http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4312516.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 5 October 2005, 13:20 GMT 14:20 UK


E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Iran 'behind attacks on British'



Britain has accused Iran of responsibility for explosions which have killed eight British soldiers and injured two others in Iraq this year.

A senior British official, briefing correspondents in London, blamed Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

He said they provided the technology to a Shia group in southern Iraq.

Our world affairs correspondent says that while British officials have hinted at an Iranian link before, they have never been so specific.





E-mail this to a friend Printable version

***********
Well i have said this before, even the recent capture of uk sas forces, i said iran was behind it all, now the Uk has come out, and said it, at least they are not being pollitically correct, and brushing it under the table, its about time irans was, shown up for what they are, international terroists, and they try to say there nuclear technology is for peacefull purposes, yet they are financing terroism in paelestine, and in iraq, paelestines hamas, is nothing more than a front for Iran.

I think its about time, either America gives israel the go ahead to bomb irans, nuclear plant, or we bomb it, before these loonies, get nukes, then every islamic country in the world, will be given them, courtesy of iran.
This incident also puts iran, in a box now, as they almost certainly going to face sanctions, after there referral to the security council.

Iran has the potential, to be a good country, if we can just bomb, the religous loonies, running the country out, and let them have a revolution, to get rid of these religous nuts, and take the religon out of there government.

So we're allowed to have outside help from our "Coalition of the Willing" to attack Iraq yet they're not allowed to have outside help to better defend themselves?

What's so wrong with other countries helping defend Iraq against us -- the ones who illegally invaded them? Hell, more than just Iran is helping them, but let's "brush that under the table" to make Iran look worse for a future invasion.

You're showing promise with some of your posts as of late, but you're still blind, my friend.

- N

So we're allowed to have outside help from our "Coalition of the Willing" to attack Iraq yet they're not allowed to have outside help to better defend themselves?

What's so wrong with other countries helping defend Iraq against us -- the ones who illegally invaded them? Hell, more than just Iran is helping them, but let's "brush that under the table" to make Iran look worse for a future invasion.

You're showing promise with some of your posts as of late, but you're still blind, my friend.

- N

So you reckon that if Iran had nukes it would share them with America and the west rather than a neighbouring Islamic country?

So you reckon that if Iran had nukes it would share them with America and the west rather than a neighbouring Islamic country?

If Iran had nukes?

Well if Iran had nukes, why would they share them with America? I sure don't see Iranians or anyone in the Middle East ever first starting anything with America. We're always the ones meddling in their affairs which cause them to react. We're the ones that start shit with them so why would they share their nukes with us?

If Iran had nukes, would they share them with a neighbouring Islamic country? Not in my opinion. They'd keep them to themselves to solidify their own power. American helps many nations, but you don't see us giving all of them nukes, do ya? You can help a neighboring Arab nation without arming them with your best secret weapons, assuming they're building nuclear reactors for the sake of building nukes, just as they're doing in Iraq right now. They're helping them out with guerilla tactics. Do you see Iran supplying them with tanks and such like that? Why would they do so with nukes?

The only time I'd ever see Iran sharing their nuclear arms, assuming that's what they're trying to develop, would be if a huge SHTF scenario happens where all of the Middle East is under attack, most likely caused by Israel, which only if all of the Middle East united, would they share them. But hey, in a SHTF-type scenario such as that, Iran sharing their nukes would be the last thing we'd have to worry about because it'd be WWIII and China, Russia, as well as the EU would be involved since they all have stakes in the Middle East.

Assuming Iran is trying to develop nuclear capability, it would be purely in self defense. Are they not one of the countries who was deemed the "Axis of Evil"? What do you expect a country to do when the most powerful nation on Earth basically flat out says they're going to attack you in the coming years? Heck, they'd be stupid NOT to try and acquire nuclear arms, but this is all if they are. And if they are, I'm all for it. However, the rest of the world says they're only trying to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program. What, are we going to use another pre-emptive strike because of what we THINK, not about what we KNOW, just as we did with Iraq? Which, by the way, the whole WMD reason was a pure BS manipulated reason to give us a reason to invade them. That's really nothing new and shouldn't be surprising to anyone to notices how we do things.

