Iran 'behind attacks on British'

[Јas]

BBC Report: Iran 'behind attacks on British'

[Sibboleth]

Oh dear

[??????????]

Shocked

[/sarcasm]

[opebo]

One can hardly blame Iran for wanting to attack the British, given both their history and their present hostile stance.  British interference in and abuse of Iran is only exeeded by the American efforts.

[Peter]

Oh dear

I find myself having similar thoughts. We can't back away from this - obviously they need to be bombed or something, but at the same time we could do without an escalation to the point of war with Iran and/or killing too many more innocent Muslims.

[DanielX]

Goodness. I'm not suprised, but this is essentially an act of war by Iran on Britain and Iraq (and by extension the United States). 

Any troop withdrawls out of Iraq or Afghanistan have to be postponed for the time being, and non-conventional forces (ie special forces, naval/air force/marines) have to be built up in the Middle East. Because, chances that there will be a war with Iran over the next few years are fairly high (I'd say 50-50). Even assuming there isn't, action should be taken - hard line on sanctions, no nuclear plants, maybe a MOAB or two on their chief nuclear research facilities.

[opebo]

Goodness. I'm not suprised, but this is essentially an act of war by Iran on Britain and Iraq (and by extension the United States). 

Any troop withdrawls out of Iraq or Afghanistan have to be postponed for the time being, and non-conventional forces (ie special forces, naval/air force/marines) have to be built up in the Middle East. Because, chances that there will be a war with Iran over the next few years are fairly high (I'd say 50-50). Even assuming there isn't, action should be taken - hard line on sanctions, no nuclear plants, maybe a MOAB or two on their chief nuclear research facilities.

Why?  It is pretty much self-defense. 

Too bad Saddam is gone.

[DanielX]

Why?  It is pretty much self-defense. 

It's self defense if the Iranians shot at British soldiers in Iran. It's self-defense if the British government had supported terrorist attacks in Iran. It's self-defense if there's substantial evidence that the British were planning on attacking Iran. It's self-defense if Iran had spent the past 2 years helping the Iraqis establish a democracy and the British were funneling supplies to terrorists attacking Iranians and/or Iraqis. It's self-defense if Britain was at war with an ally of Iran. It's not self-defense to simply strike British troops carrying out their business in a nation that is not an ally or protectorate of Iran.

Besides, the Ayatollahs are pretty much bastards. Would you support taking them out if it meant Ayatollah Khameini was fed to the swine?

Too bad Saddam is gone.

Its too bad we took Hitler out. It's too bad Stalin died. It's too bad Pol Pot was deposed. Its... well, add one more to the list of statements that fall flat on their face as absurd.

The best thing to ensure peace in the region would be to add a dollop of pigfat to each of our nuclear missiles.  Oh, and burying Saddam with pig entrails might also help.

[Sibboleth]

I should point out that until recently, we had good (relatively speaking) relations with Iran. Ever since the new President was sworn in, things haven't so much gone downhill as fallen headfirst off a big mountain...

[phk]

Iran can pretty much do whatever they want to do in Iraq now, they basically have the moral support of 65% of the country.

[J. J.]

Goodness. I'm not suprised, but this is essentially an act of war by Iran on Britain and Iraq (and by extension the United States). 

Any troop withdrawls out of Iraq or Afghanistan have to be postponed for the time being, and non-conventional forces (ie special forces, naval/air force/marines) have to be built up in the Middle East. Because, chances that there will be a war with Iran over the next few years are fairly high (I'd say 50-50). Even assuming there isn't, action should be taken - hard line on sanctions, no nuclear plants, maybe a MOAB or two on their chief nuclear research facilities.

Why?  It is pretty much self-defense. 

Too bad Saddam is gone.

Too bad, he can't a few more hundred thousand Iranians. [/sarcasm]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess we want to get our war on. It might have something to do with Bush's crappy approval ratings.

Regardless of whether this specific accusation is true, we lost all our credibility with Iraq.

[TexasGurl]

Red Herring

[??????????]

Red Herring

LOL! Yes, repressive dictatorships throughout history have always been the "innocent" victims when accused.

[Platypus]

if it's true, bugger. Military reprisals are totally impossible, for a number of reasons, which basically leaves international condemnation and *maybe* economic restrictions, which I'd be reluctant to inact at this stage, quite frankly. Iran is hostile, and whilst I don't like appeasement necessarily, quite frankly a war with them now would be bloody f-ing awful.

[??????????]

if it's true, bugger. Military reprisals are totally impossible, for a number of reasons, which basically leaves international condemnation and *maybe* economic restrictions, which I'd be reluctant to inact at this stage, quite frankly. Iran is hostile, and whilst I don't like appeasement necessarily, quite frankly a war with them now would be bloody f-ing awful.

Yes, they kill you and in return you slap them on the hand. lol great idea

[Platypus]

well, what would you do? War is basically an impossibility. Economic restrictions are practically useless and just make them more belligerent.

[Sibboleth]

War or at least the threat of war isn't impossible but it's very, very unlikely simply because the British government didn't want the current bad relations with Iran and certainly doesn't want them to become much worse. It's interesting that it took this long for this claim to be made; I'm sure you can all draw your own conclusions from that.

