Iran blamed over British soldiers' deaths
Jason N. Parkinson | 05.10.2005 22:27 | Anti-militarism | World
From Guardian Online.
Iran blamed over soldiers' deaths
Press Association
Wednesday October 5, 2005 9:58 PM
Iran blamed over soldiers' deaths
Press Association
Wednesday October 5, 2005 9:58 PM
Jason N. Parkinson
e-mail:
nixon@vault.securewebhosting.net
Homepage:
http://www.reprogrammingthedesensitised.com
Comments
Hide the following 29 comments
Iran, they stood
05.10.2005 23:00
Why would the Iraqis need to beg bombs off Iran?
If Iran was sending ammo over, then why were the Iraqis lobbing petrol bombs at the British soliders?
Or were they Iranian milk bottles?
On a serious note, if the British Army is used to stir up the Iranians, the numbers of dead will shoot up to hundreds. The Iranians and the Iraqi shia kicking off would end the British mission. All we fight right now are the Sunni with the young Sadr and his army waiting for the order from Iran to join in.
Shiek Atailfeather
Scapegoats
05.10.2005 23:23
Not more Blair Bush wars
Well they would, would they not
06.10.2005 00:12
Where oh where is the PUBLIC and the Media outcry regarding S.A.S. guys obviously getting caught red handed pretending to be Arab terrorists and about to detonate explosives and blame it on the mythical insurgents. This is most disgusting.Insurgents equals Iraqi citizens who would like there country back please.
DOES NO ONE GIVE A DAMM?
deputy dog
Just fucking great
06.10.2005 00:39
sick of the lies
Voice of the past
06.10.2005 01:45
someone
Typical, Sadly
06.10.2005 05:33
Iran 'behind attacks on British'
There have been violent anti-British protests in Basra
Britain has accused Iran of responsibility for explosions which have caused the deaths of all eight UK soldiers killed in Iraq this year.
However, as the Iraqi Resistance shows no signs of fading (read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" for the explanation as to why ...), the people who brought us "Saddam has WMD!!!" are looking not only to distract from the issue of UK troops dying for those LIES, but they're crafting new ones, in order to attempt to turn this tragedy of their creation into another "opportunity" to forge ahead with the plans of the Israeli/Neo-Con Hardliners.
And even if this WERE true - the US/UK illegally invaded a sovereign nation, without provocation. Iran would have every right to aid the Resistance Movement in any form that pleases them.
Here are some more illegal plans:
US 'aiming at Syria regime change'
Leaked UK documents also prove that these whack-jobs KNOW that what they are planning constitutes illegal policy.
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
... but ...
06.10.2005 07:53
Or do you think it might work this time?
Perhaps 3 million will do what 2 million couldn't[sic].
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Stop the War on Iran
06.10.2005 08:17
Berlusclone
feasible
06.10.2005 08:25
This kind of scenario had been long predicted:
What the Iranians and the rest of the world know, is that The US/UK are already overstretched in Iraq. The US is propelling itself towards finiancial disaster now and the UK will likely bail out before it hits them.
The Iraq Invasion plan looked ludicrous in hindsight, but the US went ahead with it. So, who knows they me be stupid enough to to take on Iran now. I guess it would involve calling for national conscription and the use of even more indiscriminate targetting of missiles; the more widespread use of napalm etc.
It would be a monumental mess. But like I said it was predicted Iraq would be.
I still doubt they so insane to amke the same mistake twice... especially with growing US opinion for disengangement in Iraq.
BTW, no-one has been caught red-handed staging terrorism. There has been no evidence of that.
HRT
Who's telling the truth?
06.10.2005 10:58
Arthur
Yes indeed, who is telling the truth.
06.10.2005 16:31
because it is an old lie that has been repeated so many times that it has now become the truth ..
or do you have photographic evidence to prove it Arthur old chap ?
Don't lay any corporate press links on me cos I don't consider them prove ..
You might just get me agree that Iran supports Hezbollah but can you prove that they actually arm them ?
Perhaps people believe what they want to, like the SAS were well tooled up for something dodgy, your comment is quite typical of how mainstream thought is passed off for fact when it's just another long running porky pie ..
Sdeong
War with Iran
06.10.2005 16:32
Humpty Dumpty
Arthur
06.10.2005 17:46
I really am truly baffled at what they are doing posting on IM. Do they REALLY believe their crap; are they trolls; are they just having a laugh; are they here to totally discredit IM???
HRT
Surely........
06.10.2005 19:40
Tina the cat
Aha, Deja Vu
06.10.2005 22:27
"Leaked UK documents also prove that these whack-jobs KNOW that what they are planning constitutes illegal policy"
Aha. PsychoOops and his unreference, vague assertions strike again. Give us a link to the leaked documents, then.,....