What makes everyone feel that Iran is so dangerous that they shouldn't be able to have nuclear weapons? What makes them worse than our new, unofficial enemy, China? What makes them worse than our old, great enemy, Russia? What makes them worse than North Korea who's led by the little troll doll, Kim Jong Il? What makes them worse than the nation with the most UN violoations and who has illegally stolen much land in the Mid-East, Israel? What makes them worse than the country with a high population of Muslims whom half are radical and who's government was taken over by a coup, Pakistan? Why haven't all of those crazy countries used nukes yet? What reasons would Iran have to use a nuke against us any greater than those previous countries? And imagine the irony if they somehow did, and used the excuse of a pre-emptive strike against us? Once again, completely our fault. Using crazy rules of warfare to decare war on a country and then publicly giving a list of countries we're going to attack, "the Axis of Evil". I'm surprised all those countries haven't given us a taste of our own medicine yet.

There is nothing wrong with Iran having a little hand in the defense of Iraq as we've done it, and do it, all the time with other wars. We back other countries all the time and hell, sometimes back BOTH such as WW2 with the Germans and the Brits, or more amusing since we're talking about them, the Iran Contra Affair. We backed Iraq yet also funded Iran's weaponry during their war, lol. For Iran to be considered a part of the "Axis of Evil", whom we are to supposedly attack in the future (which that threat was just another manipulative way to get them to attack us first so we aren't seen in a bad light by declaring war in defense), their small role in Iraq is the least of what they could be doing. However, they're going to play it defensively for the same reason there was little resistance during the official part of this Iraq war. They're the victims and they're going to remain in that role of the victims without fighting back. The whole world will continue to see how corrupt and what a rampage America is going on until we no longer have anymore support from the rest of the world. Look at how we're viewed now. Imagine if we decided to attack Iran as well, the Mid-East country whom the rest of the world has the most trading deals with, the whole world would probably say that's enough and declare war against us. Oh, but I'm sure it's all their fault and we again, are the victims. Ah, propganda.

Me personally? I feel that most nations should be nuclear capable, or at the very least, be armed with the best non-nuclear weaponry available because then that would mean nobody would be able to push others around. You don't see nuclear capable countries attacking each other not because they're somehow more civilized than the next, you don't see it because it would mean that'd mean they'd get their asses kicked and would be the end of them. It is the ultimate form of self-defense. China is supposedly bad to their people yet they have nukes, why don't we invade them? Russia is supposedly bad to their people yet they have nukes, why don't we invade them? North Korea is supposedly bad to their people yet they have nukes, why don't we invade them? India and Pakistan have huge religious bouts with one another, having small skirmishes here and there, and are both have nukes, why don't they use em?

C'est le vie. Let countries be how they are. Just because they're not a modern Westernized country, it doesn't mean they should be forced to be like us. Who's to say our way of life is the best to live? And who's to say others should be forced to live like us? Unfortunately, that's the excuse we use to "liberate" weaker, non-nuclear capable countries because we can. Different cultures and ways of life are a threat to creating a one world government. Everyone who is not westernized -- ala easier to control -- is going to be targetted. Only nuclear arms is going to save their culture. Amass all the nukes you can to defend yourselves because America is no more sane than the next. There's nothing to stop us from being the ones to result in the end of the world through a nuclear war. Hell, WE'RE the antagonizers of the world. Anything that happens to us, even 9/11, is fully justified. Sure, I wish they would have picked a different target, but what do you expect. We reaped what we sowed in that unfortunate incident.