Iran's response is interesting:

"This is a lie. The British are the cause of instability and crisis in Iraq.

"By drafting such scenarios they are trying to find a partner in their crimes."

An absolute classic of reply from that sort of regime; first accuse the accusers of "lying", second blame them for any problems in the area question and third, resort to paranoia and coded allegations of conspiracies against them by the accusers.



I do sometimes wonder whether they use a sort of random insults generator to work out what to say in response to serious allegations against their regime...

[opebo]

Why?  It is pretty much self-defense. 

It's self defense if the Iranians shot at British soldiers in Iran. It's self-defense if the British government had supported terrorist attacks in Iran. It's self-defense if there's substantial evidence that the British were planning on attacking Iran. It's self-defense if Iran had spent the past 2 years helping the Iraqis establish a democracy and the British were funneling supplies to terrorists attacking Iranians and/or Iraqis. It's self-defense if Britain was at war with an ally of Iran. It's not self-defense to simply strike British troops carrying out their business in a nation that is not an ally or protectorate of Iran.

No, no I meant as revenge for the generations upon generations of British abuse of Iran.  And of course for their meddling next door.  Would the British tolerate Iranians coming in and shooting up Ireland?

Besides, the Ayatollahs are pretty much bastards. Would you support taking them out if it meant Ayatollah Khameini was fed to the swine?

No, I only believe in feeding one's own religious to animals - for example Pat Robertson, Billy Grahams, the Pope, etc.  Let the iranians feed their own dumbs to the swines.

Too bad Saddam is gone.

Its too bad we took Hitler out. It's too bad Stalin died. It's too bad Pol Pot was deposed. Its... well, add one more to the list of statements that fall flat on their face as absurd.

The best thing to ensure peace in the region would be to add a dollop of pigfat to each of our nuclear missiles.  Oh, and burying Saddam with pig entrails might also help.

Saddam wasn't as bad as Hitler, obviously, and certainly not as much of a threat.  Btw, why would you care about burying Saddam with pigfat?  The man was a wonderful secularist - much better than Bush about religion.

[opebo]

War or at least the threat of war isn't impossible but it's very, very unlikely simply because the British government didn't want the current bad relations with Iran and certainly doesn't want them to become much worse. It's interesting that it took this long for this claim to be made; I'm sure you can all draw your own conclusions from that.

Iran's response is interesting:

"This is a lie. The British are the cause of instability and crisis in Iraq.

"By drafting such scenarios they are trying to find a partner in their crimes."

An absolute classic of reply from that sort of regime; first accuse the accusers of "lying", second blame them for any problems in the area question and third, resort to paranoia and coded allegations of conspiracies against them by the accusers.



I do sometimes wonder whether they use a sort of random insults generator to work out what to say in response to serious allegations against their regime...

No, they are perfectly correct - the British do very often lie, and of course they (the British, jointly with the Americans) are completely responsible for all the troubles in Iraq.  If it weren't for their meddling Saddam would still be in his proper place and all would be well.

[DanielX]

Why?  It is pretty much self-defense. 

It's self defense if the Iranians shot at British soldiers in Iran. It's self-defense if the British government had supported terrorist attacks in Iran. It's self-defense if there's substantial evidence that the British were planning on attacking Iran. It's self-defense if Iran had spent the past 2 years helping the Iraqis establish a democracy and the British were funneling supplies to terrorists attacking Iranians and/or Iraqis. It's self-defense if Britain was at war with an ally of Iran. It's not self-defense to simply strike British troops carrying out their business in a nation that is not an ally or protectorate of Iran.

No, no I meant as revenge for the generations upon generations of British abuse of Iran.  And of course for their meddling next door.  Would the British tolerate Iranians coming in and shooting up Ireland?

So? The Irish never killed hundreds of thousands of their own people, the Irish have fought a bloody war with Britain in the past 3/4th of a century, the British are ruled by a somewhat free and fair government, Britain never held members of a close Iranian ally hostage, Ireland never invaded Kuwait or Iceland or another US/British ally, the current Iranian government has 'cleansed' Iran of any British influence, Ireland is not trying to develop WMDs and wouldn't use them without a good reason even if it were, the Queen is a lot sexier then the Ayatollah,...

Besides, the Ayatollahs are pretty much bastards. Would you support taking them out if it meant Ayatollah Khameini was fed to the swine?

No, I only believe in feeding one's own religious to animals - for example Pat Robertson, Billy Grahams, the Pope, etc.  Let the iranians feed their own dumbs to the swines.

Like that's ever going to happen without at least some help...

Too bad Saddam is gone.

Its too bad we took Hitler out. It's too bad Stalin died. It's too bad Pol Pot was deposed. Its... well, add one more to the list of statements that fall flat on their face as absurd.

The best thing to ensure peace in the region would be to add a dollop of pigfat to each of our nuclear missiles.  Oh, and burying Saddam with pig entrails might also help.

Saddam wasn't as bad as Hitler, obviously, and certainly not as much of a threat.  Btw, why would you care about burying Saddam with pigfat?  The man was a wonderful secularist - much better than Bush about religion.

