Newshoggers Comments
Nice pickup. Linked you on this here
Excellent work. Thank you. If it were not for you and other bloggers, we would have no news.
The problem is, your claims in no way contradict the ABC reporting. So the bomb design might have 20-year-old British origins? So what?
Ross may not have said what you wanted him to say about the UK and the IRA, but again, so what? Why is it relevant?
Or are you pointing out that Iran might have obtained shaped-charge designs from the IRA? One doubts it..
"one doubts it"...The British government eventually accepted that the design probably made it's way into insurgent hands via the IRA thence to Hezbullah and that the Iranian govt. may well have not known anything about it.
Follow the links, why don't you?
However, the point of this post was to show that the ABC story was neither exclusive nor investigative. They are dragging up old stories which have already been discredited to attempt a name-blackening exercise in support of a hardline attitude to Iran. Several rightwing blogs are already calling the ABC story a cause for war with Iran. It is no such thing.
That's why it's relevant.
Regards, C
Oops...that always happens when my wife (Magik) forgets to reset the Haloscan after making a comment somewhere. Sorry, C
Great post and excellent response to "a." I watched/listened to this story with great interest tonight; it had the feel of "sensation" and all sorts of other elements familiar after 6 years of BushWorld Reality. I discounted every word of it after hearing the script "The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."
WTF does that actually mean? They are the same because they are the same?
I am interested in what Richard Clarke has to say, however, and I don't know why he would contribute his statement if he didn't know it to be true. But I also know there is always the editing room at the networks, but Clarke's contribution is a bit of a puzzle. I will do some more looking for peripherals to this story and see what I find. Anyway, the US no doubt has people in Iran trying to blow up the Iranian government, so it can be viewed as tit for tat, I suppose.
Aha. That explains what the British soldiers were doing dressed as Arabs and driving an explosive laden civilian vehicle......
I must be living in bizarro world: Since when do the Brits give the IRA bomb designs, and since when is the development of booby trapped bombs part of any anti-terror program?
Sounds more like a pro-terror program. Perhaps some element of the British government felt the IRA was flagging and wouldn't do as an electoral bogeyman without a bit of a leg up.
Whether on purpose or by accident, the Brits gave this design directly to their enemies once, who's to say they didn't do it again?
The IRA was using command-wire detonated IED's against British military patrols in the 1970's - these devices have a long history and any student of guerilla warfare techniques knows about these things; this probably includes the ex-Baath military contingent that forms part of the Sunni insurgency.
The UK government, having accused Iran very loudly of supplying IED technology to Shia groups in the South, was far more muted when it retracted the allegation some months later.
However, given the implacably evil nature of the Islamic Revolution in Iran it is necessary to posit that their bad thoughts ( and fiendish bomb designs ) were able to travel back in time and adversely influence the otherwise gentlemanly IRA.
Nice catch.
It doesn't have enough detail for me to tell if this is the same story or not.
Your headline claims the IEDs were "made in the UK." The story states that they were made in Iran. You might be right that they didn't come from the Iranian government, but it sounds like they were manufactured, not cobbled together in some Al Qaeda hideout.
Is there some reason you don't want them to have been built by Iran? That's what it sounds like.
Why all this haggling and bickering?
The subtext on all this is that Iran is behind the Iraqi insurgents.
Therefore the insurgency is Iranian-inspired.
Therefore in order to scotch the insurgency we need to attack the source.
As our neocon friends were saying not too long ago, "real men want to march on Tehran".
Clarke's contribution is a bit of a puzzle.
Clarke has his blind spots. He still approves of letting most of Osama's relatives be flown back to Saudi Arabia in Prince Bandar's private jet shortly after 9/11 without their being interviewed by the FBI.
"Is there some reason you don't want them to have been built by Iran? That's what it sounds like."
Nope, that's not what he said. Rather, it's inverse projection on your part: clearly, you and other neorepubliconservatarians want them to have been built by Tehran.
