Iranian Agents in Iraq

[Jhhnn]

And it's remarkable, dna, just what lengths you'll go to in perpetuating deliberate mistranslations and defending the expansionist, racist, apartheid govt of israel. Better at it than most.

And, no, I don't have much confidence in the leadership of Iran, but they haven't been proven to be exceeding their rights as a nation, or proven themselves to be pathological liars of the militarist authoritarian stripe, either...

 

[imported_dna]

Now, now, Jhhnn -- your tactics are all too clear: you always start with a denigrating remark (e.g. "You are getting deperate [INSERT NAME]"), and you always repeat the same line of accusations; I guess you follow Goebbles' recommendation of repeating the same thing over and over, hoping that people will believe you.

Perhaps you need to check the other thread, where you spoke of an international mistranslation -- a misunderstanding, if you will -- of what Ahmadinejad was really talking about. You do nothing but push a preposterous argument which claims that all he wants is to unseat the gov. in Israel -- you almost make it seem like a peaceful transition.

And about the apartheid claim -- will you ever articulate an argument to back that up, or will you avoid any discourse like Jimmy Carter?

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, dna, Gaza and the other Palestinian enclaves are more beginning to resemble the Warsaw ghetto than the bantustans of S Africa...

At least S African blacks didn't have to actually live there, they could only vote there, for puppet non-governments having no power.

The rest-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dna
I guess you follow Goebbles' recommendation of repeating the same thing over and over, hoping that people will believe you.

That doesn't really work, but Goebbels said it so much people believe it.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
& there is no smoking gun evidence to suggest Iran is arming anyone inside Iraq.

Hezbollah who is armed by Iran has more advanced weapons than the insurgents inside Iraq. So you are telling me Iran arms the insurgents inside Iraq with 20+ year old weapon technology and rusted crap while arming Hezbollah with 90s technology?
Makes ZERO SENSE to me.

No weapons have been seized coming from Iran inside Iraq. They do monitor the roads you know. There are only a certain number of roads. It is mountains and desert over there.

So unless you can provide one smoking gun evidence that Iran is arming insurgents inside Iraq, all the posts that claim so are nothing more than BS rambling.

You also claimed during the Israel/Lebannon war that Iran was not arming Hezbollah until they admitted to it. I remember this because I had a 3 page argument with you and others over it. The smoking gun evidence people always want always comes after it is too late. I am not sure how your world works, but sometimes people want to prevent events from occurring rather than let the occur and go "oh, they were right, theres the smoking gun evidence".

uhm..
what are you smoking?

Ive always claimed Hezbollah-Iran had connections. Never did I not. Stop pulling BS.

Want me to pull some old threads? Here is one from 2005.

01/26/2005 03:50 PM

TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel has determined a requirement for a defense system against Iranian-origin long-range rockets supplied to Hizbullah.

Officials said the Defense Ministry has contracted a feasibility study on a system to defend against the 15,000 rockets deployed by Hizbullah along the Lebanese border with Israel. They said the ministry as well as the military have assessed that Israel has come under immediate threat from these rockets, many of which have a range that can strike cities in the center of the country.

For the last 15 years, Israel has developed, tested and deployed the Arrow-2 missile defense system, meant to protect the country against Scud-class and Shihab-3 intermediate-range missiles. The ministry study would examine the feasibility of using elements of the Arrow to defend against missiles and rockets with a range of 100 to 250 kilometers.

The biggest rocket threat in Hizbullah's arsenal, officials said, was the Iranian-origin Fajr rocket. Officials said the new version of the Fajr has the accuracy of a short-range missile combined with the rapid launch and salvo-capability of a rocket. They said Hizbullah could have thousands of Fajrs in southern Lebanon

"

Iran is not linked to Al Qaeda. They were against him and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Iran is a strong supporter of those groups in Lebanon (Hezbollah). "

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1494072&enterthread=y&arctab=y

so next time you want to pull some BS about me , make sure it is accurate

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Ya see, its this thing called WAR!!!!

When you hear that word "WAR" and you are not a combatant, get the ****** out the way.

