Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Could (Ayatollah) Khomeini have stopped the War?


69 replies to this topic

#26 Lahori_Lashkar

Lahori_Lashkar

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:18 AM

(salam)

60%? wow! :o that means dubai is majority shia lol.......yeah its true, but brother bush supporter my point is that the iranian government has a lot of answering to do with regards to the oppression grand ayatollah shariatamdari (ra) and other ayatollahs, and also ayatollah rastagari was jailed for criticizing abu bakr and umar, :o i will bump that topic for u to read brother..........

#27 Al-Mufeed

Al-Mufeed

    Slave of Zahra

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,368 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:36 AM

(bismillah)

(salam)


Many of the shias that came forth to the front lines on the Iraqi side surrenderd and went over to the Irani side.

Qizilbash you are making the claim that they were forced to fight....

Well perhaps you should look at it more deeply. Every male was forced in to the Iraqi army. My own father was forced to serve, how ever as soon as he knew that he was going to be forced to join the ranks and fight against Iran, he took our family and they fled from Iraq to Iran on FOOT for 28 days, through mountains. He had to carry my grandfather who couldnt walk because he had cancer, and take care of my mother who was pregnant at the time, as well as my grandmother and his two sisters. The majority of people had an easier situation than him, your telling me that most of them couldnt flee?

Lets asume they couldnt flee, wouldnt the islamic thing have been to go out like a real shahid and have been killed by saddam, rather then fight against their shia brothers?

Now im not saying how I would of acted in that situation, Allah knows best, but
we dont judge on .. sympathy and things like that. The rules of Islam are clear.

The other thing that we have to realize is that many many many of the people in the army, both shia and sunni, were fighting of their own accord.

Take a look at this article to get an idea of the ideology of some of the "shias" in Iraq

Two years on, Iran is the only clear winner of war on Saddam
By Richard Beeston
Iraq’s old enemy has not been slow to capitalise on continuing confusion across the border


THROUGH a combination of arms, money and political influence, Iran has established itself as one of the most powerful forces in postwar Iraq, where its Shia allies dominate local governments, the security services and parts of the economy.
More than two years after the US-led invasion of its neighbour, Iran is fast emerging as the only clear beneficiary of the war that overthrew its enemy, Saddam Hussein, and allowed its allies to rise to power.



After a series of attacks against British troops this summer, culminating in this week’s stand-off in Basra, there are fears that Iran is beginning to exert its new-found authority.

Iraqi and British officials interviewed this week said Iran’s growing influence is being felt from Basra in the south to Baghdad in the north, where Iranians are blamed for stoking sectarian tension, undermining the coalition and trying to create a breakaway Islamic state in southern Iraq.

Responding to the clashes in Basra this week, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, accused Tehran of being “interested”, “involved” and “not helpful”.

Tougher language is being heard in the Arab world, where Iran has been a foe from the time of the Persians. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, said: “We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason.”

Iran claims that it is being blamed for America’s failures in Iraq and says that it is behaving as a responsible neighbour should. But an investigation by The Times suggests otherwise.

Last month, for instance, 36 Sunni Muslim men were kidnapped from Baghdad, murdered, and their bodies dumped near the Iranian border. Sunni leaders in Iraq blamed Iran and its Iraqi allies.

The incident occurred not far from where Iraqi border guards were involved in an exchange of fire in July with gunmen who had crossed from Iran. The guards found a cache of explosives, timers and detonators.

The discovery appeared to confirm suspicions that Iran, or at least elements in the regime, are encouraging attacks against American and British forces. Six British troops and two British security guards have been killed in the past two months in bombings blamed on Iraqi Shias equipped with sophisticated explosives supplied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

In the British area of operations in southern Iraq there are at least a dozen active Islamic groups linked to Tehran. They are blamed for orchestrating a campaign of terror that includes attacks on the British, imposing Islamic laws by force and intimidating and killing opponents such as journalists and former members of the regime.


