wabpilot

You are the one who does not read, or chooses not to comprehend.

Bluesman

You want me to go through it slowly for you?

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Bluesman

Did you read this the first time through?

The part that is most important to the point you're not getting is:

See, 'all' is placed in TheChosenOne's post to state a true proposition: each of those items, in some percentage that does not equal 100% of the insurgent's total stocks, have been supplied by Iran. If, on the other hand, what you mistakenly read as '100% of each of those items had been supplied by Iran', then you'd be correct, because as you correctly pointed out, there ARE other supplies for those items.

How 'bout now? Any clearer?

xerxes

Shek,,, to answer your first question, a vast majority of people in America would believe if they are told Iran is master mind behind the Sunni insurgency ... many of the members on this board are part of that vast majority.

You second point, I must play the ignorant here, as I, a humble civlian, do not know what a CBU is ... my search yielded body armor? ... is that what you mean ,,,

Regardless, I admit, that your point have merit on the fact that small help on part of Iran may not neccersily be of any significance .. just like Washington aid in the Iran-Contra affiar was not of any significance dis-advantage to US, had it not been exposed.

But, I must question the popularly-believed-logical-linking of Iran to the sunni insurrgency just because Iran is US-Enemy, Sunni-Insur. is US-Enemy, therefore the laws of enemy of my enemy is my friend prevails (as Mr Moderator put it so well) ...

Your point (your theory) is based on the notion that the Iranian government - or the IRCG leadership - wouldnt mind to have a few Americans killed and that is the reason why the are helping the Sunni insurgency. What you are saying is not wrong. Iranian government - or the IRCG leadership - wouldnt mind to have a few American killed no less than the American government and higher military leadership woud love nothing better to return the favor ... however, why would the Iranian just strike a deal with their mortal enemies (no I dont mean the Israeli nor the Americans) ... but the Sunnis .. just for the pleasure of having a few American killed. They could do it very well, should US forces decides to move directly against the Shia in the south.

private petrodollars are the unofficial means for the kingdom to finance the Sunni insurgency IMHO

I am glad that you brought this point up ... , if the according to the US DoD the Iranians weapons were responbile for more than 107 (?) dead Americans out of the 3,000 or so ... then they (DoD) should look for the major factors behind the insurrgency that had cause the majority of the 96.43 % of the killings then to bark at another tree which is allegdly responsbile for 3.56 % of the fatalities supplied to the Sunni insurrgents ... as far as the reason is concern, for me it is very clear .... infact Robert Gates said it loud and clear ... they have nothing on Iran, therefore these allegations are part of the campagin to increase pressure on Iran, so that regime will comply and reigne in the Shia - the ones that are under Tehran's control. Afterall, Mr Shek, I am sure that there are some Shia groups that are under Washington's control and payroll. But we never hear of those ...

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Parihaka

Who's suggesting that? Playing to assumptions, perchance?

xerxes

perhapes ... ... all I know is that from now on, I will blame any terrorist attack from the Baluchis in Iran on the US, and I will belive any evidence that the IRCG throws at me, no question asked. You know why Mr Pari, ... because I do not want to be a called a pacifist and do NOT want to be denounced for the lack patriotism and for exposing the fatherland to danger ...

"Of course the people don't want war ...but, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger."

Hermann Goring - 1946 - Nuremberg Trial

highsea

xerxes- BCU= Battery Cooling Unit. Cools the seeker head on portable missile prior to firing (to make it more sensitive to infra-red radiation).

wrt the Sunnis- we do have evidence of Iranian ties to Sunnis in Iraq. Not saying they are the major source of support, but they have definitely been involved.

Iran sees that the other Arab States will become involved, and wants to keep ties open with both groups in Iraq so as to maintain some influence over events.