One more comment (I have no problem with an honest story about Iran being the source of IEDs...I just have a problem with dishonest stories, in general, and propagandistic stories with an agenda, in particular):
From GlobalSecurity.org:
"Iraq is one of the most heavily mined nations in the world. As of early 2003, it was estimated that there were over 10 million mines already in the ground—-8 million antipersonnel (AP) and 2 million antitank (AT), with Iraq both a producer and exporter of AP mines. ...Starting with the Iran-Iraq War onwards, the Iraqi military has been involved in three major wars. From 1983 to 1988, the Iran/Iraq War was characterized by large-scale attacks against entrenched, heavily fortified, and mined positions on both sides of the border. Both countries used mines extensively along their common border. Additionally, Iraq used mines extensively in the northern regions of the country to curtail internal dissident activities.
During this period, Iraqi soldiers gained extensive knowledge and experience in the use of booby traps and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)."
The ABC Brian Ross story on tv had one statement saying something like "there is no proof that Iran is involved"...so, I wonder about the nature and time frame involved in the IEDs that are claimed to have been "caught" at the Iran-Iraq border.
Oh! And one more thing again! The Brian Ross story on ABC is so old it can hardly be called exclusive. ABC picked up a Reuters story on Feb 5 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireSto...tory?
id=1583670
"Some of the most deadly bombs use shaped charges, which penetrate armor by focusing explosive power in a single direction and by firing a metal projectile embedded in the device into the target at high speed.
U.S. intelligence officials say the most potent of these new weapons have been designed in Iran and shipped to Iraq,....
And, of course, the interest is high at ABC because of the IED that got Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt at the end of January 2006.
Very good post. The possibilities are mind boggling.
C,
Looks like you are getting more recognition without winning that award.
It is funny to read the remarks of the people who use theories more outrageous than yours in an attempt to discredit your post.
For those of you who have not kept up... this post is presented along two points of discussion that have been going on for a while now. You have to think a little to get what Cernig is writing. He doesn't do talking point. Please don't argue each point he makes, look at the bigger picture.
Point #1. The mainstream media has become little more than paid mouthpieces for the administration and the neocons who who want continuous strife in the world. Info-tainment is the norm and journalistic standards are quite low. Whether or not the story is true isn't the point here. The point is that ABC News didn't check out their story, misrepresented their story, and presented supposition in the same breath as "facts". Cernig was decrying the death of journalism as those of use who live in a "fact based reality" knew it.
Point #2 Any exscuse to bomb Iran. The neocons (and oil industry-my take) are hot to stir up public support for military action against Iran.
Hill & Knowlton. They are the world's largest PR firm, headquartered in the UK.
They did PR work and provide staffers for the British Embassy in Prague to try and insert the now discredited Mohammed Atta story Cheney lied for continuosly.
Hill & Knowlton did PR work for the british embassy for the year the Niger forgery letterhead was stamped.
That's why Blair is on the short leash. The INC was always given a fast track to the chatter through Hill & Knowlton.
Look a bit closer, you'll find them doing ads for the same suppliers.
What kind of Hill & Knowlton work was being done during the IRA years? how many stories did they break? Almost to the point they were getting inside info?
Obviously none of us is in the position to know whether the weapons we manufactured in Iran. We have to take it on faith in ABC News and Richard Clarke, which at least have the advantage of not being neocon "shills" for Bush. The story declares the weapons were manufactured in Iran. If true this is highly significant, because Iran's government has tight control over its territory, and there are not likely rogue elements running its weapons plants. The fact that the technology came from the West is indeed something that deserved at least an aside in the original report. It is not especially noteworthy, however, since almost all military technology of the last century has come from either the West (really, just the US and UK) or Russia. Thinking this UK link is some sort of "gotcha" is as asinine as thinking it's not news if Iran builds an A-bomb, since that was also a US/UK project.
I think any honest ABC report would have included comment that Iran and Iraq produced millions of IEDs when they were at war, and that the transborder "shipments" reported by US and UK "intelligence" may well be leftovers from that war. The border between the two countries must have many points of access and passage for people familiar with the region. Given the situation brought on by the US and UK, it would make sense that old weapons would find their way into the current fighting. And given the threats against Iran issued daily by Rumsfeld et al., it hardly seems shocking that Iranians have a beef.
DW, you state that " Iran's government has tight control over its territory" yet give no evidence for this.
I would suggest the evidence is highly contrary. The border with Afghanistan is porous since Tehran is constantly fighting and complaining about Al Qaida terrorists coming across said. The border between Iran, Iraq and Turkey is the scene of much Kurdish peshmerga activity and down on the coast lie the Iranian arabic minority rebels and the Mujahedeen e-Kalq's rump (those not in Camp Ashraf).