After all, it is WAR, meaning kill your enemy, yes I said KILL.

They can't get out of the way of, say, the 50 bombing raids we did trying to get Saddam at the beginning of the war, or of the bullets PBS saw shot at a civilian for nothing...

It's not just called WAR, it's called UNJUSTIFIED WAR. If a nation invaded us and was shooting our people, it'd be nice for their citizens to notice and say something.

Something more than 'it's WAR'.

Palehorse:

Yes, we would. However, if our "agents" were caught taking action to kill or harm the Iranians in Mexico, it would be considered an act of war.

The same is true of the Iranian agents involved in the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. It is an act of war against the U.S.

Now, it may not be serious enough for you and your little checklist of "What Justifies a War - The Homegame Edition," but I'm sure the families of those killed by Iranian-built IED's will beg to differ.

Palehorse, if Iran *did* invade Mexico, and we invoked our Monroe doctrine and sent people to attack them in Mexico, who would be in the wrong, Iran or the US?

You really need to stop coming up with excuses for the Iranians actions against our soldiers and start remembering whose side you're on.

It's hard when your government is the one in the wrong. You get a choice between siding with evil or standing up for right against your government, while the first group whines.

What do we need freedom of speech for if the only acceptable position is to side with the government no matter what the wrongness of its war?

Did Lincoln need to remember whose side he was on when he attacked the war in Mexico as unjustified aggression?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Actually, dna, Gaza and the other Palestinian enclaves are more beginning to resemble the Warsaw ghetto than the bantustans of S Africa...

I see that taking matters out of context is your standard device; that, and false analogies.
I wonder how the Warsaw ghetto would've looked like after several billions of dollars in international aid.

The rest-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Wow, you articulated it so beatuifully; must be the equivalent of Carter telling people to just read his book.

Anyway, here's a quote from what you pointed to:

On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".

Yep; the poor man was truly misconstrued.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
They were invited by the President of Iraq

so ... the President of Iraq is now a terrorist
arrest him and murder him.

The agents didnt sneak over to Iraq. They had permisssion to be there by the leader of Iraq.

Iraq is not our country. Deal with it.

they were operating using fake passports and fake names... so tell me again just how "legit" their presence was in Iraq...?!

I have never seen you criticize Iran Aimster... ever. Why is that? Why are you so quick to defend everything they do even when they are proven to be aiding in the murder of American soldiers?

How can you look past that? That is an act of war, and Iran is walking a very fine line...

Act of war?
They were inside Iraq invited.

Act of war against who? Iraq is not part of the U.S.

If Iraq said they are allowed to be there then they were allowed to be there.

They are secret service agents... hmm I wonder why they had fake passports and fake names.

So Sadr tells Malaki that he must retroactively "invite" the Iranian secret agents in, Malaki does so because he is Sadr's pawn, and you buy into the whole story of their legitimate right to be there. ok, got it.

So, tell me, are the other thousands of Iranian agents in Iraq also invited? How about the shaped charges that they are building to destroy armored vehicles and kill American soldiers? Is that OK too? How about all of the training they are providing for the sectarian gangs on both sides that results in the death of American soldiers? Is that OK too?

Iran is committing acts of war against the U.S. on a daily basis and people like you dismiss it as "justifiable" or "hardly noticeable" or "no big deal".

what a bunch of sh*t...

 

[Arkaign]

Please. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Iranian nationals were in Iraq causing problems. It *would* surprise me if it even registered as more than a blip on the total scale of existing violence going on there. The problem is that a significant number of Iraqi people want each other dead, it's almost irrelevant if Iran (or Syria, etc) want to interfere further.

On a bonus note, what *really* is the logical difference between Iran causing headaches in Iraq, with the US covert ops groups perpetrating assassinations and dirty wars the world over for the past 5 decades? I agree with neither, but it's funny to hear the ignorance on this .. it's almost deafening.

Patriotism is the love of your country, not specifically your government.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Palehorse:

Yes, we would. However, if our "agents" were caught taking action to kill or harm the Iranians in Mexico, it would be considered an act of war.

