It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bomb Explodes in Southeastern Iran

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
A bomb exploded in southeastern Iran at a school on Thursday, and afterward there were further reports of clashes in the streets. The clash was between Iranian police and insurgents. A Sunni Muslim group called Jundallah claimed responsibility for the attacks. Iran has claimed in the past that the U.S. is responsible for backing insurgents in Iran and one of those caught confessed to being part of the U.S.'s plan to create instability in the region.
 



www.canada.com
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — A bomb exploded in southeastern Iran late Friday, near the site where an explosion this week killed 11 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and clashes broke out afterward between Iranian police and insurgents, Iranian news agencies reported.

“The sound of a bomb explosion was heard in one of Zahedan’s streets,” IRNA, Iran’s official news agency, reported. The report gave no further details, including whether there were casualties. The semiofficial Fars news agency said the explosion was at a school and was followed by clashes.

Separately, IRNA quoted an unnamed “responsible official” late Friday as saying that one of those arrested in Wednesday’s bombing has “confessed” that the attacks were part of alleged U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran.

“This person who was behind the bombing confessed that those who trained them spoke in English,” IRNA quoted the official as saying.

The agency did not identify the official nor the person arrested in Wednesday’s bombing but said his group had planned to kill local Sunni Muslim leaders to provoke religious violence in Iran.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is the first I've heard of U.S. operations in Iran in the press. I could have guessed that the U.S. would be using special forces to create an uprising in Iran, but you never hear too much about it in the press.

Of course, this could be Iranian spin, trying to make the U.S. look bad to the world, as a provocation of violence in Iran. But, the story seems too believable to be false. If they're meddling secretly in Iraq, who says the U.S. isn't trying to shape things in Iran?

Perhaps this is the larger war strategy? We've heard much about Iranians wanting to overthrow their government. After the debacle in Iraq, it seems like a smart move to fight a "special forces war" in Iran that won't make headlines, and where you can fight as an"eye for an eye", without public scrutiny. It's even better if you can fund and train Iraqis or Iranians to go do your dirty work for you.

The only problem is that after you fund and arm these people and the war goes away, what do you do with them? Hopefully, they don't get bored and start launching terror attacks against your country.

If you read about Jundallah, you'll find that they're a shady terror group known for grabbing headlines with their attacks against high profile Iranian targets. You'll also find that they have ties to Pakistan and Al-Qaeda!

The U.S. is funding and training a group that has ties to Al-Qaeda so that they can overthrow the Iranian government? This is more shady business, and proves that America is directly or indirectly supporting Al Qaeda... STILL!

Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org
www.dailytimes.com.pk
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.deanesmay.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
'We will cut them until Iran asks for mercy'
Is Iran Really Arming Insurgents?
US to attack Iran in April?




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Well Im glad we are using the same tactics against the Iranians. If the iranians want to use terrorist organizations to accomplish their goals, they get whats coming to them.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I mean was there ever a doubt that our government works with terrorists? We have funded terrorists for deaceds all over the world. The only difference is, if it happens to get out that we support them, we try and downplay the fact they are terrorists by calling them different names, or claim they are fighting terror themselves.


apc

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

“This person who was behind the bombing confessed that those who trained them spoke in English,” IRNA quoted the official as saying.

Some spook should get smacked for that one.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
]More Discussion about Jundallah and their ties.

Jundallah was part of Bush's claim that Saddam's Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda, and now we're supporting Jundallah in Iran. Visit the link for more information.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
One man's Terrorist is another's Freedom fighter. We are in the dawning of the age of the underdog. A movement without the military means to express themselves, after many failed attempts at democracy, will revert to fear tacticts to send a message. However, this does not send a message of peace nor does it attract sympathetic peace minded souls to a cause.

Whether this particular group was funded by Western powers is still up in the air however.

-ADHD



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I don't think the link is up in the air with all the different sources I've found on the subject. The only problem is that the group denies its attachment to the U.S. and the U.S. denies attachment to it. Why would they produce such denials?

Why else would the US government be so indescriptive about Saddam's Iraq attachment to Al-qaeda? Because they want to protect those whom the US was going to use in the future to overthrow Iran. Yes they're attached to Al-Qaeda, but as long as they have an enemy that isn't the U.S., we only stand to gain from it.

