USA And Britain Responsible For Terrorism In Iran?

[Annihilator9112]

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=148097

is iran lying to turn other countries against usa or is this true???

another but this one is a year old :/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-in-Iran.html


EDIT: just found out the article is 2 months old :S why the hell was it on the 1st page then??

[brainplay]

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=148097

is iran lying to turn other countries against usa or is this true???

another but this one is a year old :/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-in-Iran.html


EDIT: just found out the article is 2 months old :S why the hell was it on the 1st page then??

Why would Iran lie about this kind of stuff. I mean if they lied about it then they would just make their rivals look bad or at least attempt to make them look bad. Iran isn't like that. They ship pink teddy bears to the US and the pres. like every 2 days. I mean who else would have the money to funding terrorist training camps and logistics? Only the US has the monies to by like 1000 machine guns. Do you know how many goats thats worth?

[Alfacentori]

Although it has been done in the past, ie in Soviet Afghanistan and Cuba and the US/UK etc might provide some support to dissident Iranian movements I doubt it amounts to bomb training, secret bank accounts and weapons etc.

You have to remember too that these "confessions" have come from people caught and most probably interrogated by the IRG, who

A: Suspect every dissident as being part of a western plot

and

B: Will not stop until they get the answer they want

Alfa

[Henry's Fork]

^Thanks for the LOL, Brain.

Seeing that there are loads of evidence that Iran has been supplying terrorists in Iraq(to name just one country), i would love to see the evidence Iran has on the UK/US.

But....i highly doubt it.

[Euroamerican]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-S...vasion_of_Iran

Not like the West hasn't been ****ing around with their country in the past.... Naturally suspicious? I would not blame them.

[Billy No Mates]

I would like to think we would be as a tit for tat response to their aid to the insurgents in Iraq but i really doubt the current British government would risk an escalation in Iran while it is desperate to wriggle out of Iraq .

[Mastermind]

I only wish we could visit upon them what they have visited upon us and our allies....I doubt very seriously they could take it. They would whine all the way to the surrender table.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I wonder why the US never took any action against the M-e-K even though the organization is?/was on their list of terrorist groups.

[Mastermind]

Yah...good question. Also, why are we negotiating and supplying thousands of tons of food and petroleum to/with N. Korea if we don't negotiate with terrorists?

[INAT]

Operation Ajax comes to mind.

[welshmann]

Yah...good question. Also, why are we negotiating and supplying thousands of tons of food and petroleum to/with N. Korea if we don't negotiate with terrorists?

because its for the people not the goverment!,look at bandaids effort,it all the money raised went to the people..

Wheres my Sarcasm button????

[Buffalo_soldier]

I only wish we could visit upon them what they have visited upon us and our allies....I doubt very seriously they could take it. They would whine all the way to the surrender table.

You should revisit the last 50 years and see if you come to the same conclusion.

Over 500,000 Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq war. Is that toll not enough?

What about the thousands who were tortured and killed during the Shah's rule?

Or the 300 people shot down in a civilian airliner?

srsly?

[Winger]

You should revisit the last 50 years and see if you come to the same conclusion.

Over 500,000 Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq war. Is that toll not enough?

What about the thousands who were tortured and killed during the Shah's rule?

Or the 300 people shot down in a civilian airliner?

srsly?

First, we supported the Iranians as much if not more than we supported the Iraqis during that war.

Second, the amount of tortured and killed really hasn't changed, just the regimes. At least the Shah was friendly and not shooting off at the mouth about attacks of armageddon.

Third, the civilian airliner was not purposely shot down for being a civilian airliner. As to why an airliner is cruising through a hotzone is the million dollar question.

Srsly?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

First, we supported the Iranians as much if not more than we supported the Iraqis during that war.

Oh rly? What alternate reality was that in?

Second, the amount of tortured and killed really hasn't changed, just the regimes. At least the Shah was friendly and not shooting off at the mouth about attacks of armageddon.

Fcuk yeah - at least he was OUR bastard

Third, the civilian airliner was not purposely shot down for being a civilian airliner. As to why an airliner is cruising through a hotzone is the million dollar question.

It was nowhere near a warzone at the time it was a scheduled flight from Iran across the Straits of Hormuz IIRC. The question to ask is why the USN thought an Airbus A330 was a fighter plane?

[Breakfast in Vegas]

First, we supported the Iranians as much if not more than we supported the Iraqis during that war.

Second, the amount of tortured and killed really hasn't changed, just the regimes. At least the Shah was friendly and not shooting off at the mouth about attacks of armageddon.

Third, the civilian airliner was not purposely shot down for being a civilian airliner. As to why an airliner is cruising through a hotzone is the million dollar question.

Srsly?

Fail. You need to check your facts.