There is a suggestion that Tehran is arming and training insurgents in Iraq to kill British soldiers. The British government’s response to evidence that foreign powers may be killing our soldiers differs quite markedly from their attitude when they couldn’t find WMDs that they didn’t really know that Iraq even possessed:
“The particular nature of those devices lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah… however, we can’t be sure of this,” [said Mr Blair].
Despite the qualification, Mr Blair said there could be “no justification” for interfering in Iraq. The Ministry of Defence said these new claims supported the prime minister’s comments. A spokesman said the evidence pointed towards Iranian involvement, but it did not have decisive proof.
Reiterating the prime minister’s statement he said: “What is clear is that there are new types of explosives being used by insurgents in Basra and elsewhere in Iraq. “The particular nature of them leads us to think of Iranian elements or Hezbollah”.
But he said there was no clear proof Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was involved.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK hoped to discuss the evidence with Iran.
So we invade a country that may or may not have some nasty weapons and which definitely has not killed our soldiers but require rigorous proof - and discussion - with a power that may very well be doing its level-best to harm our soldiers wherever it can?
I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq (been into all that here) but I do very much care about what happens to our soldiers. And since we aren’t attacking Iran but they are attacking us then I believe there is a strong case for sending them some high-explosive greetings from HM Forces.
In the meantime, in what passes for a show of strength these days, the British authorities showed they mean business in Basra by promising to pay compensation for the damage caused to a police station they raided in order to rescue two of their captured comrades. They also apologised for rescuing their comrades.
“We hope to avoid a repetition of such incidents.”
We’ll only avoid a repetition of such incidents if none of our soldiers are kidnapped by Iraqi police or militia. Otherwise, I very much hope to see such incidents repeated as often as is necessary.
Your attitude on this post is chilling.
The captured “soldiers” were widely reported as in the disguise of local Arabs, driving a civilian vehicle containing an arsenal of covert munitions, and they also killed and injured Iraq police who were just doing their job.
Your imperialist morality is showing.
You must be in campaign mode because this post has a callous bent you have previously masked.
It says everything about how a civilised society can become barbarians. Gary you shock me!
So this is the “leadership” of the future?
Think again Gary, surely you have overstepped!
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 12, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
If it is shown that Iran is aiding in the killing of our soldiers I would act against Iran. Is that imperialism?
I don’t know what the soldiers were doing. If you do please tell me. And I don’t know whether the police were ‘just doing their job’ - I accept that you have good reason to believe they were, however.
Either way, if Iran is shown to be helping people kill our soldiers we need to demonstrate to that country our intolerance of such interference.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 12, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
But Gary, these same sources told us all Iraq was a nuclear threat to the world.
Perhaps Iraq`s “new type of explosives” is a ruse to distract attention from tricky questions?
Iran is clearly high on the Neo-con/Israel “terrorist” wish list for readjustment.
Two birds killed with one stone.
Gary, can you be serious when you suggest your soldiers were “kidnapped”.
Is this the real Gary Monro?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 13, 2005 @ 2:45 am
“Iran is clearly high on the Neo-con/Israel “terrorist” wish list for readjustment.”
Apart from the fact that Neo-cons and Isreali’s would not attack Iran and neither would Blair. Do you honestly think they would want to:
a) Alienate an already upset Muslim community?
b) Upset a relatively unstable country that actually has nuclear weapons?
I was skeptical of Iraq’s guilt of owning WMD when we decided to invade - no country would run the risk of starting a war that could go nuclear unless they really had to.
Yes - certain sections of Iran’s community are most likely helping kill UK and US soldiers. But that does not mean anything will be done about it using military channels.
One last thing:
kidnap
verb (kidnapped, kidnapping; US also kidnaped, kidnaping) abduct and hold (someone) captive, typically to obtain a ransom.
Not only is a ransom not necessary for unlawful abduction, but a ransom does not always have to be money. There can also be political ransom.
Comment by lascivious — October 13, 2005 @ 9:33 am