1. Saddam may have run a secular government but he was at least a somewhat devout muslim and would thus not be too happy with being buried in pig entrails.
2. Saddam may have run an officially secular government but the government was very much partial to Sunni Arabs. Being a Shiah or a Kurd was a big no-no, and only a token few Christians were accepted in his government. And he was as anti-Jew as any middle eastern thug.
3. This is more for other islamic terror-mongerers then Saddam  - especially the Iranians and Al-Qaeda. The US army that pacified the Phillipines did the same thing with Islamic militants there - they rubbed bullets in pigfat, shot a whole large group of militants, and left one alive to tell the other communities. There wasn't a lot of islamic resistance after that... not that I support mass pig-smearing random muslims or even random terrorists. Smiting Saddam and the Ayatollah and Osama and Mullah Mohammed Omar and those guys with the pig would suffice.
4. Bush has not enshrined Christianity as the official US religion. He has not started pogroms against religious or ethnic minorities. So he cannot by definition be worse then Saddam Hussein on this regard.

[12th Doctor]

Iran can pretty much do whatever they want to do in Iraq now, they basically have the moral support of 65% of the country.

Says who?  Do you assume that the shiites are all freinds of the Iranian regime.  If you made such a blanket statement about blacks, then you would be decried as a racist in about the same time if would take blink.  Hell, most of the clerics don't even support the Iranian and nor do most of the people in Iran itself, so what are you basing this statement off of?

[phk]

Iran can pretty much do whatever they want to do in Iraq now, they basically have the moral support of 65% of the country.

Says who?  Do you assume that the shiites are all freinds of the Iranian regime.  If you made such a blanket statement about blacks, then you would be decried as a racist in about the same time if would take blink.  Hell, most of the clerics don't even support the Iranian and nor do most of the people in Iran itself, so what are you basing this statement off of?

It was Khomeini's dream to have Jaafari and Sistani be the power-makers in Iraq during the 1980s. We simply fulfilled it, the election results LEGITMIZED it.

I haven't heard from those student protesters in a long time.

[opebo]

2. Saddam... was as anti-Jew as any middle eastern thug.

Well of course, what else would any arab muslim be, considering the actions of the jewish theocracy?  That's like calling a black racist for hating white people.

3. This is more for other islamic terror-mongerers then Saddam  - especially the Iranians and Al-Qaeda. The US army that pacified the Phillipines did the same thing with Islamic militants there - they rubbed bullets in pigfat, shot a whole large group of militants, and left one alive to tell the other communities. There wasn't a lot of islamic resistance after that... not that I support mass pig-smearing random muslims or even random terrorists. Smiting Saddam and the Ayatollah and Osama and Mullah Mohammed Omar and those guys with the pig would suffice.

Hah, you don't even know who to shoot.  Just go home and stop meddling, and all will be well.  Actually the Philippines is a great example - what the hell were we doing beating up on that poor country?  American imperialism is a frightful embarrassment.

[phk]

1. Saddam may have run a secular government but he was at least a somewhat devout muslim and would thus not be too happy with being buried in pig entrails.

Old CIA docs even show a belief that he might have been a closet athiest, he wasn't very devout if he was enemies of both Khomeini and bin Laden.

2. Saddam may have run an officially secular government but the government was very much partial to Sunni Arabs. Being a Shiah or a Kurd was a big no-no, and only a token few Christians were accepted in his government. And he was as anti-Jew as any middle eastern thug.

However, today, in "liberated" Iraq, the Kurdish party militias (known as "peshmerga," which translates as "those who are willing to die"), are carrying out an ethnic cleansing of Arab Sunnis of their own.Arab and Turkmen families are being turned out at gunpoint.

The Kurds, unleashed by their American "liberators," have engaged in a program of systematic kidnapping, in which anyone who resists their rule is "disappeared" and spirited away to an underground jail, as the Washington Post reported.

The Kurds have enjoyed a largely undeserved reputation as the most democratic, admirable, and American-like of Iraq's minorities, mainly on account of their Official Victim status.

Now that they are on top, however, the Kurds are instituting their own reign of terror, one with the potential to be every bit as brutal as the Ba'athist version. Meet the new boss – same as the old boss. It's an old song, and the lyrics aren't any different when they're sung in Kurdish.

3. This is more for other islamic terror-mongerers then Saddam  - especially the Iranians and Al-Qaeda. The US army that pacified the Phillipines did the same thing with Islamic militants there - they rubbed bullets in pigfat, shot a whole large group of militants, and left one alive to tell the other communities. There wasn't a lot of islamic resistance after that... not that I support mass pig-smearing random muslims or even random terrorists. Smiting Saddam and the Ayatollah and Osama and Mullah Mohammed Omar and those guys with the pig would suffice.

The Islamic world of today is far more complex than the colonialism of the 1800s.

4. Bush has not enshrined Christianity as the official US religion. He has not started pogroms against religious or ethnic minorities. So he cannot by definition be worse then Saddam Hussein on this regard.

Saddam Hussein was a strict secularist, he even outright killed religous Muslims.