Iran accuses Britain of role in terrorist attacks

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=ff5f6aa50e37784a

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he suspects Britain may have played a role in twin bomb attacks that killed five people and injured 100 others in southwestern Iran.

Iran's Student News Agency quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad as saying Iranian officials have found what he called British "footprints" in past attacks.

He added the presence of British troops in southern Iraq and near Iran's border is a factor behind insecurity in both countries

more...

This is getting tenser!!!

[Truebrit71sbruv]

1. It's just horse...

...shit speculation and sabre rattling on the part of Iran. I wouldn't put it past the "great and good" in Whitehall sanctioning such an action by British forces. But it would be highly unlikely that there is much truth in it. And further to that, even if Iran is simply trying to raise the stakes, this kind of misinformation is not going to significantly worsen what is already a tense situation.

[400Years]

2. Well two brits were just busted dressing up like arabs

with a car full of bombs just a couple of weeks ago.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Yes, in Basra.

Not in the UK.

[400Years]

4. The Iranians were referring to an event in Iran not the UK

[Truebrit71sbruv]

5. yup... and Basra...

... is in Iraq not Iran...

[400Years]

6. wow you have incredible map skills

very impressive.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

8. And your points is what exactly 400years?

The situation you refer to occured in Basra, not Iran. It seems like a botched British "intelligence" attempt at maintaining instability in Basra, not Iran.

Notice anything consistent there? Not Iran.

Deal in facts and not conjecture, therein you'll find the kernel of truth. Using this story as a kind of smoke-screen to indicate the existence of British units planting bombs in Iran is exactly as precise and valid as using falsified evidence or "specifically interpreted intelligence" on WMD as validation for going to war.

Now, remind me, where did that happen???

It is imperative that in the fog of misinformation and "hiding in plain sight" done by the very people we would wish to see pulled kicking and screaming from office, we do not stoop to their level. Feeding, and even relying on rumour or conjecture only damages our case.

Worthwhile links:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=973

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4277532.stm

Edited to add links

[400Years]

9. I'm saying that you can't rule out these types of operations

being done by the british or the U.S. for that matter.

Perhaps you don't want to entertain such possibilities but I prefer
not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Notice I have not said
that any of this is provable fact. I am merely stating that
it is not beyond the realm of possiblity.

Perhaps you are not interested in the what was really going on when those to brits were caught by Iraqi police forces. I am.

You seem awfully touchy about this issue.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

14. You will notice my in first reply on this topic...

... that I said "I wouldn't put it past the "great and good" in Whitehall sanctioning such an action by British forces."

I am as suspicious as the next clear-thinking individual about the motives and actions of our respective administrations.

And granted, you did not say anything was provable fact, but nor did you expand into detail with your post, you simply relied on the "hmmm, look at that - could mean there's other cloak and dagger shenanigans afoot" ploy. Therefore your initial post was only a means to toss in rumour to the debate.

Rumour we don't need. Facts we do. Rumours kept both our respective war-mongering, soulless and morally-bankrupt leaders in office at their last elections.

And as for being touchy. No, not in the least. I am merely interested in dealing with verifiable information and intelligent well-informed discussion of the issues arising.

[400Years]

15. You are reading too much into my comments

If you want to "deal with facts" then deal with what I actually said not what you inferred.

"And granted, you did not say anything was provable fact, but nor did you expand into detail with your post, you simply relied on the "hmmm, look at that - could mean there's other cloak and dagger shenanigans afoot" ploy. Therefore your initial post was only a means to toss in rumour to the debate." To which I say Bullshit.

My initial post was this: "Two brits were recently caught dressed up as arabs riding around with bombs in their car." Do you deny this? Just how in the world is that rumor mongering. It's well known. Apparently to you stating facts is somehow tossing rumour to the debate. I don't know what strange world you live in but back here in reality facts are facts.

And yes, you do seem a little touchy.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

16. Ah well...

... perhaps I should just stick to making snappy little posts with little substance as a way of making my point in future.

