US using 1994 Argentine Bombing Investigation To Pressure Iran

[Psychoblues]

"The US is using an international criminal investigation into a 1994 terrorist attack in Argentina to keep Tehran in duress. The Wall Street Journal reveals the Bush administration's behind-the-scenes machinations to encourage the 14-year-old probe, which claims Iranian agents planned the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

"One U.S. goal is to cause legal problems for some of Iran's political leaders," report Jay Solomon and Evan Perez. "Administration officials also hope to use the matter to highlight Iran's alleged role in financing and supporting terrorism around the world."

The news comes less than two weeks after a confrontation between US Navy warships and small Iranian speedboats that resulted in several days of bellicose warnings and hostile rhetoric toward Iran from President Bush and members of his administration. Late last week it was acknowledged that the "threats" the Navy initially thought were coming from the Iranians could have been broadcast from virtually anywhere and may have been the result of a prankster known as the "Filipino Monkey."

Administration officials are now telling Solomon and Perez that the 1994 bombing "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationships with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies," the two report.

More: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_using_1994_bombing_inv...

I don't think it will work. Who was the prez back then? He ain't still there.

 

[Annie]

"The US is using an international criminal investigation into a 1994 terrorist attack in Argentina to keep Tehran in duress. The Wall Street Journal reveals the Bush administration's behind-the-scenes machinations to encourage the 14-year-old probe, which claims Iranian agents planned the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

"One U.S. goal is to cause legal problems for some of Iran's political leaders," report Jay Solomon and Evan Perez. "Administration officials also hope to use the matter to highlight Iran's alleged role in financing and supporting terrorism around the world."

The news comes less than two weeks after a confrontation between US Navy warships and small Iranian speedboats that resulted in several days of bellicose warnings and hostile rhetoric toward Iran from President Bush and members of his administration. Late last week it was acknowledged that the "threats" the Navy initially thought were coming from the Iranians could have been broadcast from virtually anywhere and may have been the result of a prankster known as the "Filipino Monkey."

Administration officials are now telling Solomon and Perez that the 1994 bombing "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationships with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies," the two report.

More: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_using_1994_bombing_inv...

I don't think it will work. Who was the prez back then? He ain't still there.

So why not a link to WSJ?

 

[Psychoblues]

I didn't get the story from there, kitty.

So why not a link to WSJ?

Why would I link to it? I linked to the story which I read. Did you read it?

Carry on, you freaking idiot.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't get the story from there, kitty.




Why would I link to it? I linked to the story which I read. Did you read it?

Carry on, you freaking idiot.

Because it's a more credible source of information than that link you provided?

 

[Paulie]

Because it's a more credible source of information than that link you provided?

Why?

 

[Psychoblues]

They're just digging at me, paulie. It's a fun thing, really!!!!!!!! These idiots think they have it all figured out. Even I don't have all that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DeadCanDance]

Why?

Indeed, a particularly odd question, when some in this thread routinely link to obscure rightwing sites/blogspot.com.

 

[Psychoblues]

It's all they can do, DCD.

Indeed, a particularly odd question, when some in this thread routinely link to obscure rightwing sites/blogspot.com.

They certainly have no credible argument of their own to offer up for consideration.

 

[Gunny]

It's all they can do, DCD.




They certainly have no credible argument of their own to offer up for consideration.

What's to argue? Kind of hard to get all up for an argument over something from the "Who Gives a Shit" file.

 

[nibor]

What's to argue? Kind of hard to get all up for an argument over something from the "Who Gives a Shit" file.

Let me tell you Gunny......................somebody better give a shit............because if the Chinese are hooking up with the Shiite muslims.................with the nucular capabilities that OUR FEARLESS BRAINDEAD LEADERS HAVE FURNISHED THEM..........................OUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE IN WAY DEEPER SHIT QUITE QUICKLY WITH NO WAY OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gunny]

Let me tell you Gunny......................somebody better give a shit............because if the Chinese are hooking up with the Shiite muslims.................with the nucular capabilities that OUR FEARLESS BRAINDEAD LEADERS HAVE FURNISHED THEM..........................OUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE IN WAY DEEPER SHIT QUITE QUICKLY WITH NO WAY OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure you got the right thread?

