Iran behind terrorism in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4312516.stm

I thought it was quite obvious and it has been know for sometime now that a lot of the terrorists are coming from outside Iraq now. But apparently this suggests that Iran as a nation may be more involved

[punky]

Very interesting. Especially the part where the Iranian government gets accused, not just Iranian citizens. Many people, not just US 'neo-cons' and US army personnel have accuse Iran of failing top stop foreign fighters coming in, but this is something much worse indeed...

[BBKing]

Many people, not just US 'neo-cons' and US army personnel have accuse Iran of failing top stop foreign fighters coming in

Let's get this clear - Iran isn't a conduit for foreign fighters wanting to join the Sunni-led insurgency in the west - those are nuts from countries like Saudi Arabia (which doesn't get on at all well with Shia Iran) and come in across the Saudi, Jordanian and Syrian borders. This is all about the Shia east, where control of Iraq really lies. It's nothing to do with bin Laden style suicide terrorism.

Iran (which supported the invasion of Afghanistan, incidentally, as it removed a troublesome fundamentalist Sunni neighbour) doesn't need to infiltrate fighters into Iraq to fight the coalition, the eastern part is already full of armed *Iraqi* Shia militia, and they're in de facto charge and have been for ages, and of course they're strongly backed by Iran, which shares their aim of a Shia Islamic Iraq with lots of oil and no US or UK troops. The coalition doesn't dare fight them openly for fear of what this will do to democracy - most of these groups have links to the majority in the Iraqi parliament and we need them to make the 'democracy' look real.

As someone said, 'the war is over, and Iran won'.

Last week's Private Eye reports that the British in Basra have basically been covertly fighting Iranian-backed Iraqi militia for months now, and it's been kept rather quiet.

[punky]

You're putting too much store by ideological differences. When we have May Day violence, how much of it is by true left-wing communists who want to fight capitalist targets? And how many are actually right-wing football hooligans and thugs, who have just turned up for a ruck?

Also, although an extremist Shia, might refer to a Sunni as a heretic, and visa versa, doesn't mean people won't conveniently forget this to fight the common enemy. Who does a Shia hate more, a Sunni or an American? Iran is a charming country, filled with delightful people who like to chant "Death to America" during prayers. All of them. Spurs and Arsenal (probable exception of you) fans will team up together in pubs at England matches.

[BBKing]

You're putting too much store by ideological differences

The Shia/Sunni split is not a minor ideological difference, it's a fundamental division of faith (when espoused by loonies on either side, of course - we're emphatically not talking about normal people). 'left wing communists', as you put it, don't actually blow themselves up in football crowds, neither do football hooligans stage mass suicide attacks on 'left wing communists'.

Let me explain what I'm doing - I'm putting myself in the mind of the Iranians, and attempting to work out their motives and aims, and I'm finding that they don't want to be blown up by bin Laden-inspired loonies any more than you or I do.

Remember that OBL and co. regard Shias much as they regard Jews and Christians - as infidels fit only for slaughter. There's no way the Iranians are going to help them, especially when there are much more obvious ways of getting what they want. Like I said, the Iranians *supported* the US over Afghanistan. They may be fanatics, but they spotted the pragmatic benefits of booting out the Taliban as much as anyone else (IIRC Iran does quite well out of the heroin trade).

Of course, they are as ****ed off at the US and the West generally as ever, particularly over the nuclear option, and thus making life difficult for the occupying forces in relatively peaceful eastern Iraq fits in quite nicely, and they certainly want the British and Americans off their doorsteps. But that doesn't mean they'll get into bed with al-Zarqawi. After all, Saddam had a hostile attitude to the US and UK, but he didn't team up with OBL, nor for that matter did he team up with Iran. Just because two sets of people hate us doesn't mean they can't hate each other.

[It's also worth noting that 'al-Qaeda'-in-Iraq would claim credit if a British soldier stubbed his toe getting into his tank. They're master propagandists, remember? So any claims of responsibility for attacks in the South should be treated with caution]

And how many are actually right-wing football hooligans and thugs, who have just turned up for a ruck?

Only the ones in police uniforms...

Oh, and America is a charming country full of people saying 'Let's Bomb Tehran|Mecca|etc.'

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Only the ones in police uniforms...

Yes, we know, you have an extreme hatred of the police force. You really don't have to keep going on about it. By the by, if you want people to display a little less prejudice and stereotyping in their posts, maybe it would help if you wouldn't do it so much

Oh, and America is a charming country full of people saying 'Let's Bomb Tehran|Mecca|etc.'

I'll give you £100 for every church in the US that leads the congregation with chants of "Death to Iran" or even "Let's bomb Tehran". You give me £100 for every mosque in Iran that leads a chant of "Death to America". Deal? Before you agree, you might want to go and ask Sean Penn.

[BBKing]

Yes, we know, you have an extreme hatred of the police force

It was a joke, rather like your comments about left wingers and the Guardian the other day. I'd just read your bizarre comparison of Middle East religious politics with anarchist riots as a joke. Please don't tell me you were being serious?

Next time I shall add the joke smiley if I can find it, to aid your understanding of wit.

I don't have an extreme hatred of anyone, I do have a distrust of rampant authoritarianism, which you appear to have mistaken for hatred of the police. A proper police force is an essential asset of civilisation. A secret, unaccountable police force is an essential asset of totalitarian dictatorships. I'm voting for the former. Which one are you for?

You seem to be getting unduly personal about this, and I'm not sure I understand why, unless you've run out of actual arguments about Iran's role in Iraq.

I have removed the last two posts from this thread. Arguing with each other puts other people off taking part in the thread. Please don't do it.

And please, no personal attacks.

[Maurice]

Heaven forfend people arguing? tut tut.

It's a bit like to the split between Shia and Suuni Muslims and not far removed from the split between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants.

Different strokes for different folks, etc etc.

People have different views and ideals. We need to learn to live with and accept that fact until that is, their views/ideals try to obliterate ours.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by Maurice

Heaven forfend people arguing? tut tut.

It's a bit like to the split between Shia and Suuni Muslims and not far removed from the split between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants.

Different strokes for different folks, etc etc.

People have different views and ideals. We need to learn to live with and accept that fact until that is, their views/ideals try to obliterate ours.

to CF Maurice! It's just like old times.

[BBKing]

Oops. Iran not behind British deaths in Iraq after all. How silly of us to blame them.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle336567.ece

Originally Posted by Independent

Government officials now acknowledge that there is no evidence, or even reliable intelligence, connecting the Iranian government to the infra-red triggered bombs which have killed 10 British soldiers in the past eight months.

I seem to remember the Independent putting it on its front page a few months back, but the less said about that the better, eh? I await the retraction from Blair and Rumsfeld with unbaited breath...

[punky]

The cynic in me says that Britain did this to avoid escalating the situation with Iran. If the allegations were true, that Iran was helping to kill British soldiers, then responding with violence would one of the only course of action.

Now the seriousness is over, we can have a good laugh.

Can't miss this:

Michael Moore, the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said:

Can't be that desperate, can they? Imagine if it was true, how ironic...

[TheDaddy]

I remember reading an article in some rag not long after 9/11 saying that America should invade Iraq and make it the fiftey whatever state, so that terrorists would attack there instead of mainland America, judging by the events of the last couple of years I am not sure if the writter was joking or predicting the future.