+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/23/2018 11:06 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.564 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/26/2008 12:06 PM ID: 71001 Permalink   

Leaked Document Confirms Iran's Involvement In Iraq's Insurgency


The British newspaper 'The Daily Telegraph' claims it has obtained a leaked government document entitled: "Life Under Fire in the Old State Building" which gives explicit details of how Iran payed unemployed men $300.00 monthly to become insurgents.

The document which was compiled with info from 25 different sources is supported with evidence from Iraqi generals local sheiks and popular business owners gives explicit details of how Iran funded attacks against British troops in Basra.

A British officer said "although officially denied, the existence of Iran's influence in Basra was widely known by the British military".

    WebReporter: keanu1982 Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Just love those leaked documents!  
So when is the war coming?
  by: Rv3   05/26/2008 02:54 PM     
  what's that smell?  
oh yeah, smells like bs to me. Who leaked the fabricated memo?
  by: John E Angel     05/26/2008 02:54 PM     
  We'll never know.  
Sure thing is, that's what we call making news.
  by: Rv3   05/26/2008 05:23 PM     
  John E Angel  
Quit playing these games. If it was a leaked American/British document saying that we payed unemployed Iraqi's to bomb and attack Iran, you and every anti-American/British/West flamer on here would have already had 50+ comments on this subject.
  by: NicPre     05/26/2008 05:35 PM     
  lol yeah  
if it was from a newssite in Iran they would belive it.
  by: Jammy-Doger   05/26/2008 05:38 PM     
Nah, ignorance is rampant on this site, a few of these guys have their heads so far up their butts, they'll never believe anything that doesn't fit their personal views. Wrong or not.
  by: NicPre     05/26/2008 05:44 PM     
  Wait atleast a couple of weeks  
to actually have it truly confirmed.
We heard about that laptop and all those weapons that they were supposed to show for the press and neither of them checked out in the end.

For instance with the Iraq + WMD-story it was reported that:
“They come in the summer of 2003, bringing in Iraqis, interviewing them,” the UN source said. “Then they start talking about WMD and they say to [these Iraqi intelligence officers] that ‘Our President is in trouble. He went to war saying there are WMD and there are no WMD. What can we do? Can you help us?’”

The source said intelligence officers understood quickly what they were being asked to do and that the assumption was they were being asked to provide WMD in order for coalition forces to find them.

“But the guys were thinking this is absurd because anything put down would not pass the smell test and could be shown to be not of Iraqi origin and not using Iraqi methodology,” the source added.
  by: Kaleid   05/26/2008 06:08 PM     
NicPre pretty much sums up a lot of people on this site.
  by: Petry   05/26/2008 07:15 PM     
  I absolutely  
would not be surprised to find out that Iran was playing in Iraq like this. If the US and "allies" win the war, the rest of the Middle East can bend over for the next half a century or so.
  by: NuttyPrat     05/26/2008 07:21 PM     
  Well, never forget that  
the neocon agenda for the middle-east did exist before 9/11 and there are plenty of quotes to be found before the Iraq war where neocons say they gotta do something about Iran.

Some neocon talking points described it so that Iran begun its war against US in 1979 but they of course leave it out that US/UK toppled the democraticly elected Iranian president because he wanted to nationalize the oil. Couldn't have that so he was overthrown.

Example, from neocon M. Ledeen:
“Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."

But alas, selling the Iran war has proven itself to be tough, I doubt this will be enough. They need something bigger, perhaps a Gulf of Tonkin part II?
  by: Kaleid   05/26/2008 07:30 PM     
i dont believe that. reason i dont is, why didnt USA point at the closest arab country and blame them for the USS cole and attack for oil, why not point at the best oil filled african country for the bombings in kenya and tanzinia.
  by: DRK   05/26/2008 09:33 PM     
Because the people making these decisions don't want to secure their own oil source for the benefit of our country, they want the -personal- kickbacks offered for referring consumers to a ridiculously over-priced oil source (in this case, Saudi Arabia). How else does a former CEO of the largest private contractor in the middle-east end up being vice-president of the united states? Surely not via $0.25/gallon gasoline.