Iran is mostly mountain to boot, and difficult to patrol.
Your assertion is, to put it bluntly, rubbish. These IED's could even be coming from Pakistan via Afghanistan and Iraq and the Iranians wouldn't be in much of a position to stop them.
Try reading the facts next time instead of regurgitating talking points.
Regards, Cernig
As our neocon friends were saying not too long ago, "real men want to march on Tehran".
Emil Faber
I thought they were saying not too long ago, "real men have to bomb Cambodia and Laos in order to save Cambodia and Laos from becoming dominos".
I found the site while reseaching on the Iran Russia IED connection. Hmm this bends my ideas. If you have any suggestion let me know!
It is great to see all of the discussion on whether or not Iran is providing advanced IED's to the elements of the Iraqi Shia. Before making your final decision on what you believe, I would suggest you read the 22 Aug 05 Time Magazine article about this very issue; it is very informative and provide a lot of factual information from credible intelligence sources.
Regardless of people's political views on whether we should, or shouldn't get involved in a confrontation with Iran over this issue, it is pretty clear that Iran is involved in providing this weaponry to Iraqi Shia that are involved in anti-Coalition activity in Iraq.
These are the same IED's used by Lebanese Hizballah to help expel Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and were extremely effective against Israeli armor. There is ample evidence to suggest these IED's were provided to Hizballah by Iran's intelligence services, and that Iran is similarly providing these same devices to Iraqi Shia surrogate groups operating in Iraq.
There is ample reporting on these devices, both in the U.S. and British media, and even more information in classified intelligence reporting (which is where Time got their info from), so I caution folks to allow their particiular political views to take a back seat to the mounting evidence that Iran is increasingly becoming involved in providing sophisticated weaponry that is being used to kill U.S. and British military servicemembers and the civilians that support them.
great post. Feb 1 2007 and more Iran sending bombs to iraq headlines
The UK and the US have a history of sending weapons to both sides in a war. They did it during WWII, and they did it in the first gulf war, so this, in a way, is "no news".
In fact, Saddam Hussein may not have "gassed 5000 Kurds", as he was sold mustard gas, whereas the Kurds died of a gas sold to the Iranians. Both were fighting in that area at the time. If anyone is interested in following this through, just google it.
Interestingly, from all I've read, including several Iraqi bloggers, they do not want any invader there. Not the US (and CoW members), not the Iranians, and not the Mossad. They would actually like to be able to sort out their own problems. But with oil and all, I guess they're not going to be allowed to do that.
Is this the first blog with the shills posting comments full steam ahead? Now I am certain Iran is next, I have never been to a blog like this where shills counter so quickly with a pro Brian Ross story that is so full of holes you can name whatever country you want to,just put whatever country you wish in the blank space and shift the blame to them, throw in a mix of the melting pot sheeple with there spoon feed media and they eat it up like a all you can eat at a Hometown buffet. Solid "PROOF" is what I'm all about and this blog was it,so it looks like Iran in the spring time for sure with lame proof like this, follows the path as Irag and the neocons have now found there angle.
From what I understand anytime you hear "exclusive report" assume it is a planted leak from a government source. Be very skeptical.
Who is the world's largest supplier of weapons? If there was a nobel prize for hypocricy the US would win hands down.
Hill and Knowlton was also given a big contract by the Chinese government shortly after the Tiananmen slaughter to spruce up the image of the cuddly panda.
The US has been selling fighter jet parts to Iran--when the war starts between the US and Iran will we hear reports of the US aiding and abetting Iran? I doubt it. After all, as Kissenger stated--military members are just stupid animals to be used by the US to propagate their 'foreign policy'. Who cares how many US military get killed--it is all for a good cause, and they are not real humans anyway!
Right, a country which is on the cusp of nuclear technology needs to learn how to make IED's from the IRA. Is there anything the British won't blame on the IRA? The British have always tried to paint the IRA as little more than thugs and petty criminals, now when it is convenient for them, the IRA are masterminds who can wheel and deal with governments in an international arena.
Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's paramour. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
America Deceived (book)
Commenting by HaloScan
