‘Evidence’ connecting Iran to Iraq is a lie
As Brewer was posting yesterday, doubt’s about America’s so called credible evidence connecting Iran to bombs in Iraq is falling to pieces with every passing day. This of course all comes on the coat tails of the infamous ‘case against Saddam’ and the ‘credible intelligence’ that suggested those 100 civilians the American’s blew to pieces in Somalia last month were Al Qaeda (turns out they were just civilians).
This is absurdness by the American’s – how can anyone trust anything they have to say on any issue if they keep lying to our faces?
U.S. general: No evidence of Iran giving arms to Iraqis
JAKARTA, Indonesia — A top U.S. general said today there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran. "That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers." His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Three senior military officials in Baghdad said Sunday that the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 U.S. troops Asked Monday directly if the White House was confident that the weaponry is coming on the approval of the Iranian government, spokesman Tony Snow said, "Yes." Iran on Monday denied any involvement. "Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran.
Associated Press
posted by Bomber @ 6:32 am
22 comments
22 Comments:
US Briefing on Iran Discredits the Official Line
by Gareth Porter
"I'm surprised that they haven't found evidence of making EFPs in Iraq," Knights told IPS in an interview. "That doesn't ring true for me." Knights believes that there was a time when whole EFPs were imported from outside, but that now most, if not all, are manufactured by Iraqis.
Taking into account the false notes struck by the anonymous officials, the damaging admissions they made and the absence of information they needed to make a case, the briefing appears to have been a serious setback to the administration's propaganda campaign. It will certainly haunt administration officials trying to convince Congress to support its increased aggressiveness toward Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10518
( Michael Knights is a London-based Lafer international fellow of The Washington Institute, specializing in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf states.
Working with the U.S. Department of Defense, Dr. Knights has undertaken extensive research on lessons learned from U.S. military operations in Iraq during and since 1990. He earned his doctorate at the Department of War Studies, King's College London, and has worked as a defense journalist for the Gulf States Newsletter and Jane's Intelligence Review.)
A top U.S. general (Peter Pace) said today there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/522/1
Honestly, do you believe that Iran have kept their hands completely clean vis-a-vis the iraqi conflict?
Please read:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml
Giddy-up Bessy, come on girl, giddy up damn it, don't just die on me now that I went out and bought a new 20,00 errrr a 48,000lb. plow for you!!!
If you want all the rhetoric to be true Scott, then of course it's true! But if you want to get a glimpse of the real world take off your sunglasses, and stop sucking that coolaid!
Scott.
Having posted this yesterday need you ask me that?
"No doubt they will offer support to whichever side they think is likely to bring this about but this will be minimal until the U.S. pulls out. There is no advantage to Iran in prolonging the insurgency and risking an attack by America."
Pay attention.
BTW. Would you like to buy one of those rifles the Telegraph (read Neo-con broadsheet) reckons Iran supplied?
Here you go:
http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=7809610
...and here:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/50bmg.html
...or maybe here:
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=6&f=3&t=195940
Not exactly in the Warehouse but they're around.
Answer my question please
I don't know any other way to put it so I will reiterate with a slight amendment:
"No doubt they (Iran) will offer support to whichever side (among their friends) they think is likely to bring this (a stable and friendly Iraq) about but this will be minimal until the U.S. pulls out. There is no advantage to Iran in prolonging the insurgency and risking an attack by America."
Sounds to me that you are trying to set me up. If so, don't bother. Finding Ahmadinejad's personal AK47 up Moqtada's arse doesn't damage my case one bit.
Consider this. If a foreign force had invaded Canada and caused a civil war, do you think the U.S. would stand idly by and say "none of my business"? And if they gave support to one or other of the parties, would that be an act of war against the third party?
Of course not and of course Iran has an interest in what is going on. If they haven't got agents and are not helping where they can covertly at Government level (not to mention the non-government groups) they would be remiss. Don't forget that MEK has got their dirty little digit in the pie as well.
What we're talking about here is the paucity of the "evidence" that these fools are putting up. F' Chrissake, yesterday they said they found Hair! Proof of the aid guys in Irbil they arrested trying to "change their appearance"!!!.
I don't know about you but I've lived in plenty of places where I've had to cut my own hair.
All of this horse-piss has one target only - Bubba and the Missus. They don't care that we see through it.