The most recent group targeted were former Iraqi pilots who flew missions against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. A resident of Basra said: “Once these people were heroes for us. Who else would want them dead?” Iraqis claim that it is now impossible to get a government job without the sponsorship of one of these groups, dominated by Iraqis who spent years in exile in Iran.


Locals also complain that Iranian goods are flooding local markets and that in many places Farsi has become a second language.

Those complaints are also directed against members of the Shia-dominated Government of Iraq, including Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister, and Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is Iraq’s largest Shia party. Both lived for several years in Tehran during the Saddam era and maintain close contacts there.

Under the provisions of Iraq’s federal constitution, which will go before a referendum on October 15, provinces will be allowed to create regional authorities. That has given rise to fears that the Shias in the south, with the support of Iran, will seek to create a mini Shia Islamic state, as Mr al-Hakim has already stated he wants.

Much of what happens could depend on events in Tehran, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President, is hardening Iran’s policy towards the West.
Mr Ahmadinejad, a former special forces commando who served during the Iran-Iraq war, gave notice at a military parade commemorating the war yesterday that Iran would show no mercy towards its enemies.



“If some want to test what they have tested before, the flame of the Iranian nation will be very destructive and fiery,” he said. “Relying on our armed forces, we will make the aggressor regret its actions.”


CROSS-BORDER INFLUENCE

Badr Brigades

A Shia militia force of 12,000 trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and blamed for a spate of recent killings of Sunni Muslims. Thought to control several cities in southern Iraq

Islamic Dawaa Party

Shia party that has strong links to Iran. Its leader, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the present Prime Minister, has vowed to improve ties between the two neighbours

Mahdi Army

Received arms and volunteers from Iran during its battle against US and British troops last year. Ahmed al-Fartusi, its commander in Basra, was arrested by British forces last weekend

Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq

Tehran-backed militia blamed for the murder of six British Royal Military Police soldiers in Majar el-Kabir in 2003

Thar Allah (Vengeance of God)

Iranian-backed terror group blamed for killing former members of the ruling Baath party and enforcing strict Islamic law

Jamaat al-Fudalah (Group of the Virtuous)

Paramilitary group that imposes Islamic rules on Shia areas; attacks shops selling alcohol and music

Al-Fadilah (Morality)

Secret political movement financed by Iran. Thought to have many members among provincial officials

Al-Quawaid al-Islamiya (Islamic Bases)

Iranian-backed Islamic movement that uses force to impose Islamic law

http://www.timesonli...93148_1,00.html


And just one other thing to consider, what should the Iranians have done, just let Saddams army march right through?

#28 Bush_supporter

Bush_supporter

    Member

  • Banned
  • 549 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 03:53 AM

(salam) 

60%? wow!  :o  that means dubai is majority shia lol.......yeah its true, but brother bush supporter my point is that the iranian government has a lot of answering to do with regards to the oppression grand ayatollah shariatamdari  (ra)  and other ayatollahs, and also ayatollah rastagari was jailed for criticizing abu bakr and umar,  :o  i will bump that topic for u to read brother..........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


wow bro. They were jailed for performing the wajib act of tabarra? that is unacceptable by the iranian government. Cursing those murderers is apart of the furoor-e-deen, and should be cursed by people who believe in human rights.

#29 Pumpin

Pumpin

    Member

  • Banned
  • 338 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 05:06 AM

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

Can I ask Mr Qizilbash, what his motives are in persuing this angle and pressing this issue?  Can I also ask if he is genuinely interested in being objective or does he wish to engage in a subjective debate on said subject? 

If Mr Qizilbash can provide an answer to said points above it would be considered useful.

Also, I would like to congratulate our honourable Br Abbas Zaidi, as well as the other brothers/sisters who have been attempting to shed light on this subject; on their excellent answers, masha Allah.

Thank you.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Welcome back Shabbirh, who was banned many times before here :angel:


In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

Mr Lahori Lashkar; I think you will find that Mr Qizilbash is presenting what you term as "the truth" from his own subjective angle (though naturally I stand to be corrected), I think you will find that being more objective and in tune with the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet(S) and Ahl al-Bayt(A) as well as being true to yourself, will prove more useful.

