess.

Quote:

---

Kurdish elements in the Iraqi army refusing to deploy for the "surge:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: "action against the Shia militias

---

.

I think it is more based on the older Kurdish stance towards the entire internal conflict - they do not like to move from their autonomous territory



BTW I remember reading about Iran supplying anything anti-American in Iraq as far as 2003 - so what is new in those news ?
NOTHING

Besides the assumption that Iran wants or even needs any form of lasting peace in Iraq is based on what actually ?

If it is over. Iran will only lose from that - what do they have to gain ? More active US policy ? Cheaper oil ? Some shaky belief Iraq will adopt theocratic system ?

Kick the US in Iraq without any danger to yourself - pretty obvious they would like to do so and I CAN BET THEY DO.

But as I said before it is NOTHING NEW, but obviously is used now not just for annual Iran bashing (it deserves actually).:yes:

Give you one reason I'd beleive it. Isreal. Plain and simple. Iran knows that Bush has a VERY pro-Isreal policy, and the prez of Iran is an anti-semetic lunatic. (no offence to any of his fans on this board)
Banquo, you amuse me sometimes. :)

It would be an unmitigated disaster for us to get into open warfare with Iran. It would be the one thing that could unite the entire Muslim world. Arab, Persian, Malay and Bosnian would have but one thought: the destruction of the United States. Sure, we could probably take Iran, if we had to, but there's no way we could take the entire North African coast, Nigeria and other parts of internal Africa, the Middle East, possibly Turkey, and all the Southeast Asian states. And even if it looked like we might be starting to, Russia and China aren't going to just sit back and watch us take over 1/3 of the world's land mass, including 95% of the world's oil reserves.

I could be wrong, but I sincerely hope, and actually really do believe, that the Bush administration realizes just how true my first statement is.

I think the Bush administration is trying to change the topic: from how bad things are going in Iraq (and hence why he might need to cut some deals with the new Democratic congress that will infuratiate conservatives). Get the religious right and the fiscal conservatives worried about a brewing war with Iran and they won't notice the old switcheroo where abortion is now federally funded healthcare and the tax cuts are repealed, retroactive to 2001 (OUCH!)

The White House needs to be very, very careful. It would be very easy for things to escelate well beyond what they actually intended in shorter time than they can diffuse them. They're not going to be able to do a direct face-losing mea culpa, so diplomacy will be limited, at best.

How to make history repeat itself...

Quote:

---

Give you one reason I'd beleive it. Isreal. Plain and simple. Iraq knows that Bush has a VERY pro-Isreal policy, and the prez of Iraq is an anti-semetic lunatic.

---

...all it take is a single letter .

I say we nuke them.

Washington Post's take...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100479_pf.html

The anonymity of the sources is not helping the cause, if they want to drum up support. But, hey, SLAM DUNK! ~;)

Quote:

---

Marshal Murat


I say we nuke them.

---

I thought that 'Jericho' isn't back untill the 14th :laugh4:

And this from the country supplying Iraq against Iran not so long ago. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Give you one reason I'd beleive it. Isreal. Plain and simple. Iran knows that Bush has a VERY pro-Isreal policy, and the prez of Iran is an anti-semetic lunatic. (no offence to any of his fans on this board)
Banquo, you amuse me sometimes. :)

---

Anti-semitic, yes, but a lunatic? Misguided certainly, but to be in charge of Iran and to stay in that position he must be at the very least intelligent and most probably scrupulously sane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by You

Look, I'm as much of a fan of practical jokes as the next man, but one really needs to be a bit more original when the first one falls so flat.

It appears the fantasy-mongers in the White House are beginning again by fabricating evidence against Iran. Why they think Iran would be arming the largely Sunni insurgency escapes me, but maybe "think" in this context is the wrong verb.

Don't you just love the new designation for roadside bombs: "Explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs)! What repressed policy wonk came up with that one? :laugh4:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

---

Shame. We expect better from you, and your presentation was poor. I'll read the rest of the thread and may revise my comment.

Note the distinct lack of smilies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

And this from the country supplying Iraq against Iran not so long ago. :laugh4:

Anti-semitic, yes, but a lunatic? Misguided certainly, but to be in charge of Iran and to stay in that position he must be at the very least intelligent and most probably scrupulously sane.

---

Your faith is endearing. :sweatdrop:

""We need the government of Iraq to assert itself and make it very clear to the government of Iran that it doesn't want outside interference".
".
Some good words there by one of the anonymous experts , unfortunately it is ironic that the person saying those words is "outside interference" himself , And the government of Iran does want his "outside interference" in Iraq because it is costing him a fortune and making him look like a pathetic fool while at the same time strengthening the mullahs .

Iran accused of supplying Iraqi Shias Militants

Here's the article on the same story in my local paper.

Quote:

---

Geoffrey S And this from the country supplying Iraq against Iran not so long ago.

---

Lets not forget the other countries involved in supplying both sides with weapons in that one, shall we.

Surely Iraq that is not stable:

a) Makes it not a threat to Iran.
b) Puts up the oil price, which makes Iran and the rest of OPEC richer.

An Iraq that is stable:

a) Is not a threat to Iran.
b) Puts up the oil price as it joins the OPEC cartel.

An Iraq that is a stable puppet state:

a) Is a threat to Iran as it may be used as an example/base of operations.
b) Pushes down the oil prices as some of the main users get it at discount prices through their companies that have unusually favourable oil contracts. Which upsets Iran and the rest of OPEC.

Iraq being a poster boy for regime change is not just bad for Iran it would be terrible for the majority of the middle east. It would be even worse if the cost of money and people was less... a cheap change would make even SA look affordable...