Iran: Anatomy of a Lie

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Or how the United States attempts to blame Iran for 170 deaths

It's a rare thing, witnessing propaganda so over-the-top it beggars the imagination. Most lies have a kernel of truth that give them an air of credibility, but every once in a while something comes along that shakes the cynicism from our jaded eyes. You laugh - and almost feel sad for the drunken hacks who put the story together in the first place. After all, can't they spend five minutes fact-checking their nonsense on Wikipedia?

When I read this week the Pentagon implicated Iran in over 170 American deaths in Iraq, I felt a giddy rush of excitement I hadn't felt since the dog-gassing video of 2002. Finally, pure propaganda! No failed attempts at diplomacy, just half-assed demonization in the form of a captured bomb cache delivered straight from the munitions sweatshops of Tehran.

The image of said mortar rounds provided to the press is an hilarious failure in the art of manufacturing evidence. A low-resolution photo with artifacts and an abundance of glare, it almost dares someone in the United States to jump-start his brain and shout "fake!" Commentary describes the round as one of many confiscated by Iraqi police in mid-January, but the shell itself has even more information to share, like a manufacture date - March, 2006, in case you were wondering. That date means Saddam couldn't have made it, so who else could? Heck, it's like a big, sexy, missile-shaped Budweiser, proudly showing its born-on date on its seductive wrapper.

Isn't it convenient for both the American media and the public that Iran decided to time stamp its illegal weapons shipments in English? Now, when Pentagon officials say Iran armed Shia militias with counterinsurgency weapons capable of crippling Abrahms M1 tanks, we don't have to read some chicken scratch Farsi or watch Al Jazeera for a rebuttal. It's all spelled out, right there, on the weapon itself!

For a godless, soulless, theocratic regime, they sure are considerate!

I know the film-school dropouts who concocted this scenario probably slept through Wag the Dog and thus think their lone image bears no scrutiny. Thus, while they're drag-racing down the halls of the Pentagon and White House on their Mini Scooters, let's examine the inconsistencies you've probably already gleaned for yourself. And remember, our tax dollars paid for this lack of creativity:

  1. Iran purchases its arms from Russia. Any writing on shells purchased from their ally to the north would have Cyrillic written on them. And any shells produced locally would have Farsi, not English, denoting blast yield.
  2. Russian mortar rounds are 82mm, not 81mm. So those rounds Iraqi police uncovered? Not big enough to get the job done (performance anxiety, perhaps?).
  3. Iran and Afghanistan don't use the Gregorian calendar. It may be February, 2007, in the United States, but it's 23 Bahman 1385 in Iran. Stamping bombs "3-2006" ignores the fact Iran adopted the Jalaali calendar long ago. It also assumes a Muslim-dominated nation would follow a calendar which sets Jesus Christ as its focal point. Oops - try again!

It's no secret the Bush administration wants to invade Iran, or that it's grasping at straws for a rationale that won't spark civil war in this country. But this level of laziness in pulling evidence from the ether is simply appalling - at least have the decency to make up something that can't be rebutted by anyone knocking two neurons together in his head!

The lies about Nigerian yellow cake uranium took months to unfurl and required a retired ambassador traveling to Africa to confirm it was a load of crap. Was Hill & Knowlton not available? People still think Iraqi troops stole incubators from Kuwaiti hospitals, leaving babies to die. That's real propaganda. This lowering of standards is embarrassing.

Almost as embarrassing as the silence from the American people who fail to call the government on these sleazy tactics.

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01327_iran_anatomy_lie.html
 
OP
Redhots

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Posted on another site.

THE "IRANIAN" 81MM MORTAR WEB PAGE IS A FAKE!

Click Below :

http://www.iramig.ir/Products/Mortar Bombs.htm



This web page is being waved around to "prove" that Iran does make 81mm mortar rounds like the one the US Government is trying to use to justify an invasion of Iran.

Take a good look at the soldiers and weapons at the very top of the page. They look Iranian to you? And why does an Iranian company put together a web page where their own country is obscured from view on that world map?

Check the spelling on the tabs. "Miscellancous"? "Caliber" uses the American spelling, rather than "Calibre." And Tehran is spelled "Tahran" on the contact page. This web page was assembled in a rush.