More useful than simply cheering on someone who one happens to cheer on, for reasons that are best left unsaid.

I would also like to ask you Mr Lahori Lashkar, and again I ask Mr Qizilbash, since I have yet to be replied:
The above question is now directed at Mr Lahori Lashkar and Mr Qizilbash.

Thank you, and in anticipation of a coherent and comprehensible response.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Here is subjective observation on Khomeini by an Israeli site : -


http://www.zmag.org/...omIranIraq.html

Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory. This callous disregard for human life was no less characteristic of Saddam Hussein. And, for that matter, it was also no less characteristic of much of the world community, which not only couldn't be bothered by a few hundred thousand Third World corpses, but tried to profit from the conflict.


Something in favour of Khomeini : -

2. About why we did not stop the war after we regained lost territory from Iraq: Accepting a ceasefire or making peace with Iraq after liberation of our territory in 82 was not in the interest of the Iranian nation due to the fact that after the liberation of Khorramshahr, the Iranian forces did not have a stabilized position on the war fronts. Basically ceasefire is accepted only when the military commanders establish a secure line on the war fronts so that they can confront the enemy if the cease fire is violated.

However, the liberation of Khorramshahr could not fulfill this condition. Secondly, before the liberation of Khorramshahr, the Security Council had not issued a resolution on the conflict between Iran and Iraq. Therefore, after the liberation of Khorramshahr, there was no resolution to be used as the basis for settling the conflict between Iran and Iraq. Hence, accepting a ceasefire after the liberation of Khorramshahr would only have disheartened the Iranian forces and given relief to the Iraqi aggressors.

Furthermore, military decisions should be studied only within the framework of conditions in which they were taken. Therefore, given the course of the military operations, the decisions made by the Iranian military commanders at that time (and not "the mollas") were the best decisions that were APPROVED by senior officials of the country.

And finally, when Hitler was pushed back to his original borderlines late in WW2, did the allies stop there and say:"Okay, we've liberated our lands. Lets not spill more blood?" What makes you think Saddam was any better of an evil creature than Hitler, deserving anything better?

http://www.iranian.c...02/January/War/






(bismillah)

(salam)
Many of the shias that came forth to the front lines on the Iraqi side surrenderd and went over to the Irani side.

Qizilbash you are making the claim that they were forced to fight....

Well perhaps you should look at it more deeply. Every male was forced in to the Iraqi army. My own father was forced to serve, how ever as soon as he knew that he was going to be forced to join the ranks and fight against Iran, he took our family and they fled from Iraq to Iran on FOOT for 28 days, through mountains. He had to carry my grandfather who couldnt walk because he had cancer, and take care of my mother who was pregnant at the time, as well as my grandmother and his two sisters.  The majority of people had an easier situation than him, your telling me that most of them couldnt flee?

Lets asume they couldnt flee, wouldnt the islamic thing have been to go out like a real shahid and have been killed by saddam, rather then fight against their shia brothers?

Now im not saying how I would of acted in that situation, Allah knows best, but
we dont judge on .. sympathy and things like that. The rules of Islam are clear.

The other thing that we have to realize is that many many many of the people in the army, both shia and sunni, were fighting of their own accord.

Take a look at this article to get an idea of the ideology of some of the "shias" in Iraq

And just one other thing to consider, what should the Iranians have done, just let Saddams army march right through?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and Khomeini wasn't. Saddam Hussein didn't care about his people let alone worry about the ongoing war with Iran. Didn't he attack Kuwait afterwards?