The link is very apparent for better or worse; both to Al-Qaeda and the U.S. However, I do believe that this is a smart way to try and stabilize the middle east. Why not use the terrorists to do it? At least Americans aren't dieing or being tortured in Iran. This is the new age of asymmetrical warfare. At least this group is producing some results. In Vietnam, we had a major problem with getting the South Vietnamese to fight the North Vietnamese because of family ties, bribery, fear, etc.

The only bad thing is that the US government isn't being honest about their agenda. But with tactics like this, how could they?


apc

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I don't think there's all that much new about it. If genuine, this would be typical CIA, but could be someone posing as us. Either way it seems odd someone in a position to be captured during an insurgent attack was trained directly from an American. I would imagine there would be at least two degrees of seperation. Makes me think the confession was an intended event, perhaps in a controlled escalation.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I wonder if the word "karma" is in the Iranian vocabulary? What goes around, comes around.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
They can blame us all they want, but they cannot deny they are
sending insurgents into Iraq. Close the border to Iraq and they can
have their own civil war. I think they are close to that anyway.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
It's very dangerous when you have two countries claiming the other is behind attacks.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Heres an update.



Clashes between armed militants and police have erupted in the south-eastern Iranian city of Zahedan, state media have reported.

Police sealed off the area and exchanged fire with the attackers after a bomb went off, Irna news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying.

It comes two days after a car bomb in Zahedan killed 11 Revolutionary Guards.

A hardline Sunni group, Jundallah, said it carried out Wednesday's attack.

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.


Link

The regime that runs Iran will be strong enough and have the means to crush any militants organization or at the very least contain them in such a way that a civil war dosnt break out.

As for the likes of the CIA being involved it is possible but why would they want to create another civil war in the region ?
IF I'm wrong then Iraq will have become the inspiration and the source of conflicts that would destabilize the whole region.

So much for Iraq showing the people of Iraq a better form of government and way of life. If I'm right the process of the ME moving towards democratic governments will have been set back for a very long time. If I'm wrong there are going to some massive problems to deal with.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
radio_radio, how is the claims of Iranian state-controlled media proof "that America is directly or indirectly supporting Al Qaeda... STILL!"??? If your idea of proof is an article on canada.com that references the Iranian government's claims that a bomber confessed to working for the US, then I pray to God that you're never called on for jury duty!

With Iran exporting weapons, explosives and terrorist know-how to Iraqi insurgents, of course they're going to turn around and accuse the US of doing the same in Iran. This is nothing new. They've been blaming the US and Britain for every bombing that's taken place in Iran in the past 20+ years.

I just think there's a lot of hypocracy among some of the ATS members (I said SOME, NOT ALL!). How is it that they are so willing to take the word of corrupt governments and media sources when it supports their agenda/beliefs, but are quick to dismiss the word of US government officials and NON-state-controlled media when it conflicts with their personal opinions? It's almost laughable when some people on here will use Rense.com or Pravda as a source of facts, and then dismiss anything coming from cnn.com or the Washington Post.

Allow me to close by saying that I am not denying US involvement in this attack, or any other bombings in Iran. But at the same time I'm not ready to convict them on the word of the Iranian government, their state-controlled media, and/or the alleged uncoerced confession of one of the supposed bombers. Please forgive me for requiring a slightly higher burdon of proof. Just as we shouldn't take the US government at their word when they accuse Iran of supporting insurgents in Iraq, we shouldn't take the word of an Islamofascist regime and their puppet media when they claim US involvement in bombings in Iran.

The motto is "Deny Ignorance." That doesn't just apply to stories that don't jive with your own personal beliefs and opinions.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by radio_radio
I don't think the link is up in the air with all the different sources I've found on the subject. The only problem is that the group denies its attachment to the U.S. and the U.S. denies attachment to it. Why would they produce such denials?


Because someone might just follow the money trail.


Yes they're attached to Al-Qaeda, but as long as they have an enemy that isn't the U.S., we only stand to gain from it.


We only stand to gain from an enemy within.