The same is true of the Iranian agents involved in the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. It is an act of war against the U.S.

Now, it may not be serious enough for you and your little checklist of "What Justifies a War - The Homegame Edition," but I'm sure the families of those killed by Iranian-built IED's will beg to differ.

Palehorse, if Iran *did* invade Mexico, and we invoked our Monroe doctrine and sent people to attack them in Mexico, who would be in the wrong, Iran or the US?

As usual, you missed the point... so let's try this again: If we sent troops to kill Iranians in Mexico, regardless of the Monroe Doctrine, we would be committing an act of war against Iran, correct?

You really need to stop coming up with excuses for the Iranians actions against our soldiers and start remembering whose side you're on.

It's hard when your government is the one in the wrong. You get a choice between siding with evil or standing up for right against your government, while the first group whines.

What do we need freedom of speech for if the only acceptable position is to side with the government no matter what the wrongness of its war?

Did Lincoln need to remember whose side he was on when he attacked the war in Mexico as unjustified aggression?

All of that goes out the window when American soldiers are the ones dying. By defending the Iranians, you are, in effect, completely dismissing the death of those American soldiers. Apparently their deaths at the hands of Iranian IED's is not enough of a reason for you to get angry with the Iranians.

Bottom line: since you disagree with Bush sending our troops over there in the first place, you are essentially justifying the Iranians' murdering those troops.

In other words, you really couldn't give two sh*ts for the troops. If you did actually care, like the Left always claims, then their death at the hands of Iranians would make you angry at the Iranians. That does not appear to be the case. Your anger remains focused on Bush and nobody else.

You know, it is possible to blame Bush and Iran for their deaths. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Nothing excuses Iran's acts of war against our soldiers on the ground. period.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
They were invited by the President of Iraq

so ... the President of Iraq is now a terrorist
arrest him and murder him.

The agents didnt sneak over to Iraq. They had permisssion to be there by the leader of Iraq.

Iraq is not our country. Deal with it.

they were operating using fake passports and fake names... so tell me again just how "legit" their presence was in Iraq...?!

I have never seen you criticize Iran Aimster... ever. Why is that? Why are you so quick to defend everything they do even when they are proven to be aiding in the murder of American soldiers?

How can you look past that? That is an act of war, and Iran is walking a very fine line...

Act of war?
They were inside Iraq invited.

Act of war against who? Iraq is not part of the U.S.

If Iraq said they are allowed to be there then they were allowed to be there.

They are secret service agents... hmm I wonder why they had fake passports and fake names.

So Sadr tell Malaki that he must retroactively "invite" the Iranian secret agents in, Malaki does so because he is Sadr's pawn, and you buy into the whole story of their legitimate right to be there.

So, tell me, are the other thousands of Iranian agents in Iraq also invited? How about the shaped charges that they are building to destroy armored vehicles and kill American soldiers? Is that OK too? How about all of the training they are providing for the sectarian gangs on both sides that results in the death of American soldiers? Is that IOK too?

Iran is committing acts of war against the U.S. on a daily basis and people like you dismiss it as "justifiable" or "hardly noticeable" or "no big deal".

what a bunch of sh*t...

there are not thousands of iranian agents inside iran. Stop pulling numbers out of the air.

there is zero evidence to link Iran's govt with anything going on inside Iraq.

You dont know the facts. You are just spitting up random BS because you heard some garbage on FoxNews or heard Condi open her mouth. Iranian advanced weapons have not been found inside Iraq. Look at what Hezbollah did to Israel. The insurgency inside Iraq doesn't even come close. Our helicopters would be shot down every day. The insurgents are lucky if they can even get one copter down with their old crap.

& yes Iraq is not part of the U.S. If their leader invites people to his country then the U.S can stfu about it.
It doesn't matter whose fckn pawn he is. He was elected to power and he represents the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people want Al Sadr in power then wtf is it to us?

We are inside Iraq. Iraq is not inside the U.S.