He would not have stopped iran iraq war till he thought he was winning. So Ayatollah Khomeini was right in continuing the war till tyrant Saddam was defeated. He knew that Saddam was a threat to Iraqi shias as well.


wow bro.  They were jailed for performing the wajib act of tabarra?  that is unacceptable by the iranian government.  Cursing those murderers is apart of the furoor-e-deen, and should be cursed by people who believe in human rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


For the sake of unity, we need to punish those who slander openly the 3 caliphs. Shia brethren's lives are at stake in the sunni-majority countries @)

#30 thewave

thewave

    Member

  • Banned
  • 403 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 January 2006 - 05:12 AM

Salams

wow bro.  They were jailed for performing the wajib act of tabarra?  that is unacceptable by the iranian government. Cursing those murderers is apart of the furoor-e-deen, and should be cursed by people who believe in human rights.


Your stupidity really shows here, as you blindly believe what Mr. Lahori Lashkar has said about iran, with absolutley no evidence to support his claims. If thats how you base your views on the Islamic Rebublic of Iran, and of the late Imam Ayatollah Khumayni (ra) , than I see why your views are flawed and illogical.

May we be Guided.

Salams and dua's to the believers,
me

#31 Mubahala

Mubahala

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 08:19 AM

(bismillah)
(salam)

Also "welcome" Haider_Punjab back, with the name "Lahori Lashkar"

#32 Guest_DjibrilCisse_*

Guest_DjibrilCisse_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:06 PM

We've reached the stage where people are posting "the subjective view from an Israeli site" , coupled with akhbari-created rumours.

How further can we possibly get from the truth?

May Allah hasten the reappearance of our 12th Imam (as)

#33 Lahori_Lashkar

Lahori_Lashkar

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:19 PM

(salam)

iranian government might be sunni.....their history is of azeri turk descent whom were sunni, iran is a majority country why are they arresting grand ayatollahs?....this is UNISLAMIC.......there is no danger with cursing the three caliphs openly in Iran........whenever allamah majlisi mentioned the name of umar in his books bihar al anwar, he used to say and upon him be athaab (Lanat), so let me ask you guys something, would the seal of the mujtahids, Allamah Mohammad Baqir Majlisi (ra) be in jail as well?........Iranian government has a mojor sickness and that is MULLAH WORSHIP.......

by the way namnlos what on earth you on about?.........

#34 NoorFatima

NoorFatima

    Fatima is my Queen!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Location:Canada, NS
  • Interests:I love reading, espacialy in the supernatural and Philosophy. I also love playing chess (even though I don't play anymore). I love watching Anime! And I love Politics! Also Irfan is a passion of mine; I'm also a Zealous Socialist.

Posted 09 January 2006 - 01:23 PM

(bismillah)

I have received a request from a respected Shiachater who wanted this thread to reopen so the matter of the war and its circumstances is discussed seriously; I have thought about his request and as a result I decided to reopen the thread for further decision.

I will be monitoring this thread like a hawk; any breaches of Shiachat rules like insulting Mujtahids or other members will be dealt with; we are all civil and democratic people; lets act like it :)

(salam)

Edited by NoorFatima, 10 January 2006 - 11:37 AM.


#35 NoorFatima

NoorFatima

    Fatima is my Queen!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Location:Canada, NS
  • Interests:I love reading, espacialy in the supernatural and Philosophy. I also love playing chess (even though I don't play anymore). I love watching Anime! And I love Politics! Also Irfan is a passion of mine; I'm also a Zealous Socialist.

Posted 10 January 2006 - 11:38 AM

(bismillah)

Thread reopened :)

(salam)

#36 Qizilbash

Qizilbash

    1/2 Italian 1/2 Persian Shia

  • Banned
  • 2,515 posts

Posted 10 January 2006 - 03:26 PM

(bismillah)

I have received a request from a respected Shiachater who wanted this thread to reopen so the matter of the war and its circumstances is discussed seriously; I have thought about his request and as a result I decided to reopen the thread for further decision.

I will be monitoring this thread like a hawk; any breaches of Shiachat rules like insulting Mujtahids or other members will be dealt with; we are all civil and democratic people; lets act like it  :)

(salam)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Thanks

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

Can I ask Mr Qizilbash, what his motives are in persuing this angle and pressing this issue?  Can I also ask if he is genuinely interested in being objective or does he wish to engage in a subjective debate on said subject? 

