Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[RDixon]

"In a news briefing held under strict security, the officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the officials said link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments."

All under strict anonymity too because they knew it was all crap and did not want their names connected with it.
The purpose was to plant the seeds, by way of the willing press, that Iran is killing americans in Iraq in the kool-aid drinker's feeble minds and they greedily suck it up and beg for more.

Now say you're sorry for doubting me

[Sinner]

Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...3/wiran313.xml

Google will supply more news sources if you search.


--More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

They said 170 American and British soldiers had been killed by such weapons.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...3/wiran313.xml

Google will supply more news sources if you search.


--More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

They said 170 American and British soldiers had been killed by such weapons.

so, using the same logic with which we are threatening Iran and Syria, we should also be thinking about bombing Austria.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

so, using the same logic with which we are threatening Iran and Syria, we should also be thinking about bombing Austria.

Sure why not? I would be thinking about it if it were my brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children being killed. Damn right, let us think about it, we will weigh all the pros and cons and see where we end up. My guess is it would not make sense to bomb Austria as lets say Iran. And I am not saying we should bomb Iran but this is where that logic thing comes into play. Who is the larger threat to stability in the region? Who wants to destroy another country, and not even hide the fact that is what they want to do? Who is directly supplying arms to insurgents who are killing Americans? Who is trying to make nuclear weapons and again not try to hide that fact?

Any other countries you would like to consider bombing?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

All under strict anonymity too because they knew it was all crap and did not want their names connected with it.

They would have identified themselves if the press conference had been held in the safety of Washington, D.C. instead of Baghdad. It isn't your withering ridicule they're afraid of. The insurgents read the news and if these men had identified themselves they would now have bounties on their heads.

Anyway, the press loves reporting information garnered from anonymous insiders. What's the big deal?

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

They would have identified themselves if the press conference had been held in the safety of Washington, D.C. instead of Baghdad. It isn't your withering ridicule they're afraid of. The insurgents read the news and if these men had identified themselves they would now have bounties on their heads.

Shouldn't you be watching your president on tv right now, lying through his teeth again?

edit: to answer your edit. The big deal, I suppose would be it was a Press Conference; not a clandestine meeting.

[albed]

The democrats have apparently decided that having Iranian al-Quds killing U.S. military personnel in Iraq gives them more leverage in pressuring Bush to cut and run so they oppose any retaliation that would save American lives.


Not suprising at all.

http://media-newswire.com/release_1043680.html

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

The big deal, I suppose would be it was a Press Conference; not a clandestine meeting.

You're grasping at straws, especially when you suggest that a public press conference is somehow more suspicious than a secret meeting.

Nobody is suggesting that we bomb Iran over this. The goal is to keep Iran from meddling in Iraq's domestic problems, to keep Iranians from crossing the border. It doesn't really matter whether Iran's government is directly involved or not, it bears all the responsibility for al-Quds's actions. We certainly won't go to war with Iran over this issue, but we do have to press our case on them or these deadly weapons will continue to slip over the border, even after our troops leave Iraq.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

You're grasping at straws, especially when you suggest that a public press conference is somehow more suspicious than a secret meeting.

I'm not suggesting; I'm saying.

The press conference was twice delayed and then moved from DC to Baghdad where the reporters were not allowed to have cameras or tape recorders.
Then the mysterious "military officials" made very serious allegations against the Iranian government and in keeping with the total ineptitude of everything else the Bush admin has done or tried to do, presented easily debunked "evidence" which did NOT even begin to support their claims.

Do I call that suspicious?

Yes, yes I do.

A spade is still a spade no matter how much quacking a lame duck does.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

A spade is still a spade no matter how much quacking a lame duck does.

There is no rational argument against irrational doubt such as yours. If Bush said that the ocean is wet, you'd say it was dry.

The Ayatollahs may not have ordered those weapons to be given to insurgents in Iraq, but those weapons were none the less given to insurgents in Iraq; it's Iran's fault for letting it happen. If calling a spade a spade means indicting Iran for it's involvement in Iraq's violent state, then so be it.

Again, to reiterate, nobody is advocating war with Iran.

Awe hell, there's no point in arguing with you.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

There is no rational argument against irrational doubt such as yours. If Bush said that the ocean is wet, you'd say it was dry.

Ah hell.
If Bush said that; I would pass out in shock and maybe even awe that he for once told the truth.

You call me irrational for doubting Bush's word?

You do understand how ludicrious that is, don't you?

And you will continue to argue with me because you like it.

I think if I said the ocean was wet you would disagree and make a long post about how wet is really dry....