The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Speculation is all it is.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Please show me links to proof of everything you just wrote in that paragraph. Show me these "admissions."

 

[Aimster]

Show me the evidence Iran is arming anyone inside Iraq.

You cannot. All you can link is Condi and her crew opening her mouth. No direct evidence at all.

Z e r o.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Please show me links to proof of everything you just wrote in that paragraph. Show me these "admissions."

Ok, and when I do what will you say?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Please show me links to proof of everything you just wrote in that paragraph. Show me these "admissions."

Ok, and when I do what will you say?

It's irrelevant either way, because just as in the US, there are plenty of folks on both sides saying OPPOSITE things.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Please show me links to proof of everything you just wrote in that paragraph. Show me these "admissions."

Ok, and when I do what will you say?

It's irrelevant either way, because just as in the US, there are plenty of folks on both sides saying OPPOSITE things.

The same people who say Iran is responsible have said there is no direct evidence. The general in charge of the operation said it.

The administration keeps putting Iran into the media and it sticks. Just like they put Iraq WMD into the media, it stuck.

The Bush party is great at controlling the media.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Please show me links to proof of everything you just wrote in that paragraph. Show me these "admissions."

Ok, and when I do what will you say?

It's irrelevant either way, because just as in the US, there are plenty of folks on both sides saying OPPOSITE things.

The same people who say Iran is responsible have said there is no direct evidence. The general in charge of the operation said it.

The administration keeps putting Iran into the media and it sticks. Just like they put Iraq WMD into the media, it stuck.

The Bush party is great at controlling the media.

I'm no Bush defender, but if he's controlling the media, he's doing a piss-poor job of it. He is loathed around the globe, and infamously unintelligent to almost anyone who's paying attention. I think the only people standing by him are a section of people who voted for him and are too proud to admit that it was somewhat of a mistake, which may be putting it mildly. The media makes him look like the idiot that he is.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S admitted they have no hardcore evidence linking iran to the insurgency and Britain even admitted they have never had one piece of evidence coming from Iran to Iraq that would link the Iranian govt in anything.

Please show me links to proof of everything you just wrote in that paragraph. Show me these "admissions."

Ok, and when I do what will you say?

Show me the "admissions," or your entire argument will be dismissed as a fabrication.

Second, I do not get my information on Iraq from the media.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
So Sadr tells Malaki that he must retroactively "invite" the Iranian secret agents in, Malaki does so because he is Sadr's pawn, and you buy into the whole story of their legitimate right to be there. ok, got it.

So, tell me, are the other thousands of Iranian agents in Iraq also invited? How about the shaped charges that they are building to destroy armored vehicles and kill American soldiers? Is that OK too? How about all of the training they are providing for the sectarian gangs on both sides that results in the death of American soldiers? Is that OK too?

Iran is committing acts of war against the U.S. on a daily basis and people like you dismiss it as "justifiable" or "hardly noticeable" or "no big deal".

what a bunch of sh*t...

Lots of interesting allegations. Can you back them up with independent sources? So far they sound a lot like the propaganda used to justify attacking Iraq. "We know where they are." "These are facts, not assertions." "There is no doubt ..."

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, no matter how shrilly you cry wolf. The Bush administration simply has no credibility.

 

[Aimster]

Reuters News Agency

March 14, 2006
U.S General Admits No Direct Evidence Linking Iran to Insurgency-Weapons:

Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."

"Unless you physically see it in a government-sponsored vehicle or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it," Rumsfeld said at the same briefing. "All you know is that you find equipment, weapons, explosives, whatever, in a country that came from the neighboring country."

"With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran," Rumsfeld added.
------------------------------
U.S govt. has failed to mention Iran is a major arms exporter to more than 20 nations.
-----------------------------
[/b] So how do we know they didn't come from the border? [/b]

Washingtonpost.com

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
"It's a question of intelligence versus evidence," Labouchere's commander, Brig. James Everard of Britain's 20th Armored Brigade,

"I suspect there's nothing out there," the commander, Lt. Col. David Labouchere, said last month, speaking at an overnight camp near the border. "And I intend to prove it."