Take a look at the page source in your browser. The images and directories on the server are all in ENGLISH.

The phone numbers on the contact page are all 7 digit numbers. But in July of 2005, Iran switched over to an 8-digit phone system.
 
OP
Redhots

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Actually there is a report today about Austria sales to Iran, in 2006:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Austria-Iraq-Rifles.php

Oh the German media has picked it up too.
Franz Holzschuh, Steyr's CEO, said the company had not officially been contacted by anyone to verify the serial numbers on the rifles. He said there was a possibility the weapons were reproductions and that there were "thousands" of these in circulation.
So what, exactly, is this supposed to prove?
 

shepherdboy

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
234
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Location
The occupied zone(CA.)
So what, exactly, is this supposed to prove?
Just wondering here. So you believe Iran is not responsible for the death of any U.S. troops in Iraq? Technical knowhow, weapons or munitions? Do they have to make elsewhere for Iran to be guilty?

It kinda reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case. Mark Furman planted evidence to bring about a solid conviction because of no conclusive evidence of O.J's. guilt. But was O.J. guilty of the murders?

Is Iran guilty of helping to kill U.S. troops?
Did Iraq have WMD's before the U.S. invaded?
Did the Russian and the Syrians help smuggle some the WMD's out of Iraq before the U.S. arrived?

If you were to ask my brothers who have served in every theater of war on terrorism, the answer would be YES!!!!!!!!!!
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
"Is Iran guilty of helping to kill U.S. troops?
Did Iraq have WMD's before the U.S. invaded?
Did the Russian and the Syrians help smuggle some the WMD's out of Iraq before the U.S. arrived?

If you were to ask my brothers who have served in every theater of war on terrorism, the answer would be YES!!!!!!!!!!"


Your "brothers" would be called unthinking sheeps by today's standards.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
So what, exactly, is this supposed to prove?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009674

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Iran's Smoking Guns
Now Austrian sniper rifles show up in Iraq.

Friday, February 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Following the weekend intelligence disclosures about Iranian-supplied weapons killing GIs in Iraq, we predicted Tuesday. that "a large part of Washington will pretend the evidence doesn't exist, or suggest the intelligence isn't proven, or claim that it's all the Bush Administration's fault for 'bullying' Iran." Sure enough, President Bush faced a barrage of questions Wednesday wondering whether senior Iranian leaders were really aware of the weapons transfers, whether he was using "faulty intelligence," and whether the disclosures were part of a strategy designed to "provoke Iran."

So here is the state of our public discourse: American military officials present prima facie evidence of Iranian weapons implicated in killing 170 U.S. soldiers and wounding 600 more, and Washington's main concern is not for the GIs but in refighting the last intelligence war.

Well, here's an item that doesn't seem to have been manufactured by Dick Cheney. According to a report in Britain's Daily Telegraph, U.S. forces in Baghdad have recently discovered 100 high-powered sniper rifles made by Austrian gun-maker Steyr-Mannlicher. The .50-caliber Steyr can accurately fire an armor-piercing round at a range of 1,500 meters. The weapon is good against Humvees, helicopters and body armor.

In 2004, Iran purchased some 800 Steyrs, allegedly for use against drug traffickers. At the time, both U.S. and British officials urged the Austrian government to bar the $15 million sale, fearing the weapons would fall into enemy hands. Former Austrian Chancellor Wolfang Schüssel thought otherwise, and let the deal go forward. To better grease the skids, then-Steyr-Mannlicher CEO Wolfgang Fürlinger made the case that the weapons were basically harmless and that Tehran had signed "end-user certificates" guaranteeing they would not be re-sold, according to the German newsweekly Der Spiegel.

Today, the Austrian government pleads that the sale had been "checked very thoroughly," and that "what happened to the weapons . . . is the responsibility of the Iranians"--which prompts the question of why the Austrians would have bothered with the end-user certificates. The Bush Administration took a less cavalier view and in 2005 banned Steyr-Mannlicher from bidding for U.S. government contracts.

It remains to be confirmed whether the serial numbers on the Steyrs found in Iraq match those from the 2004 sale--if they do, it ought to prompt a top-to-bottom review of all Austrian military contracts. Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran's motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush's?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top