Boab
Look It Up
07.10.2005 00:55
If you are interested, the one in question is called "Iraq: Options Paper", and it was written on the 8th of March, 2002, by the UK Overseas & Defense Secretariat Cabinet Office. You should be able to find it with a bit of legwork.
The Propaganda is becoming very predictable - and the media is obviously being used as a tool by these criminal Neo-Fascists.
Iran 'behind attacks on British'
There have been violent anti-British protests in Basra
Britain has accused Iran of responsibility for explosions which have caused the deaths of all eight UK soldiers killed in Iraq this year.
However, as the Iraqi Resistance shows no signs of fading (read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" for the explanation as to why ...), the people who brought us "Saddam has WMD!!!" are looking not only to distract from the issue of UK troops dying for those LIES, but they're crafting new ones, in order to attempt to turn this tragedy of their creation into another "opportunity" to forge ahead with the plans of the Israeli/Neo-Con Hardliners.
And even if this WERE true - the US/UK illegally invaded a sovereign nation, without provocation. Iran would have every right to aid the Resistance Movement in any form that pleases them.
Here are some more illegal plans:
US 'aiming at Syria regime change'
Leaked UK documents also prove that these whack-jobs KNOW that what they are planning constitutes illegal policy.
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
the basra incident tells us a different story
07.10.2005 03:15
and learn a little about UK agent provacateurs
Brian
Brian
07.10.2005 08:53
HRT
The Guardian is a reliable source of information
07.10.2005 08:59
Concerned
What you asking me to read this old guff for???
07.10.2005 09:15
This story as stated originated at:
A site that clearly relies on advertising revenue from people like Sky TV (hahahaha!) to survive.
The document is described as "transcribed" which means that the contents are derived from another source (possibly aletered?)
You endorse the veracity of this document; you endorse this?:
"The main Shia opposition group is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) with 3-5,000 fighters, but it is tainted by Iranian support."
I don't know what this document is supposed to tell me. I knew the pretext for war against Iraq was a pack of lies at the time. Anyone who even just regularly reads Private Eye would have known that.
You still arguing that one persons pack of lies proves your pack of lies to be true???
This stuff may be big news for the Americans but you are so out of touch with the UK it's embarrassing.
Still ignoring the M16 I see... LOL!
Magoo
Magoo?
07.10.2005 10:10
Boab
Blah ...
07.10.2005 19:40
There is no proof of this Conspiracy Theory, nor would it be wrong even if it WAS proven to be true. The Iraqi Resistance are not the Bad Guys in this situation. The US/UK consciously decided to ignore International Law, and invade Iraq in an act of Naked Aggression. Under the Laws designed by men with the Terror of World War fesh in mind, the Iraqis have every right to resist, just as other countries would be well within their legal rights to support them.
Now, to your drivel:
"A site that clearly relies on ..."
You unceasingly cite the people who repeated the LIES about Iraq, and this source never did that. As a journalist myself, I find the bulk of their material credible and well-researched and sourced. They seem to have some insider connections.
Questioning Sources, as you are doing here, with absolutely nothing but insinnuendoes, is nothing but Disinformation, and betrays the fact that you cannot dispute what I've said.
"The document is described as "transcribed" which means that the contents are derived from another source"
What document? If you're talking about the leaked cabinet document which proves the US/UK were discussing "Divide & Rule" a full year before the war, I have an actual copy sitting on my desk.
"You endorse the veracity of this document"
What document?
"You still arguing that one persons pack of lies proves your pack of lies to be true???"
You're still manipulating what I say, because you cannot dispute it, or actually say anything meaningful for yourself? Guess you're still awaiting Talking Points to deal with this ... I'm simply saying that, since the many LIES of these criminals have long since been exposed, their title/position no longer identifies them as a credible source of information.
From now on, everything they say should be viewed with skepticism at the very least, and no media outlet should repeat what they say as if it is fact, until they have laid out compelling evidence to support their allegations.
I'd offer that none of their claims should be aired until proven, in order to safeguard the credibility of the media, but their credibility is now shaky, and I've worked for them, and know full well how the game is played.
"Still ignoring the M16 I see... LOL!"
Not at all. I'd say they've been instrumental in attempting to stoke the civil war, through acts such as that of the SAS, exposed in Basra last week.
And again, even if these unsupported, empty allegations were supported by evidence, that would not be cause for the military invasion of Iran these Neo-Fascists and Zionist Extremists are pushing so hard for. It is they who have violated the law, and Iran would have every legal right to support the Iraqis in pushing their Foreign Aggressor from their sovereign borders.
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
Ozcam, eat yer heart out
07.10.2005 20:05
I love this kind of stuff. Presumably the lack of evidence is proof of the consipracy theory, eh? A fantastic self-perpetuating argument.
The government make my toast fall butter side down? Proof? Of course there's none, its a consipracy!
The government are zapping us with mind control microwaves? Proof? None, its a conspiracy (great the way they keep all these Vodaphone and 02 technicians quiet, eh?)
Flu Virus as an excuse for martial law? Proof? None, its a....(continue as required)
Boab
Typical Shift
07.10.2005 22:30
If you believe otherwise, "Magoo", you are more than welcome to share ...
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
Oh Yeah
08.10.2005 06:03
Don't Let Them Limit The Debate
Oh dearie me
08.10.2005 07:19
And how often do I have to tell you, I aint Magoo! There are LOTS of us think you're barking...
Boab
Burden of proof
08.10.2005 08:07
" The burden is on the accuser to prove.....not the defendant to disprove. Its an internationally accepted principle, and contrary to what you think doesn't include an exemption for your own theories."
Anyone remember how the Iraqis went so far as to produce a massive dossier to show they didn't have WMDs. And now BBB points out that they shouldn't even have had to do that. So, did the UK and US live up to this "internationally accepted principle"? or are we now pretending that it was nothing to do with WMDs after they were never found.
"And how often do I have to tell you, I aint Magoo! There are LOTS of us"
Yes we fucking noticed - why don't you all get a blog somewhere?
proofreader
Don't Fall for the SnakeOil
08.10.2005 11:07
"The Iraqi Resistance are not the Bad Guys in this situation." You think people who use terrorist means (on any side) are good guys. You sir are sick. As, sick as Rumsfeld.
What people do I cite that lied about Iraq??? I don't cite Blair on Basra I cite my own eyes, knowledge and the eye's and knowledge of people I know who were detached to the 'F' Company. Their professional opinions supported my suspicions. You cite the blue-rinse press, trots and Chinese news hahahaha! Oh, and I forgot you cite PrisonPlanet & Infowars who are a non-collective business concern...
I weigh up whose story merits believing by the criteria of credibility, not just whether or not I can fit my enemy up. That's why you won't hear me denying that the Iraq war is illegal (so fuck knows why you keep bringing it up as though I & others do???), that International Law has been fucked by Bush & Blair, that the UK is complicit in acts of torture, that both the US/UK are guilty of war crimes etc etc etc. There is enough out there that is true to hang my enemies without having to stoop to rehashing Tom Clancy, Andy McNab and Charles Manson for charges.
You sir, however just seize any opportunity to spam this place with pathetically stupid theories that are reminiscent of people with serious mental disorders. You are chronically insecure, egocentric and paranoid and have projected all your fears onto PNAC/Mossad and like some Born Again you have to try and get everyone else to believe to keep your fear & insecurity at bay. And like some 17th century zealot you accuse anyone who doubts you as being in league with Satan.
A lot of us here are not scared to say "We have no fucking clue what is going on!" sometimes. Just because we tell you you are talking out your arse, doesn't mean we are siding with your notional enemies. It isn't all abou you and PNAC. There is no binary logic in a chaotic universe.
You use your journalistic experience as a basis of authority. Yet, I have not been able to find more than one article published by you (and no the lists of dodgy links you rehash here don't count!). You care to tell us what your journalistic career actually entails?
I suspect you have as much right to call yourself a journalist as I would to claim the title intelligence analyst.
A shoeshine boy for the Elite
Proofreader....
08.10.2005 11:46
Actually, NO - I DON'T remember the former Iraqi regime producing a huge dossier about how they didn't have WMD. And besides, a 'huge dossier' was not what was asked for - all that was asked for was unrestricted access for the inspection teams.
But I DO remember the constant cat & mouse games, the misinformation, the barriers put up to prevent the inspectors doing their job.
Face it, Saddam was playing at brinksmanship and did not want to give the impression that the either HAD or DID NOT HAVE WMD, as this would have weakend his position in the region, especially with Iran. He played a foolish game and his bluff was called!
Finally, please don't be fooled that there were no, or are no WMD! There is clear evidence that there WERE in the past and they probably STILL EXIST today - the only question is WHO controls them. There is still no evidence for the destruction of huge amounts of anthrax - what do you think happens to anthrax when destroyed? You think it just dissapers into thin air? Answer NO - the process of incineration produces by-products, and these can still be analysed to prove that they are indeed produced by the incineration of anthrax.
You can carry on proofreading the bullshit blogs, but you'll always be very far from the truth.
TinaCV