 

[nibor]

Sure you got the right thread?

Are we speaking of "pressuring Iran" , while they ramp up their own pressure by cordially inviting China in....................who's pressuring who???????

 

[Gunny]

Are we speaking of "pressuring Iran" , while they ramp up their own pressure by cordially inviting China in....................who's pressuring who???????

Yes, but specifically about pressuring Iran through the legal system. It is that specifically I addressed, not the general topic of leaning on Iran.

However, I'll address part of your statement. The Soviet Union furnished China with nuclear capability, not the US.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page12.shtml

So you think we ought to just start in Iraq and head east and not stop until we reach the East China Sea, or what?

 

[nibor]

Yes, but specifically about pressuring Iran through the legal system. It is that specifically I addressed, not the general topic of leaning on Iran.

However, I'll address part of your statement. The Soviet Union furnished China with nuclear capability, not the US.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page12.shtml

So you think we ought to just start in Iraq and head east and not stop until we reach the East China Sea, or what?

Ummm Gunny..........................http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug1999/0899china.asp

 

[Gunny]

Ummm Gunny..........................http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug1999/0899china.asp

Ummm ... what? How does stolen equate to provided? The fact STILL remains the Chinese posessed nuclear weapons they obtained from the USSR in the 1950s.

Does it REALLY matter if they can blow up your city 10 times over instead of 10 times over? The reality is, that once a nation posesses the capablility to launch enough nuclear weapons to create a nuclear winter, how many times over they can do it is moot.

 

[nibor]

Ummm ... what? How does stolen equate to provided? The fact STILL remains the Chinese posessed nuclear weapons they obtained from the USSR in the 1950s.

Does it REALLY matter if they can blow up your city 10 times over instead of 10 times over? The reality is, that once a nation posesses the capablility to launch enough nuclear weapons to create a nuclear winter, how many times over they can do it is moot.

Well yeah Gunny you're right.......except that stolen would mean punishable............of which I don't think I saw although I may have missed it.............. probably all that diplomatic immunity which we should all dread and despise...............and buddies that are so omnipresent?


And you're also right in your nuclear analogy.................Iran has no nukes that we know of.........but china does and newer more tactical varieties.........I don't know maybe...........we're not privy..............but we're LEGALLY moving pawns..................while they're moving a queen into a hunker position, doesn't that equate to a bit more pressure?

 

[Gunny]

Well yeah Gunny you're right.......except that stolen would mean punishable............of which I don't think I saw although I may have missed it.............. probably all that diplomatic immunity which we should all dread and despise...............and buddies that are so omnipresent?


And you're also right in your nuclear analogy.................Iran has no nukes that we know of.........but china does and newer more tactical varieties.........I don't know maybe...........we're not privy..............but we're LEGALLY moving pawns..................while they're moving a queen into a hunker position, doesn't that equate to a bit more pressure?

You're kidding, right? How many nations was it Hitler invaded before the world got off its collective ass and did something? You may as well piss into the wind and wish for proactivity.

 

[nibor]

You're kidding, right? How many nations was it Hitler invaded before the world got off its collective ass and did something? You may as well piss into the wind and wish for proactivity.

Yes at this point you're obviously right, but before we invaded a Iraq it at least looked as though they were more willing listen and to lend a hand............and I think the world was "shocked and awed" but not in a good way as far as the pissant we were after?

 

[nibor]

AND speaking of Hitler...................I believe that he actually took shear man power into consideration and dealt with the situation a bit differently..........instead of taking for granted that they'd throw a tickertape Tournament of Roses parade if he went in there..............

 

[Gunny]

Yes at this point you're obviously right, but before we invaded a Iraq it at least looked as though they were more willing listen and to lend a hand............and I think the world was "shocked and awed" but not in a good way as far as the pissant we were after?

The "world" is "shocked and awed" no matter what we do unless we're handing out and asking nothing in return. Otherwise, "the world" has a collection of ready-to-use labels with which to identify us.