Its simply really. To understand only requires you to accept the possibility that certain people in power are first and foremost interested in themselves. Another easy concept to grasp. The only reason people have such a hard time putting two plus two together during times like this is because, subconsciously, they -really- don't want to.
  by: maverick7h     05/26/2008 11:19 PM     
Just because Iran's headed by a whackjob doesn't mean those who oppose him must be followed. But, some people feel otherwise, maybe that's why they're so easily led - to Iraq, Iran, or wherever the wind blows.

I'll wait for these documents to be validated. It'd be interesting to know from where the money is being funneled, too. The phrase "Iranian finance teams" isn't very specific.
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/27/2008 12:57 AM     
Trying to show us how not to be prejudiced are ya?

Iran is supporting the insurgence? Holy crap, really? And they deny it? OMFGBBQBATMAN!!!

Have it occured to you that some of the people on here who're against US foreign policies (me) don't care to deny this because it's so plainly obvious?

Did you know that the US government denies lying about Iraq War?

Oh, let's not forget the fact that there wouldn't even BE an insurgency if the US havn't invaded, and why did you invade Iraq again?

Let's see,
-US airforce - most elite force in the world, not able to stop two passenger jets on home soil
-saudi hijackers
possibly Iranian with stolen passports
-Osama Bin laden "claims responsibility" in video
-Osama Bin Laden denies responsibility on tv
-Al Qaeda blamed
-Al Qaeda linked to Iraq
-Al Qaeda proved to be hostile to Iraq
-Iraq believed to have WMDs
-Evidence of WMDs found
-Evidence of WMDs debunked
-Iraqi OIL must not fall into terrorist hands
-Saddam is a brutal dictatorship
-Freedom must be spread

If you lose track, and I don't blame you, here's a recap.

Oh yeah, that's why, to spread freedom to people desperately in need.

And how's that going??
Let's see.

Oh, I see, only 73% of the people polled around the world disagree with US foreign policies.
So WE are the mindless sheeple following the herd, and here I thought I was all special.
  by: silentrage   05/27/2008 07:05 AM     

"Its simply really. To understand only requires you to accept the possibility that certain people in power are first and foremost interested in themselves"

well that explains obama then.
  by: cray0la     05/27/2008 07:08 AM     
oops, forgot this last link.
  by: silentrage   05/27/2008 07:23 AM     
  How tragic  
It's a shame that people are so tired of lies and deceptions that they're too jaded to realize which stories are actually true.
This is true people, think about it. Think about what Iran has to gain from winning the support of the shi'a majority in Iraq. America would be even more permenantly damaged.
It's a pretty regular occurance to find iranian weapons and more from recent production in quantities that would surely be missed if this was just an independant actor without government sanction. But I'll stop here.
  by: japh   05/27/2008 09:32 AM     
  japh, you make a good point  
It could easily be true. Still, THEY are not the ones responsible for destablizing the region, they are trying to protect the region from the USA's attempts of insurrection. Its actually pretty noble, especially when you consider that before these days, Iran and Iraq were constantly warring, with weapons WE gave them, both sides. Now the same weapons we gave them to encourage their shooting at eachother are being used co-operatively to shoot at us. If I was a more traditionally religious person with an unbiased perspective, I would say that sounds to be exactly what God would want.

Of course it would be entirely another story if they were paying people to go fight within OUR territory, but that's not the case, not even close.

Here's some good food for thought. Excluding those of US origin, Where does the vast majority of Iranian weapons come from? This includes either direct shipment or via the technology required for nationalized production. Russia. So if Russia is cutting Iran weapons deals (fact) to combat US military forces (likely) that would basically mean Russia is combating US military forces. What is the primary source of the funds that enables Russia to do this? China. A consumer should never be automatically associated with the ideals and intents of their supplier, but in this case China and Russia have both publicly, openly, and very clearly stated that they are together on this one. By "this one" I mean the next world-war, should there be another in this era. Though, they won't be the aggressors. And if the US tried to go to war with, heck even tried to skirmish with Russia (hence, China too), I would be laughing...out loud...for a long time...likely until my laughs are silenced by a bomb landing next to me, and then that'll be that.
  by: maverick7h     05/27/2008 07:42 PM     
  Saw it all the time  
Spent a year in Iraq. Ran into quite a few Iranians & a few Syrians. Its too bad the videos we have of them crossing the border and the written instructions (among other things EFPs, explosives, circuitry, large sums of money) they are caught with are never released. Never understood why we don't do a better job of that.
  by: jprobst   06/07/2008 05:09 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: