Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Wikileaks & Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Not too long ago, Iranian minister has announced his concerns and suspicions of Wikileaks. He believes Wikileaks has an agenda. Well, he's right. The agenda is to spread one thing: Truth.



Hundreds of documents outline the intelligence, of variable quality, on which the Americans have based allegations of Iranian backing for the Shia militias which fought government and US troops.

They claim Iranian intelligence officers served inside Iraq, at one point manning checkpoints with local militias, and describe a firefight on the border in which American troops shot an Iranian border guard dead and then came under prolonged attack as they returned to base.




The Iranian strategy described in the leaked documents was to undermine security and weaken American influence over the Iraqi government. After President Barack Obama outlined his timetable for withdrawal, attacks continued so that Iranian-backed militias could claim to have "forced the occupiers to withdraw".

The supported militias included the Mahdi army of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which controlled Shia areas of Baghdad and southern Iraq until taken on and defeated by Iraqi and American troops in 2008.


So urce




Iraqi militants went to Iran to be trained as snipers and in the use of explosives, the reports assert, and the Quds Force collaborated with Iraqi extremists to encourage the assassination of Iraqi officials.

The reports make it clear that the lethal contest between Iranian-backed militias and U.S. forces continued after President Obama tried to open a dialogue with Iran and reaffirmed the agreement between the United States and Iraq to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.


Source

In other words, militias in Iraq that have attacked US forces were indeed trained and supported by Iranians. Could this be the reason why Iran declared Wikileaks suspicious? Was THEIR agenda to protect themselves and shield them from any exposure?
I wonder if any Wikileaks documents are able to be viewed in Iran for the people to make decisions and opinions of their own.......probably not.



Washington (CNN) -- A classified U.S. military document appears to lend credence to claims that Iran crossed the Iraqi border to arrest three American hikers.

The field report was one of 400,000 the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks released Friday concerning U.S. and coalition operations in Iraq.

The report lists a number of military grids where the Americans were believed to have been hiking or had been detained -- all on the Iraqi side of the border, according to The New York Times, which reviewed the document with aid from an American government official.


Source


Things could get mighty ugly soon...if it's possible to get uglier than they already are.




posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
It might also be to give the American people a "believable" source as to Iran attacking our troops in Iraq. I'm not saying it is, but just watch, the release of these documents will be manipulated into an increasing war rhetoric against Iran.

That might be the real psyops of Wikileaks, or how the Pentagon is playing Wikileaks.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The leader of IRAN allows people to be stoned to death if they are homosexuals or adulterers..

He will get a rude awakening you play with fire you will get brunt!



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
well, u guys are simply plain not thinkers

everything on these leaks are from "SOLDIERS" perspective

it was not proven that Iran did this or that

and even if they did, I would support that ... lets be realistic, isnt that suppose to be a war? why 80 % of the deaths are civilians? why just one side dies?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
well, u guys are simply plain not thinkers

everything on these leaks are from "SOLDIERS" perspective

it was not proven that Iran did this or that

and even if they did, I would support that ... lets be realistic, isnt that suppose to be a war? why 80 % of the deaths are civilians? why just one side dies?



You support suicide bombings of civilians and soldiers?




posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Iran is playing the same game as the US: protecting their interests... or are republicans & democrats the only party leaders on Earth anointed to kill others in the name of "national interests"?.. lol.. laughable.

If "Killing in the name of" is good for the US, it's good for everyone.

Even a blind man could have seen the Iranians et al fomenting violence against American occupiers on multiple fronts... it was likely part of the war for profit plan from the start, well.. unless bush was literally so stupid he figured nobody would dare do such a thing..lmao.. even China & Russia are selling weapons to Afghan & Iraqi freedom from America fighters, why?.. because the war on terror is fake & killing the empires troops, called "infidels" just like the Soviets, is a lucrative business opportunity with plenty of volunteers.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
well, u guys are simply plain not thinkers

everything on these leaks are from "SOLDIERS" perspective

it was not proven that Iran did this or that

and even if they did, I would support that ... lets be realistic, isnt that suppose to be a war? why 80 % of the deaths are civilians? why just one side dies?




Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by Faiol
well, u guys are simply plain not thinkers

everything on these leaks are from "SOLDIERS" perspective

it was not proven that Iran did this or that

and even if they did, I would support that ... lets be realistic, isnt that suppose to be a war? why 80 % of the deaths are civilians? why just one side dies?



You support suicide bombings of civilians and soldiers?



amazing, in which sentence did I said I supported suicide bombers or the death of civilians? you are simply using Fox and CNN strategy to try to discredit people ... congrats, you are a disinfo operator

I meant: if Iran is providing weapons, intelligence for the "resistance", thats not "wrong", simply because, as a lot of people state, " this is a war", so, if this is a war, it must have 2 sides right?

even with this "help" from Iran, 99% of the deaths are Iraqis ... weird, isnt this suppose to be a war?

amazingly, but not surprising, a lot of people still believe in this propaganda that the US is in a WAR. So, if I use my army to kill a bunch of guys in their homes, is that a WAR or is it a MASSACRE? When the other side doesnt have resources, training or even organized groups of people, you cant call it a war ...





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join