It's quite easy to not have, not just the Middle East, but the whole world not hate us, or have our citizens be in fear of terrorist or nuclear strikes on our homeland, it's called "QUIT ANTANGONIZING AND BULLYING THE FUCK OUT OF WEAKER COUNTRIES". Pretty simple, in my opinion. But hey, when one craves power and wants more and more like we do, antagonizing and creating conflicts that result in war and our seizure of territories is the only way to do so in these so-called "more civilized times". Since declaring outright war is illegal among international law, situations have to be created so that we make others declare war on us first so that we're not declaring war but rather "defending ourselves". What we do to the whole of the Middle East, or all of the world in some cases, is no different than what Israel does with the Palastinians, just on a more grander scale. We manipulate people to do what we want and expect their reactions to be, so that we can react in a more "legal" way. People say the Age of Colonialism is over, but it still exists. Rather than conquering countries left and right, we just buy them out or install puppet governments to do our biddings. When resistance happens and we can't get another country to do our bidding, we create ways to make it so we're able to take legal justifiable war action against them, and if we're not able, we'll just do some sneaky behind the scenes action. I love how Hugo Chavez has the balls to stands up to us, although it makes me wonder how much longer he'll be alive, or his country before we assassinate him or invade Venezuela if unable to do so.

So yeah, in the words of Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about tha-at".

- N

So we're allowed to have outside help from our "Coalition of the Willing" to attack Iraq yet they're not allowed to have outside help to better defend themselves?

What's so wrong with other countries helping defend Iraq against us -- the ones who illegally invaded them? Hell, more than just Iran is helping them, but let's "brush that under the table" to make Iran look worse for a future invasion.

You're showing promise with some of your posts as of late, but you're still blind, my friend.

- N

the insurgents in iraq are on the other side.what dont you get about that?how are you getting offended that people arent happy about a major nation assisting the insurgence?

the insurgents in iraq are on the other side.what dont you get about that?how are you getting offended that people arent happy about a major nation assisting the insurgence?

I'm not offended by anything. I simply gave a question asking why we're able to have help in this war yet the other side isn't.

Why is it seen as bad on their part when Iran is helping defend a country who was ILLEGALLY attacked? If anything, the whole world should be on Iraq's side, not ours. This is an illegal and unjustified war.

Sure, it sucks that British forces are dying there, and it doesn't really matter who's killing them because it won't solve a thing. If you don't want your forces to die in that illegal war, help remove them from it. Wanting that is the best way to support your troops, not standing behind the wrong decisions of your government by keeping them there so more can die in an unjust war.

Do you really feel having your troops die in vain is the best way to support your troops? Sure, maybe if this was a legal and just war, THEN keeping your soldiers there would be the best thing, but it's not. You guys are only asking for more trouble by being there illegally. What do you seriously and logically expect to happen? Hell, I'm surprised more countries aren't on Iraq's side, but most leaders are wimps anyways, so instead of joining the Coalition of the Willing, they at least decide to stay out of it all together rather than choosing sides.

- N

If there is a god then he was pretty mean on the middle east - he gave them oil but *uck all else

How about a bit of reality here

How much collateral damage has the coalition of the willing inflicted upon Afghanistan and Iraq

Kids, wives, husbands, future hope, health, infrastructure ....... all smashed into dust... and for what

GREED for oil...... how about some respect for human INNOCENT human life.

No one has the right to do what the coalition of the willing have done, in this MODERN (LOL) age.

I can easily see the world declaring war on America!

and America will drop its nukes, to hell with the world !!!!!

You tell me who is insane.

...................... So yeah, in the words of Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about tha-at".

- N

wow! bravo!

/wild applause

vincent, did you really expect to be able to wipe out a whole religion without people of that religion fighting back?

vincent, did you really expect to be able to wipe out a whole religion without people of that religion fighting back?
The uk is not trying, to wipe out islam, hell they are trying to get turkey, into europe, i changed my mind on iraq, and i want our troops to come home, but how the hell, are they going to get out of there, when iran & syria, are trying to prolong this farce, by supplying insurgents with weapons, and letting them cross there border.

It is in irans interest, to keep the Uk and Americans tied up in iraq, it helps to create a anti west feeling, in muslim countries, irans government is based on a anti-west agenda.

Iran & syria control paelestine terroist groups, there will never be peace in israel niether, because it is not in irans or syrias interest to have peace there.

Everytime peace is announced in paelistine, irans terroist group hamas, start up the war again.

Thread closed for inciting violence, racist remarks and inflamatory title.