:evilgrin:

And I stand by my comment in my last post. Your initial post was definitely an attempt to attribute one spiral of smoke to a different fire.

And now who's getting touchy?

[400Years]

17. no you should just stick to berating people for percieved slights

since you seem to have that down pat.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

18. Not berating mate...

... just looking for a bit more substance.

[400Years]

19. Do you deny the fact that two brits were busted in Iraq

dressed in arab clothing? I have the pictures right here on
my computer. How in the hell is stating that fact "injecting rumor"?

If you don't like facts I can't help you.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

22. Ummm... did you actually read my earlier posts?

I'm not denying anything of the sort (in fact I've added links to one of them to clearly show that the incident we are currently arguing over happened in Basra). I'm in total agreement with you that so-called British "intelligence" got their asses into a sling in mid-Sept in Basra.

However, using that incontrovertible fact as a "well they're doing that in Basra, maybe they could be in Iran as well" reasoning; rather than balancing that against the possibility that a country with a very well-established and highly-renowned ability to sow the seeds of misinformation for its own ends (Iran in this case, not the UK or US :evilgrin:) could actually be using the fact that there are numb-nuts in the west just waiting to see smoke from a fire that isn't there as an opportunity to sow even further dissent abroad and fuel fires of hatred at home.

And I like facts, LOVE em actually - (has actually been my whole point all along). And the fact that British intelligence got caught being ass-holes of the year in Basra does not make conjectural statements by you or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fact - and yes it does mean that you add rumour to this debate rather than fact.

[400Years]

24. It really means that you can't rule out the possibility

but you called it horseshit. How can it be horseshit and possible at the same time? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I never claimed anything as fact. How many times does it have to be shoved into your face before you acknowledge that I never claimed what he said was fact? I said anything is possible given past events. Yet you insist that my stating that it's possible is tantamount to claiming that its fact. You are acting very strange, yes touchy, about the whole issue.

Saying something is possible is not stating that it is absolute fact.
I think the recent FACTS along with the FACT that we know Bushco is seeking regime change in Iran is very relevant when analyzing any destablization inside of Iran. There is a long history of destabilization as a method of staging a coup. But if you insist on
claiming that saying something is possible is equal to claiming it as
fact I can't help you. That's more of a personal problem.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

25. I called it horseshit...

... because I am disinclined to believe anything that comes from a country renowned for it's opportunist rantings - just as I am disinclined to believe the "official" line given from either the Whitehouse or Downing Street.

And if you read over my posts carefully, my point all along was not that you were claiming anything as fact - but merely adding to the rumour-mill at a time when cold clear facts are what are needed. I repeat, I have not said that you made your statement as fact - but as an ill-advised attempt to attribute smoke to a fire that we have no FACTS to back up as actually being there.

As I have said before - rumours are the very thing that keep idiots like Bush and Blair in control of our respective homelands and exporting their own brand of global terrorism. And rumours are what ultimately disenfranchise all of us - if not, why would every politician in the world enlist the service of an army of spin-doctors?

[The Stranger]

7. . . . a fact which undermines your position rather than supports it.

[400Years]

12. what is my "position" ?

"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he suspects Britain may have played a role in twin bomb attacks that killed five people and injured 100 others in southwestern Iran."

I am saying, hey it's possible british forces are waging covert destabilization operations. I'm not saying its a fact, but it is
possible, especially given the fact that two brits where just exposed
in Iraq dressing up as arabs and shooting at Iraqi police forces.

[The Stranger]

20. My post was in response to post number 5,

which states that "Basra... is in Iraq not Iran...," not in response to any of your posts.

[400Years]

21. sorry about that

[Truebrit71sbruv]

23. Then I'm not sure what your point is exactly? n/t

[greygandalf]

10. Nice of them to exclude the US.

[goforit]

11. Yep...their own malignant MIHOP ,front and center in broad daylight!!!

[400Years]

13. that's possible as well