Iran backing Iraqi insurgent bombers (Here we go again...)

[Spiffarino]

The drums of war grow louder...

Iran backing Iraqi insurgent bombers

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An Iranian-backed network of insurgents in Iraq is responsible for a new type of lethal roadside bomb, part of plans by Tehran to influence its neighbor that began even before the U.S. invasion, Time magazine reported on Sunday.

Citing a U.S. military intelligence document, the magazine said that over the past eight months, a network of insurgents led by a man named Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani had introduced bombs based on a design from the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia Hizbollah that can easily pierce battle tank armor.

The document estimated that al-Sheibani's team comprised 280 members divided into 17 bomb-making teams and death squads, Time said.

What do you think? Is Judith Miller is still writing from her prison cell?

[niallmac]

1. Iran? Don't forget the billions of sympathetic

Arabs all over the world who resent Bushies new crusades. Oh boy, we sure do got a lot a killin to do before the world sees things the PNAC way.

[bemildred]

2. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

But where is the evidence beyond this bunch of hearsay and speculation, and supposing it is true, so what? Did anybody expect that Iran would sit there passively while we work on getting our attack organized? Did anybody think Hiz'bollah would NOT help the Iraqi resistance?

[Delphinus]

3. BS

All toward making the case against Iran. Bullshit.

Edited to add: let's hope the American public is more awake and aware this time around.

[Spiffarino]

5. Poll numbers dropping, so MI needs to be fixed around the policy

My BS alarm is going off, too. It's just too convenient to be believable at this point.

And what if it IS true? How are we going to invade Iran - a country with roughly four times the population of Iraq - when we don't have the resources or manpower to finish what we've already started?

These people are truly, certifiably insane.

[BootinUp]

8. "let's hope the American public is more awake ..."

unless the Republican party stops him, this will lead to further military action. We Democrats have very little say in the matter.

[Spiffarino]

9. I doubt the Repubs will even slow Bush down

They know a new war is an electoral winner if they can get the public to buy the spin. They own the government and the mass media. What's left to stop them? As long as they can get enough of the sheeple to believe in it, it's a done deal.

[TahitiNut]

13. How many Senate Democrats will vote for "SIN" (Stop Iran Now)??

Twenty-nine (29) of fifty Senate Democrats voted Aye for the IWR (Iraq War Resolution) at a time the Democrats enjoyed a narrow control of the Senate. I'd not at all be surprised to see at least twenty of them vote for a speciously-contrived resolution that's used as cover for military actions against Iran.

[Spiffarino]

14. No telling, but it should be a litmus test

If they vote for an attack on Iran they don't deserve to be called Democrats. They would be far too stupid.

[nookiemonster]

20. Yes they would,

if a "terrorist" attack was to take place.

Just sayin'

[stepnw1f]

4. More Right Wing Propaganda

These people really do want WWIII don't they? They don't seem to want to avoid it, that's for sure. They can say what they want, because their actions prove otherwise.

[wellst0nev0ter]

6. So What Interest Does Iran Have In Undermining A Shiite Government?

And how does the intelligence know that this is the same Hizbollah as the one in Lebanon. "Hizbollah" literally means "pary of God", and unless Lebanon has a copyright on that name I wouldn't be surprised if duplicate militias with that name has established itself in iraq.

[bemildred]

7. The argument would be that it was to encourage the US to leave.

So as to have a freer hand. Your comment on Hiz'bollah is well made.

[delen]

10. Who knows

what "insurgency" they're talking about? There is a Shiite "insurgency" also, the one that took over and ousted the mayor of Baghdad last week.

[Larkspur]

11. The problem with this argument is that Iran does NOT support the Sunnis

The insurgency in Iraq right now is a Sunni insurgency, not an Iraqi insurgency.

Iran's Iraqi allies are the Shiites who make up 60% of modern Iraq, and it's the Iraqi Shiites who want Iran, not the USA, to train their troops to fight the Sunni insurgency and bring their order to Iraq.

Either Neo-cons are idiots or they are making this up to cover up their incompetence for not seeing that Iraq's Shiites and Iran have more in common with each other than they do with Israel and the USA.

[TahitiNut]

12. Bushoilinis going for another Trifecta - third time's the charm

There is no longer any question in my mind that the world's greatest outlaw nation is gearing up the propaganda machine to rationalize yet another military strike against a sovereign nation -- all according to the "Pax Americana" obsession of those who lust for the global politics of the Roman Empire. This insatiable lust for power and wealth, socializing the burdens on the backs of the masses while narrowly privatizing the benefits, is a pernicious cancer in our body politic.

[Earth_First]

15. What bothers me about these articles (re: building the case) is this...

is that the 'reporting' is begining to document "numbers" in these reports. As was present during the Iraq build-up, (as is currently with Iran) a two phase proceedure:

Phase I: Describe how totalitarian and oppressive the regieme is against women and children. -Phase I complete.

Phase II: Plant 'concrete' "numbers" in the reporting to describe the "threat" this regieme is and urgency of dealing with said "threat." -Phase II underway.

Just re-recycyled reporting with different headlines, names, etc.

Look out after the mid-terms...

[still_one]

16. really, so the Shiites want to arm the Sunnis

Bull S*IT

[catnhatnh]

17. Wait-we're all WRONG here.....

....if Time says they have supporting documents (which they do) then it's easy....release the documents and let's have experts vouch for them....that's the standard web sites like The Smoking Gun are held to....In short (ala Jerry Maguire) "Show me the money"....Otherwise "TIME" can shut it's lying mouth....

[daleo]

18. "Iran Backing Insurgent Bombers" turns into

An Iraqi resistance fighter (insurgent) made bombs based on a design from the Iranian backed Lebanese militia (all based on an unnamed source). That is at least three levels away from the Iranian government. Even if it was true (which I am not conceding) it would in no way implicate the Iranian government.

Lots more "one suspects" and "unnamed documents are said to contain" type statements.

[billyoc]

19. exactly, and I'm sure there were a few peruvian maoist

guerrillas attending the same sniper school in africa in the '80s with them as well.

Basically it's everyone's fault. :eyes:

[Bob3]

21. Notice that it does not quite say Iran is doing this

They parse words very nicely "an Iranian backed Lebanese Militia" not Iran itself.

it really makes no damn sense for Iran to back the insurgents. They don't need to lift a finger and Iraq (once we bail out sometime in 2006 so the gop doesn't lose congress) will be an ally.

Really if anybody can be said to have won the invasion of Iraq, Iran has. 1) A long time foe Saddam has been removed from power 2) the provisional government of Iraq is already talking about stronger ties with Iran 3) Thanks to the oil price surge their oil reserves are more valuable 4) Their hard line government is more entrenched than ever what with * invading Iraq and proving every bad thing they ever said about us and 5) Chabli (sp?) who is quite possibly an Iranian spy still has access to the top echelons of the Iraqi and American government.

Which is why it makes no sense for Iran to be doing anything to aid the insurgents.

[Disturbed]

22. Bush and other spokespersons of the Regime..

have statedat least a hundred times that when Iraq can defend itself against the Insurgency that the U.S. would remove the troops. If the Insurgency stopped all attacks for two months would the Bush Regime pull out the troops?

[Spiffarino]

23. As long as we get to keep the oil, we'll leave

Otherwise, we'll be there for decades.