Iran accuses UK of involvement in bomb attacks in Iranian city which kills 9 people.

Iran has accused the UK of co-operating with bombers who killed eight people in attacks in the restive south-western city of Ahwaz on Tuesday.
"Britain must respond to the doubts of Iranians concerning the events," said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

Mr Mottaki said the masterminds of the bombing "or people of their mind" had been photographed with UK officials.

A UK Foreign Office spokesman in London has denied the accusation, saying Britain condemned terrorism.

"Any linkage between HMG (Her Majesty's Government) and these terrorist attacks is completely without foundation," said the official.

Click here for more info


It's been reported elsewhere that Ahmadinejad was due to visit the area but it was cancelled before the blasts due to bad weather, although reports say that officials were concerned about security.

This is one of two things.

Either Iran's government is blaming external forces for attacks by localised Arab militant groups who oppose Iran's government...

Or the UK and the US are covertly helping these groups as a counter to the Iranians helping the Shias in Iraq in what could be called 'Lo-Fi' warfare, tit for tat hits in Iraq and Iran, with it hotting up in light of the recent pressure on Iran.

I think it could be a mixture of both.


If the Iranians produce these photos they say they have....that could be interesting.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by Regensturm
Mr Mottaki said the masterminds of the bombing "or people of their mind" had been photographed with UK officials.

What the hell does "people of thier mind" mean????

One other question, does that mean Mr Chirac is now working for the UK since he was photographed next to tony blair ?

Originally posted by devilwasp

What the hell does "people of thier mind" mean????

People with a similar ideology as the alleged masterminds?

Just a guess.

Originally posted by devilwasp
One other question, does that mean Mr Chirac is now working for the UK since he was photographed next to tony blair ?

I think the Iranians see the dissident Arab groups (Who Iran sees as terrorists) as more of being possibly under UK influence then the French President, whose relationship with Blair is less than cosy.

Originally posted by Regensturm
People with a similar ideology as the alleged masterminds?

Just a guess.

Then the iranian government has a similar ideology then ?

Originally posted by devilwasp
I think the Iranians see the dissident Arab groups (Who Iran sees as terrorists) as more of being possibly under UK influence then the French President, whose relationship with Blair is less than cosy.

Theres a difference between what they see and what they say.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then the iranian government has a similar ideology then ?

If we are talking about Iran having a similar ideolody to the Iranian Arab seperatists/militants, then no. The seperatists want their own country, and are probably similar to those who took over the Iranian embassy in London, which led to the SAS being brought in.

The other Arab groups who don't want seperation, want to overthrow the Shia leadership, and place a Sunni Arab one instead, and may well be linked to Al-Qaeda, who Iran oppose because Al-Qaeda sees Shias as not being muslims and should be killed because of a thousands year odd dispute over who should have succeeded Prophet Mohammed. The Sunnis choosing one bloke, the Shia choosing another as candidate instead.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Theres a difference between what they see and what they say.

Maybe. I'm waiting to see what these photos they say they have are like.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by Regensturm
If we are talking about Iran having a similar ideolody to the Iranian Arab seperatists/militants, then no. The seperatists want their own country, and are probably similar to those who took over the Iranian embassy in London, which led to the SAS being brought in.

Well I meant it was similar because both are willing to use weapons to get what they want.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well I meant it was similar because both are willing to use weapons to get what they want.

Has Iran itself used weapons to get what they want then?

By your logic, the US Military is similar to Al-Qaeda because both are willing to use weapons to get what they want.

Originally posted by Regensturm
Has Iran itself used weapons to get what they want then?

Not to my knowledge no, but they are threatening to use them.

By your logic, the US Military is similar to Al-Qaeda because both are willing to use weapons to get what they want.

Yes they are.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Not to my knowledge no, but they are threatening to use them.

Where have Iran threatened they are going to use military weapons?

Originally posted by Regensturm
By your logic, the US Military is similar to Al-Qaeda because both are willing to use weapons to get what they want.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes they are.

But it's ideology that seperates.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by Regensturm
Where have Iran threatened they are going to use military weapons?

They have threatened to cut off oil supplies if they are brought to the UN, if I am not mistaken.

Originally posted by Regensturm
But it's ideology that seperates.
[edit on 27-1-2006 by Regensturm]

Yes, they are diferent yet the same.

Originally posted by devilwasp
They have threatened to cut off oil supplies if they are brought to the UN, if I am not mistaken.

And where in that threat did they threaten to use military weapons to do this?

Originally posted by Regensturm
And where in that threat did they threaten to use military weapons to do this?

Rudaki said that "if Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz."

You dont call that a threat?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Rudaki said that "if Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz."

You dont call that a threat?

It could be taken to be a threat of counter sanctions via a blockade.

Also that Iran will not halt it's own oil supply to other countries.

I'll ask you a fourth time. Where has Iran threatened to use military weapons?

Originally posted by Regensturm
It could be taken to be a threat of counter sanctions via a blockade.

As I remeber a blockade requires a navy to block off supplies.

Also that Iran will not halt it's own oil supply to other countries.

Oh will it not? Did the qoute I supplied not state that specifically?

I'll ask you a fourth time. Where has Iran threatened to use military weapons?

The above quote, to stop all the oil flowing would require much more than economic weapons.

Originally posted by devilwasp
As I remeber a blockade requires a navy to block off supplies.

And? Such a use would be in response to sanctions.

What did you think Iran would do if placed under sanction for no reason other than enriching uranium? Sit back and take it? No. Iran can place sanctions of it's own.

Using the navy would be as an economic weapon, not military.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Also that Iran will not halt it's own oil supply to other countries.

I meant Iran will halt it's own oil supply to other countries.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The above quote, to stop all the oil flowing would require much more than economic weapons.

Or maybe Iran think economic weapons would be enough to do so.

At this moment of time Iran has not threatened specifically to use military weapons, and because you can't find a link to say Iran has threatened to do so, I won't ask you a fifth time and thus, I will save your blushes.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Regensturm]

Originally posted by Regensturm
And? Such a use would be in response to sanctions.

If Iran does threaten military action in response to sanctions, which it has not yet done, what did you think Iran would do if placed under sanction for no reason other than enriching uranium? Sit back and take it? No. Iran can place sanctions of it's own.

It could also mean an economic sanctions blockade.

Economic sanctions, they only go so far, there is no way they could cut off the entire flow of oil out of the gulf simply by putting economic sanctions.

It has threatened to use force to block the supply of oil, IMO that includes military and economic means.

I meant Iran will halt it's own oil supply to other countries.

Then it will be out of customers.

Or maybe Iran think economic weapons would be enough.

Against other countries with other oil fields? economic weapons would not cut off the flow of oil.

At this moment of time Iran has not threatened specifically to use military weapons, and because you can't find a link to say Iran has threatened to do so, I won't ask you a fifth time and thus, I will save your blushes.

They threatened to stop the flow of oil, just how the hell are they going to do that just by saying "we aint shipping no more oil" , they still need it and still need the money from it.
Stopping the flow of oil = military action, theres no other way IMO and frankly threatening to stop the flow of oil means using anymeans, which BTW includes military. Since they havent specified that they wouldnt I see no reason to suspect otherwise.
Arugment over.