The link is very apparent for better or worse; both to Al-Qaeda and the U.S. However, I do believe that this is a smart way to try and stabilize the middle east. Why not use the terrorists to do it? At least Americans aren't dieing or being tortured in Iran. This is the new age of asymmetrical warfare. At least this group is producing some results.


To weaken them from within...

Xpert11 said it:


Originally posted by xpert11


The regime that runs Iran will be strong enough and have the means to crush any militants organization or at the very least contain them in such a way that a civil war dosn't break out.

As for the likes of the CIA being involved it is possible but why would they want to create another civil war in the region?

IF I'm wrong then Iraq will have become the inspiration and the source of conflicts that would destabilize the whole region.

So much for Iraq showing the people of Iraq a better form of government and way of life. If I'm right the process of the ME moving towards democratic governments will have been set back for a very long time. If I'm wrong there are going to some massive problems to deal with.



I think the Pentagon knows that directly attacking Iran will be a totally stupid thing to do, so they're doing the next best thing. Instigating whatever troubles they can to weaken them from the inside--stirring up the hornet's nest.

Where are the pipelines to be built.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well Im glad we are using the same tactics against the Iranians. If the iranians want to use terrorist organizations to accomplish their goals, they get whats coming to them.

Of course, the entirely deligitimatizes the War on Terror, and really does make it little more than a war of American Agression, but I guess you could go with that if you want to.


Ex

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
With all of the rhetoric that Bush has been spewing
about Iran these last few months, trying to get
American Citizens accustomed to the idea of an Iran invasion.

Do You REALLY in your mind of minds think that not only
has it been talked about strategies and implemented ??

Come on, guys, the fight before congress right now,
is if the Presidency has the last word on War,
Commander and Chief,
or the Congress does with constitutional rights!

What you or I think is irrelevant to GW.
he has nothing to lose, last term in office..

It's Straight Ahead.Armagedon.......God Told him!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
It certainly all makes sense now. The Nazi Zionist's boycotted German good's ruining their economy. Hitler was told to rise against them and then was defeated by his own friend George Bush Senior who had ties them through IBM and what not. So then the superpower's came to the rescue and renamed all the land as Euro European Union. Also at this time they took over American Government and British Government and created Israel. They also planted moles in all the countries they sought to do future damage too. They kept in contact with these moles for 40-70 year's so that they would be able to start these kinds of war's like Taliban and Iranian uprising to give a reason to teh public that htey are there to bring freedom and democracy. These guy's are nazi's bush is a nazi, everyone's a nazi.

Before the 1950's we were sauliting the American flag the way Hitler saluted with his right arm up. We are NAZI!!! Look at the eagle the same eagle used in the Hitler flags.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by rrahim1]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
rrahim1
While I appreciate a good conspiracy involving the Bush clan as much as the next guy, you appear to have your timeline a little mixed up. It was GRANDPA Bush that helped finance the Nazis, not George Bush Sr. I am not sure how you can tie IBM into it as I thought they did not come around until much later. Have you got a link on the IBM connection you can share?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Whether true or not, intel agencies are (or should be) well aware of the ramifications of such actions or even leaks of disinformation. This could have came from anyone with the cash to pay for it.

But remember... One good strike in Iran would be their 9/11 and call to arms for all Patriots to come to the aid of their country. As it was in the US.

While it's true that such a strike could be engineered by clandesdine forces on either side (just as the various 9/11 conspiracy theories spell out), being reminded that terrorism still exists and still needs to be wiped out gives ShrubCo. more to yammer on about with the rhetoric du jour they've scribbled down for him to strike fear in everyone's heart.

Using a third party to bring terrorism to the headlines adds the advantage of putting Iran, the state, on the defensive against it. Building a defense though can backfire, it also makes them stronger.

It's what the War Machine is counting on to keep the gravy train rolling. Perpetual war.


apc

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

rrahim1
It certainly all makes sense now.


Hah yeah Prescott Bush, not HW, had close affiliations or employment with a few banks and other large companies that came under fire for financing the Nazis. I think IBM was just starting to get the tabletop calculator to fit on a table. But I sure would like some clarification as to how this bit of history ties into our allegedly using a common tactic in regime change? Is the comparison to Berlin now being made of Tehran? Or is this an attempt to associate this tactic with Nazism?


[edit on 17-2-2007 by apc]




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join