(ignore the dramatic headline, lol. But read the part about the documents captured in Iraq)

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem - January 3, 2007 - The New York Sun

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Parihaka

LOL, surely not a Nazi analogy so early in the piece.
Ain't nothing wrong with pacifism either, I live in a very pacific part of the world. One of the things about being a pacifist though is to have a very healthy dose of scepticism, something you and other naysayers of various ilk on the board apparently have in spades.
The problem with your scepticism though is that you only seem to apply it to one side: the other apparently can do no wrong.
I on the other hand have no problem believing that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were 'sexed up' and yet am happy it happened anyway: I have no problem believing that Iran supplies sundry materials to insurgents of all types because it discomforts America, and it's leaders really aren't any more intelligent than the leaders of America who gave shoulder mounted missiles to the Mujahadeen.
I have very little time for conspiracy theories and hidden master plans because most (and I exclude many on this board from this summation) of the people I know and see in public life just aren't that smart. Especially the ones in public life.
Now, what were you saying about Nazis?

Ray

Iran was helping the Kurds up North against the Sunnis around Kirkuk and the US busted that, causing the Kurds to protest.

It is obviously to Iran's advantage if the Sunnis are eliminated or made moribund. It will allow the spread of the Shia Crescent of which much has been said on various threads and requires no emphasis.

Therefore, indeed, logically analysing, it should be no surprise that Iran is helping the Shias, Kurds or anyone non Sunni in Iraq.

I totally believe that Iran is singleminded in wiping out the Sunnis from Iraqi politics and governmental control!

I am neither a sceptic nor a cynic.

I think, therefore I am!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Parihaka

The rest has been read before but this bit deserves re-iterating
How many times have we discussed thing post event that just don't seem logical, and how often have we been told that because it isn't logical it must therefore be some grand conspiracy to deceive.

TheChosenOne

Shek and Bluesman,

Thanks for pointing out my own mistake in reading my own post. For what ever reason the second time I read it, my mind placed ALL in the front of the sentence for some odd reason after reading wabpilot's. Silly me...but hey, most of the time I'm at work, I'm trying to conduct a war and contribute here at the same time so I'm jumping from this back to this and so forth.

Like I said, I think it'll be tricky to obtain 'solid' proof. I have no doubt in my mind that the Iranian leadership can't be completely clueless on what's going on. I think the White House has started it's trail of evidence from last week and there is more to come. But I also believe that there could be plausibile deniability involved here also.

Very valid point. Who know's where Al Sadr is but from last weeks MSM posts, it seems he's ran off to Iran, go figure. Regardless if he has family or not there, that's his most likely course of action from fleeing Iraq. Hmmm...I wonder why???

Bluesman, excellent point. This is why I don't like public opinion at all on wars. Unless, something seriously ethicially wrong starts happening. Like we just start using tactical or full scale nukes or NBC warfare for no purpose or wipping out whole villages for no reason, the public should keep it's mouth shut but this is their freedom. What does the general public know about warfare or statecraft? Most people are honestly ignorant of the facts. There is a command structure inside the military and the government. I don't think that this structure as a whole is so inherently flawed when it comes to warfare, that public opinion really shouldn't hold much sway. But that is the choice of the leaders to hear that voice should they choose to. And Bluesman is right, that's what is going on right now whether you like to admit it or not. That is who the insurgents really target, the people of America. The 'Voice' that the Democrats are jumping behind.

Another point I want to make is that when we go to war, we hold the military and the nation to such a high moral and ethicnical standard that I fear it hinders are ability to conduct war properly in a war like Iraq. For example, rules of engagement here in Iraq are so stringent, that many soldiers hesitate to fire because they fear the consqeunces of their action by their leadership. In which case the enemy has no rules of engagement and plays right off this. You can't be the lesser of two evils when the other evil has no moral equivalency. We will defeat ourselves in wars like this based on our own rule sets.

Bluesman, I do disagree on this one at least partly, they could be, I'll give you that. Don't forget Saudi Arabi, Pakistan, or Syria though.

No wabpilot, I misread my own post. I meant what I said. In my area of operations at least, the majority of the weapons used against us or captured are from Iran. This information has been provided from multiple sources to include individuals detained, crater analysis and referencing of lots numbers from IDF, and individuals exploited by HMNINT, aka, Human intel.