The Neos want to break up the whole non-Israel Middle East into little, manageable bits and degrading Iran is part of it. They don't care about winning or losing, just bombing them back a decade or two.
If they can get Bubba on side, well and good, if not, (in my opinion) they'll do it just the same and to hell with the consequences.
I just heard a General name Douglas Feith one of the dumbest men he had ever met. I am beginning to believe that the Neos are indeed stupid. Unfortunately they've got the guns right now.
Well the advantage, geopolitically, to iran is that basically, like i have said countless times before, it is in their national interest to ensure that the will not be threatened from the west. Therefore, any government in Iraq which is percieved as a threat by Tehran, must be avoided at all costs.
Strategically their actions make perfect sense. Why would they want a pro-US puppet govt in Iraq? Thats a threat to them. So they are doing whatever they can to avoid such and outcome.
Yes I have been paying attention. And Sam, the world looks pretty real to me.
How many of you experts speak Arabic?
Or Farsi?
Or Hebrew?
If not, all you have is an opinion based on translated, second hand information.
And opinions are like assholes, we all have one.
So drop your supercilious "we know the TRUTH" attitude Sam and Brewerstroupe, and try and treat other posters with a modicum of respect.
Based on your insistence and post editing line Scott, it appears that your "real" is vastly different to mine.
It also seems to me that you play chameleon when it's convenient - by slightly bending your stance where it becomes apparent you are losing ground.
Scott, at the end of the day, having the U.S. in the middle east is contrary to peace in this world. And to listen to the Bush Administration bluster rhetoric in an attempt to expand their aggressiveness to Iran, Syria, Labanon, Afghanistan is an abhorant crime.
Look at Google Earth Scott, and home in on the middleast. When you get down to an altitude where the country names come into view, put a mental "X" on the region relative to U.S., and Israeli focus of either current or recent concentration of troops, or aggression in escalating rhetoric. I think you will find that there's a pattern. Now expand that a little to countries that the U.S. has approached for Oil & Gas resource and pipeline deals - Uzbeck, Kazakstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan et al.. Scott, open your peepers - this is not the classic battle of good and evil that you have been so thoroughly sold.
Why haven't the U.S. laid into Pakistan yet? Why not Saudi? How Bout Kuwait, Yemen, Dubai?? Scott, they are already U.S. compliant with the exception of Pakistan, and they have nukes. Those countries have already sat down and shut up, and Musharaf is being paid hugely to play both sides of the fence! Look at the big picture man!
I have maintained my stance on this issue throughout our conversations scott. There is no reason that Iran would stay neutral in the region, for god sake it is the part of the world where Muslim's live Scott- they all have a vested interest in sticking together because over history they have been invaded by Christian Crusader's or hords of other Zombies. Now the invaders are a bunch of God-Heads that want their wealth, and abhor the fact that they have radically different beliefs in the hear-after and how to live their lives. The proof in this Scott is simple, the invaders are in their homeland, not vice-versa, as Brewer points out - what would the U.S. do if someone invaded Canada? It's not a hard answer mate!
Clearly Scott, the vast majority of the world population, not even counting the 79% of American's, do not support this war. It is NOT a war on terrorism as is the billboard flashing advertisement that the Neo-Corporatist and Zionist movements insist. It is clearly an attempt at empiracal expansionism, and it totally fucks me off when coolaid filled people take off on a sugar buzz and try and tell me otherwise.
Tell me Sam, On Sept 12 2001, who had the best intel on Al Qaeda and the taliban?
"Scott, open your peepers - this is not the classic battle of good and evil that you have been so thoroughly sold."
Im not a fox watching bible bashing Dubya voting neo con.
" have maintained my stance on this issue throughout our conversations scott. There is no reason that Iran would stay neutral in the region, for god sake it is the part of the world where Muslim's live Scott- they all have a vested interest in sticking together because over history they have been invaded by Christian Crusader's or hords of other Zombies. Now the invaders are a bunch of God-Heads that want their wealth, and abhor the fact that they have radically different beliefs in the hear-after and how to live their lives. The proof in this Scott is simple, the invaders are in their homeland, not vice-versa, as Brewer points out - what would the U.S. do if someone invaded Canada? It's not a hard answer mate!"
Completely agree - Iran is acting rationally. I always maintained that position. I am a realist in international affairs - states act in a logical manner to protect their own self interest
"Why not Saudi?"
