if you dont think Iran has its hand in Iraq, you are a bigger idiot than sergeDilbert_X wrote:
It mirrors exactly'the logical leap is not at all reflective of the situation we're talking about.
'We found EFPs, it must be the Iranians'
There is simply no proven link - as yet at least because the US is apparently sitting on the evidence it supposedly has, so its a logical leap.How can you say that? You guys thought Iraq definitely had WMD, how can you say Iraq definitely didn't have EFPs?Where did they get the drawing and specs? The EFPs didn't exist in Iraq prior to the invasion.
Drawings and specs - pretty well anywhere - I'm not going to trawl all the Jihadi bomb-making instructions on the web just now.
Its a lot easier to email a DXF than smuggle tons of copper plates across a guarded border.
Maybe they developed them themselves. The fuzzywuzzies don't always need a white man to show them what to do.Point out a "patently false assertion" made by any of the experts I've linked to/sourced in this thread.From a dumb metal part its pretty hard to tell who turned it and what training they had. Could be a craftsmen, or just an apprentice who read the drawing.this newspaper understands that Government scientists have established that the mines are precision-made weapons which have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions.Thats a whole lot of belief from finding an EFP.British military sources believe the devices have been developed in Iran and smuggled across the border into Iraq where they are supplied to Iranian-backed anti-coalition insurgents.
Given the coalition forced have found multiple workshops making the things its patently a leap of logic which fails.None of your business puny human.What color is the sky on your world, Dilbert?
If you jump into a thread with a moronic comment like that - without reading the previous posts - then you're the idiot.if you dont think Iran has its hand in Iraq, you are a bigger idiot than serge
I've not said Iran isn't involved, just the evidence being put forward is limp and inconclusive.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Oh wow, you convinced me.According to a U.S. military-intelligence document
I THINK now we see some of the technologies -- some of the training -- being imported from Iran and probably being constructed here
I can't tell you they're exclusively coming from Iran
American officials say
American officials note
American officials say they possess other, detailed information linking the weapons to Iran that they remain unwilling to publicly disclose.
After the WMD fiasco sorry, but the word of 'American officials' counts for zero.
Again, if they have the info why are they withholding it? There is no intel system to expose if they caught a truck at the border.
Or are the waiting until the last minute to bounce America into another war on bogus intel?
No, you could do it with basic workshop equipment, as the coalition forces have found multiple times.But according to your expert testimony, it's ridiculously simple to do in one's workshop with no training or special tools.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle … raqi_city/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart … x?id=49455
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart … x?id=46727
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart … x?id=46813
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart … x?id=48067
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-26 01:32:22)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
So I was spot on. Either you didn't bother to read beyond "American officials say" or:
If anyone from the US says anything, you don't believe it regardless of the facts supporting it.
If anyone from the UK says anything, you don't believe it regardless of the facts supporting it.
That is, of course, unless what they are saying is in line with your preconceptions.
Your complete and utter lack of even an attempt at objectivity is incredulous.
And on the last part you missed the critical point of the lack of effectiveness of the homemade devices compared to the ones clearly machined and produced by professionals...which apparently they AREN'T finding in the production "facilities" in Iraq that they roll up.
If anyone from the US says anything, you don't believe it regardless of the facts supporting it.
If anyone from the UK says anything, you don't believe it regardless of the facts supporting it.
That is, of course, unless what they are saying is in line with your preconceptions.
Your complete and utter lack of even an attempt at objectivity is incredulous.
And on the last part you missed the critical point of the lack of effectiveness of the homemade devices compared to the ones clearly machined and produced by professionals...which apparently they AREN'T finding in the production "facilities" in Iraq that they roll up.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Don't forget the anti-tank systems they're using.FEOS wrote:
So I was spot on. Either you didn't bother to read beyond "American officials say" or:
If anyone from the US says anything, you don't believe it regardless of the facts supporting it.
If anyone from the UK says anything, you don't believe it regardless of the facts supporting it.
That is, of course, unless what they are saying is in line with your preconceptions.
Your complete and utter lack of even an attempt at objectivity is incredulous.
And on the last part you missed the critical point of the lack of effectiveness of the homemade devices compared to the ones clearly machined and produced by professionals...which apparently they AREN'T finding in the production "facilities" in Iraq that they roll up.
I have yet to observe any 'facts' as your govt is for some unknown reason keeping all the evidence under wraps.
Just because an American official says something doesn't make it true.
Here are some hard 'facts' for you.
'Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'
'And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.'
'The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his nuclear mujahedeen, his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted the purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.'