I once again believe what Ray states here.
And that is why everybody should try to contribute to this post....

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...ning-rift.html

Shek

I read his post, read your post, and then posted that he was correct before even seeing that Bluesman that had already done so. While English is actually a very quirky language, the meaning of ChosenOne's statement is actually pretty straight forward. It's meaning is objective - it can only be interepreted one way. The "all" is used in ChosenOne's statement is an indefinite pronoun used to replace "EFPs, mortars, and rockets." You are trying to insert the use of all as an adverb describing "how many."

Bluesman has already written twice on how ChosenOne would have had to write the sentence to have conveyed the meaning that you are trying to read.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

xerxes

Fair enough, but would you have similiar pattern of thinking, if America was forging evidence to discomfort Iran? ... surely must a huge concidence that as the UN deadline appraoches, evidences seems to just pops out.

forget about the Nazis ... as far as conspiracy theories are concerned ... they are a double-edge sword.

You might classify my belief as conspiracy theory, but I could equally classify your belief that Iran is arming the Sunnis as conspiracy theory from my point of view ...


exactly ... Iranian-sunni support for me, it is illogical, while for you, when you applying the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-frieng it is logical.

What is a grand conspiracy to deceive? ... it is a theory which differs from the actual truth. If we unhinge the actual truth, since none of us know it, that makes my theory and your theory, both conspiracy theories. But you are using White House offical statement as the reference point (Truth), and therefore counting anythingelse as conspiracy theory, therefore invalid, whereas I might count Tehran offical statement as the reference point (Truth), therefore counting anythingelse as conspiracy theory.

are you with me ...


A former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran who left government service in 2005, Wayne White, said he did not think it was likely the Quds Force was supporting Sunni terrorists who were targeting Shiite political leaders and civilians, but stressed he did not know.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq," he said. "That's about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq, but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop."

Mr. White added, "One problem that we all have is that people consistently conduct analysis assuming that the actor is going to act predictably or rationally based on their overall mindset or ideology. Sometimes people don't.

"One example of a mindset that may hinder analysis of Iranian involvement is the belief that Iran would never have any dealings with militant Sunni Arabs. But they allowed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan across their territory in 2002," he said.


It takes just a sentences from White House press release for people to suddenly blame Iran. and there is no way of checking if there is any truth behind the underlines statement, except Washington's good intention. Iran has dealing with Sunni Arabs, as seen in Hamas. Loud and clear. But there is difference to have dealing with Sunni that are at your doorsteps and those that are used for propoganda value. Iran's support for Hamas is much like Napoleon's support for the Duchy of Warsaw and the Poles. He supported them, because they were somebody else problem (Russia/Prussia). Had the Polish realm close to France, there would not be a Duchy of Warsaw.

Shek

I'm sure the timing isn't a coincidence, although it's been asserted as long as a year ago by a British general sans pix. So, the claims are nothing new, just the attention and emphasis given to the claims in the form of producing the pix. If you look at the slides presented, many are certainly not recent.

Me, I'm concerned about wratcheting the heat up too much, as it will only serve to strengthen the hand of Ahmadinejad at a time when his popular domestic support is on shaky ground.

xerxes

thank you , i have read it

Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Intresting passage in the article. There is one post on that website that I like to share with you ...

Iranian Sunni Moslem fanatics will stop at nothing to bring the Mahdi back. As one Middle Eastern expert commented, "When we stood up to the Soviets during the cold war era they would back down. Not so the Moslem radicals. Since according to them, there has to be a holocost before the 12th Iman can return, the sooner it happens the better."

This world as we know may not last much longer. Once Iran gets the bomb, so much for any nation that opposes it's insane leader's theology. It's time to open the Bible and find out what it says about the end times and the worldf's Savior.

The U.S. needs to declare war on Iran before it's to late. - Reader comments at The New York Sun