They werent compliant in 2003. They kicked the US out of their country!
"and it totally fucks me off when coolaid filled people take off on a sugar buzz and try and tell me otherwise. "
I get fucked off when people iwith rose tinted glasses blame the US for everything, and refuse to acknowledge any blame on anyone else.
Problem..............
Solution\: Blame the US
You loose interlectual credibility, and you become what you accuse the US off, singleminded
Scott.
"it is in their national interest to ensure that the will not be threatened from the west."
This applies to any nation on earth. There has been no necessity for you to state it "countless times."
"Why would they want a pro-US puppet govt in Iraq? Thats a threat to them"
Au contraire. They are actually quite comfortable with Al Maliki. Maliki spent some of his exile in Iran and has popped over for a visit since becoming Iraq's Prime Minister whereupon they settled a border dispute.
No name (another anonymous no doubt!) said;
"So drop your supercilious "we know the TRUTH" attitude Sam and Brewerstroupe, and try and treat other posters with a modicum of respect."
Considering all these threads maintain a similar level of mutual respect and fiesty discourse - where do you come in here Mr. No Name?
I don't feel I need to speak 196 different languages to be able to see clear writing on the walls of the world when it comes to the underlying erosion of human rights and dignity through empirical expansionism. Using some common sense and doing your homework means you can gleen a semblance of what's really going on through the fog of rhetoric if you are open minded enough, and have the right coloured glasses to look through. from the start I guess.
Waiting - no name, hello - is there an echo in here????
Brewer, Sam
Have you seen this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-zarqawi-text_x.htm
Its interesting, definately points to a power struggle between Sunni and Shiia elements in the middle east. It doesnt sound to me like his objective was the removal of american forces from the middle east
To quote a section, and this is Zarqawi writing
A war between the Americans and Iran. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:
1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iran, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.
2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.
3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.
4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.
5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.
interesting...
Frankly Scott, I could not care less. At the end of the day it's all speculation, rumour and inuendo anyway. As long as we keep a vigil on the home front, I'm a happy camper - Chao~
Just so I am clear, a vigil against what? Sounds like something Brian Tamaki might say...
A vigil against the same type of corrosion that has eaten away the American Constitution and Bill of rights and replaced it with a withering concern for all but the upper 1% of our society Scott, that's what.
I see a Rovian style electorate springing up through the ranks of a couple of our illustrious political party's, and a long lingering desire by those same vermin to continue the erosion of our social democracy system for their own benefit's.
Fortunately there are enough people out there with open eyes that can maintain a vigil and operate a spotlight in this snipe hunt.
Back to your Stratfor there Scotty Boy!
A vigil against the same type of corrosive decay brought on by Neo Corporatist influence, Rovian style personal attack politics, and the unbalanced influence of state and religion that has systematically eroded the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
Fortunately, there are many like minded people here in NZ with eyes trained to see through the rhetoric.
The recent example of Nicky Hager's book " The Hollow Men" is a beacon who's light is still shining on the tactics some of those who command or demand power use - to get their fix at everyman's expense.
"I don't feel I need to speak 196 different languages to be able to see clear writing on the walls of the world when it comes to the underlying erosion of human rights and dignity through empirical expansionism."
I do have to take you up on this Sam.
What human rights in the Arab world?
Woman's?
Homosexuals?
Voters?
But that is not what I posted about.
My point is that if you cannot speak the languages of the region, then all you have is another persons translation of what is being said in the area.
There is so much information out there so, whatever your ideology, there are screeds of information to back up ones opinion.
You can think you know whats right, as can Scott, but you cannot say you have the TRUTH.
That is all I meant.
I am sorry if you think you have access to the TRUTH Sam, but it is usually the religious zealots and fundamentalists that have this belief.
No name quotes
"I am sorry if you think you have access to the TRUTH Sam, but it is usually the religious zealots and fundamentalists that have this belief."
Sorry to contridict you NN, but that's called "Faith" not truth - it's vastly different.
I do agree with you though, everyone has their own truth for them personally.
I guess for me, it's seeing children maimed, burned, their innards splayed over the ground, with flies buzzing and the smell of shit and carnage heavily on the air from a fresh attack by the IDF using American made cluster bombs on villages that hits home with me. That my friend it is a TRULY WRONG thing to do in any language!
What about the way Muslims mistreat others? Or is it only bad when the US do it?
Post a Comment
<< Home