But wait
'WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.'
Just because an American official says something doesn't make it true.
No detailed evidence has been supplied either way up to this point.And on the last part you missed the critical point of the lack of effectiveness of the homemade devices compared to the ones clearly machined and produced by professionals...which apparently they AREN'T finding in the production "facilities" in Iraq that they roll up.
Here are some hard 'facts' for you.
'Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'
'And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.'
'The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his nuclear mujahedeen, his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted the purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.'
But wait
'WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.'
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-26 06:17:44)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I see. You can't support your argument so you change it to something unrelated to the topic at hand.
And we've beaten the dead horse you've attempted to resurrect enough. It's very clear why the US and other countries' intel services thought Saddam had an active WMD program. He and his top advisors even admitted as much after the fact and subsequent investigations have reinforced their claims.
But keep beating that horse. Maybe it will come back to life.
And we've beaten the dead horse you've attempted to resurrect enough. It's very clear why the US and other countries' intel services thought Saddam had an active WMD program. He and his top advisors even admitted as much after the fact and subsequent investigations have reinforced their claims.
But keep beating that horse. Maybe it will come back to life.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No I haven't changed it.
You're saying 'American officials' have said something therefore its fact, even though no actual evidence has been put forward.
I'm just pointing it out that sometimes 'American officials' get it wrong for whatever reason.
Those supposed 'facts' just go 'poof' shortly after your govt has achieved its objective.
Previously there was an agenda to find evidence justifying an attack on Iraq.
Now there is an agenda to find evidence to justify an attack on Iran.
Your govt knew full well if Iraq was invaded Iran would weigh in heavily for the Iraqi Shia.
What they are complaining about exactly I'm not sure about.
If they have a gripe they should stop the lame unsupported statements they've made up to now and put forward some real evidence which actually means something.
You're saying 'American officials' have said something therefore its fact, even though no actual evidence has been put forward.
I'm just pointing it out that sometimes 'American officials' get it wrong for whatever reason.
Those supposed 'facts' just go 'poof' shortly after your govt has achieved its objective.
Previously there was an agenda to find evidence justifying an attack on Iraq.
Now there is an agenda to find evidence to justify an attack on Iran.
Your govt knew full well if Iraq was invaded Iran would weigh in heavily for the Iraqi Shia.
What they are complaining about exactly I'm not sure about.
If they have a gripe they should stop the lame unsupported statements they've made up to now and put forward some real evidence which actually means something.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-26 23:49:26)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yes you have.Dilbert_X wrote:
No I haven't changed it.
You're saying 'American officials' have said something therefore its fact, even though no actual evidence has been put forward.
I'm just pointing it out that sometimes 'American officials' get it wrong for whatever reason.
Those supposed 'facts' just go 'poof' shortly after your govt has achieved its objective.
Previously there was an agenda to find evidence justifying an attack on Iraq.
Now there is an agenda to find evidence to justify an attack on Iran.
Your govt knew full well if Iraq was invaded Iran would weigh in heavily for the Iraqi Shia.
What they are complaining about exactly I'm not sure about.
If they have a gripe they should stop the lame unsupported statements they've made up to now and put forward some real evidence which actually means something.
First, your argument is based on the false assumption/claim that someone is trying to find evidence to justify an attack on Iran. I think it's been made pretty clear that only one official in the US government is even remotely in favor of that (Cheney), and he's been relegated to a role of little/no influence in the government...he makes a lot of noise, but his ideas no longer have any traction.
Second, "American officials" covers a pretty broad swath. You use that to (erroneously) imply that the same people/organizations that made the case for Iraq having WMD are the same people/organizations that are making the claims here. They aren't. Additionally, changes in policy, procedures, and such were made following the whole WMD thing to attempt to prevent that kind of thing happening again. Changes that you are either unwitting of, ignoring, or discounting completely.
The difference here is that forensics experts (American and UK officials, in the terms of the articles) have actually gotten the weapons and performed thorough analyses of them--something that didn't happen with the WMD. There is hard, PHYSICAL evidence here, not just intel indicators.
I don't know how much more support those statements need...they have the weapons, the weapons are clearly and unambiguously from Iranian factories and the insurgents themselves have admitted to Hezbollah/Iranian training, support, and supply.
Weighing in on the side of the Iraqi Shi'a is far different than supplying insurgents with advanced weapons and training. Iran could have very easily chosen to be a partner of the Shi'a-dominated government but instead they chose to arm and train insurgents. That's what they are complaining about.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If that were the case that would be great news, however as pointed out previously McCain, Obama and Clinton (what is her head good for besides giving it?) have stated they are ready to attack Iran.I think it's been made pretty clear that only one official in the US government is even remotely in favor of that (Cheney), and he's been relegated to a role of little/no influence in the government...he makes a lot of noise, but his ideas no longer have any traction.