But Maj. Dominic Roberts of the Queen's Dragoons said: "We have found no credible evidence to suggest there is weapons smuggling across the border."

Asked why he could declare himself so confident that no arms were coming through, Labouchere mildly cited his confidence in Iraq's border force.

"I have not myself seen any evidence -- and I don't think any evidence exists -- of government-supported or instigated" armed support on Iran's part in Iraq, British Defense Secretary Des Browne said in an interview in Baghdad in late August.

 

[Aimster]

I posted two generals saying there is no direct evidence.

Now you go and show me your evidence that Iran is smuggling weapons into Iraq.

other than "he said she said"

 

[imported_dna]

US troops raided an Iranian consulate this morning, taking computers and papers with them. We'll have to wait and see what kind of goodies can be extracted from them.

LINK:

US troops raided the Iranian consulate in Irbil at about 0300 (0100 GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

 

[palehorse]

Exhibit A
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829929/

Shipment of high explosives intercepted in Iraq
Most sophisticated of roadside bombs reportedly coming from Iran

By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:54 p.m. ET Aug. 4, 2005
Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent

PENTAGON - It?s the number one killer of American troops in Iraq: roadside bombs. The massive roadside bomb that killed 14 Marines Wednesday flipped their 37-ton vehicle on its top and blew it some 40 feet down the road.

Tonight, there?s disturbing information that some of the most sophisticated of these deadly weapons are reportedly coming from Iran. U.S. military and intelligence officials tell NBC News that American soldiers intercepted a large shipment of high explosives, smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran only last week.

The officials say the shipment contained dozens of "shaped charges" manufactured recently. Shaped charges are especially lethal because they?re designed to concentrate and direct a more powerful blast into a small area.

?They?ll go right through a very heavily armored vehicle like an M1-A1 tank from one side right out the other side,? says retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey.

I guess it all comes down to who you believe. It seems that some of you are quick to believe anything that hurts America versus anything that may help America or show America in a good light. I sincerely believe that you are much happier when things are working against our success than when they are working toward it. You enjoy seeing Bush and America take a black eye because it somehow justifies your fanatic opposition to the entire Federal establishment.

In this case, I have first-hand experience with Iranian-built IED's, so I dont really need the media to provide me with proof. However, no matter how many Generals say that Iran is interfering in Iraq and that they remain directly involved in the death of American soldiers, people like Aimster will always believe the opposite is true because some General somewhere reportedly said the opposite in some random media-clip.

Believe what you wish... I know the truth.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: dna
US troops raided an Iranian consulate this morning, taking computers and papers with them. We'll have to wait and see what kind of goodies can be extracted from them.

LINK:

US troops raided the Iranian consulate in Irbil at about 0300 (0100 GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

Hmm like computer forgery isn't the easiest kind to perpetrate But we'll really never know either way, will we? Iraq continues to be a gargantuan waste of money, time, and lives, no matter who is or isn't involved.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Exhibit A
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829929/

Shipment of high explosives intercepted in Iraq
Most sophisticated of roadside bombs reportedly coming from Iran

By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:54 p.m. ET Aug. 4, 2005
Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent

PENTAGON - It?s the number one killer of American troops in Iraq: roadside bombs. The massive roadside bomb that killed 14 Marines Wednesday flipped their 37-ton vehicle on its top and blew it some 40 feet down the road.

Tonight, there?s disturbing information that some of the most sophisticated of these deadly weapons are reportedly coming from Iran. U.S. military and intelligence officials tell NBC News that American soldiers intercepted a large shipment of high explosives, smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran only last week.

The officials say the shipment contained dozens of "shaped charges" manufactured recently. Shaped charges are especially lethal because they?re designed to concentrate and direct a more powerful blast into a small area.

?They?ll go right through a very heavily armored vehicle like an M1-A1 tank from one side right out the other side,? says retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey.

That right there is suspiciously vague.

Besides, I've worked with Semtex .. plastique explosives are stunningly easy to work with, and shaped charges are childs play.