I've said 'American officials' means I don't believe it until some actual evidence is forthcoming. I don't care what checks and balances have supposedly been put in place - White House spokesmen can still cherry pick the info and say whatever they like in off the record briefings. If its all above board why can't these 'American officials' give their names?Second, "American officials" covers a pretty broad swath. You use that to (erroneously) imply that the same people/organizations that made the case for Iraq having WMD are the same people/organizations that are making the claims here.
As far as I remember Iran has tried to get involved and be a partner with Iraq but the US has done its best to keep them out, which presumably is why the Iranians are extending their influence by other means.Weighing in on the side of the Iraqi Shi'a is far different than supplying insurgents with advanced weapons and training. Iran could have very easily chosen to be a partner of the Shi'a-dominated government but instead they chose to arm and train insurgents. That's what they are complaining about.
Since the US spurned Iran's offer of reconciliation - the Swiss letter - and Irans' efforts to partner with Iran, Iran knows it has two hopes.
- Keep the US bogged down in Iraq so they won't contemplate invading another ME country.
- Obtain nuclear weapons
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
And Iran has stated they are ready to attack us. But that's not threatening...except if someone in the US says something much less colorful. Nice double standard. And strangely enough, I can't find any sources on the internet that state that any of those three will attack Iran. Only that they won't back down from it if required.Dilbert_X wrote:
If that were the case that would be great news, however as pointed out previously McCain, Obama and Clinton (what is her head good for besides giving it?) have stated they are ready to attack Iran.FEOS wrote:
I think it's been made pretty clear that only one official in the US government is even remotely in favor of that (Cheney), and he's been relegated to a role of little/no influence in the government...he makes a lot of noise, but his ideas no longer have any traction.
Again, saying you are willing to use force as one of many eventualities is not the same thing as saying you will use force.
Because these "officials" are worker bees. They aren't policy makers. They are technicians who provide their reports to their higher-ups. And those reports unequivocally state that the munitions in question either originated in Iran or are built to Iranian spec (points to training).Dilbert_X wrote:
I've said 'American officials' means I don't believe it until some actual evidence is forthcoming. I don't care what checks and balances have supposedly been put in place - White House spokesmen can still cherry pick the info and say whatever they like in off the record briefings. If its all above board why can't these 'American officials' give their names?FEOS wrote:
Second, "American officials" covers a pretty broad swath. You use that to (erroneously) imply that the same people/organizations that made the case for Iraq having WMD are the same people/organizations that are making the claims here.
Regardless, what does it matter what their names are? How is that at all relevant?
Do you have the contents of the "Swiss Letter"? Here's the only description I could find:Dilbert_X wrote:
As far as I remember Iran has tried to get involved and be a partner with Iraq but the US has done its best to keep them out, which presumably is why the Iranians are extending their influence by other means.FEOS wrote:
Weighing in on the side of the Iraqi Shi'a is far different than supplying insurgents with advanced weapons and training. Iran could have very easily chosen to be a partner of the Shi'a-dominated government but instead they chose to arm and train insurgents. That's what they are complaining about.
Since the US spurned Iran's offer of reconciliation - the Swiss letter - and Irans' efforts to partner with Iran, Iran knows it has two hopes.
- Keep the US bogged down in Iraq so they won't contemplate invading another ME country.
- Obtain nuclear weapons
If it doesn't address the issue under discussion, what's the point? Iran refuses--REFUSES--to negotiate on the nuclear issue. They say it's about peaceful nuclear power, then they reject all offers of help toward that purported goal from the international community (including the "warmongering" US) because they require them to be transparent in their efforts.Guardian wrote:
The 18-page letter, which did not directly mention the nuclear dispute but ranges over issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, came as the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China met in New York to discuss tabling a United Nations security council resolution against Iran.
Spurned? Read.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9904/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03007.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … 9411410169
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-20-voa75.cfm
There's much, much more. Concrete examples of diplomacy and the US policy vis-a-vis Iran. How many concrete examples of a true threat of attack by the US can you find?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So, when a guy who gets endorsed by an evangelical is suddenly him?Dilbert_X wrote:
Oh great, like the world needs another bunch of religious wackos in charge.....
Weren't you bitching about the Obama vs. Wright controversy a while back?
Double standard ftl.