If Mr Qizilbash can provide an answer to said points above it would be considered useful.

Also, I would like to congratulate our honourable Br Abbas Zaidi, as well as the other brothers/sisters who have been attempting to shed light on this subject; on their excellent answers, masha Allah.

Thank you.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Motives? Why are we being so defensive? Who said I need motives to question the War? I don't have a personal agenda against Iran or Iraq.

I have understood some of the points raised as to why Iran didn't stop the war.

However, the other part of my question was missed. Foreign Arm Dealers were heavily selling Arms to both countries, they tried to keep the balance between the two so that they both may lose. At the end it was a Muslim against Muslim, Shia killing Shia blood. Ironically this is against Khomeinis idea of Unity and independence of Muslims from Foreign Imperialism. However, that war prooved how wrong he was, and how he went against his own word by contiuning the war.

#37 Sarmast

Sarmast
  • Advanced Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 10 January 2006 - 03:44 PM

This is just like saying: Imam Husain (A.S) sent his young kids to seek martyrdom...In Islam, all adults (here i am talking abt islamic adults which are kids in ur eyes) have a duty for jihad...So blame it on Islam rather than on Imam Khomeini...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Imam Hussain (as) did not buy weapons from his enemies either. Iran for example bought weapons from the very Israel it sought to destroy, because Israel was the only willing supplier of ammunition and equipment needed for the American weapons (from the Shah era) used by Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to make deals with China and Russia both of whom have suppressed Muslim populations in their perspective jurisdictions.

Imam Hussain (as) asked to be left alone until the very last minute. Imam Hussain (as) armed each one of his soldiers, whereas many Iranian troops, particularly the younger children didn't have the training nor the necessary equipment to defend themselves. They were in the battle fields unarmed.

The truth is that the war was stopped as soon as Saddam had acquired missiles that could reach any major city of Iran and thereby reduce the 'Islamic revolution' to crumbles.

Imam Hussain (as) never compromised his ideals, even if it cost him his own life, and the lives of his relatives and companions, can the same be said about the Islamic Republic of Iran?

#38 Pumpin

Pumpin

    Member

  • Banned
  • 338 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 03:01 AM

Thanks
Motives? Why are we being so defensive? Who said I need motives to question the War? I don't have a personal agenda against Iran or Iraq.

I have understood some of the points raised as to why Iran didn't stop the war.

However, the other part of my question was missed. Foreign Arm Dealers were heavily selling Arms to both countries, they tried to keep the balance between the two so that they both may lose. At the end it was a Muslim against Muslim, Shia killing Shia blood. Ironically this is against Khomeinis idea of Unity and independence of Muslims from Foreign Imperialism. However, that war prooved how wrong he was, and how he went against his own word by contiuning the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Imam Hussain (as) did not buy weapons from his enemies either. Iran for example bought weapons from the very Israel it sought to destroy, because Israel was the only willing supplier of ammunition and equipment needed for the American weapons (from the Shah era) used by Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to make deals with China and Russia both of whom have suppressed Muslim populations in their perspective jurisdictions.

Imam Hussain (as) asked to be left alone until the very last minute. Imam Hussain (as) armed each one of his soldiers, whereas many Iranian troops, particularly the younger children didn't have the training nor the necessary equipment to defend themselves. They were in the battle fields unarmed.

The truth is that the war was stopped as soon as Saddam had acquired missiles that could reach any major city of Iran and thereby reduce the 'Islamic revolution' to crumbles.

Imam Hussain (as) never compromised his ideals, even if it cost him his own life, and the lives of his relatives and companions, can the same be said about the Islamic Republic of Iran?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What are you both implying, that Khomeini bought weapons from his arch-enemies in secret to fight off another enemy? Who's your source, Mossad? :squeez:

Let me get this straight, USA and Israel, who were both allies of Iraq in that era, supplied weapons to their archenemy in the region? @)

Anyway, relevant stuff : -

http://www.iranchamb...n_iraq_war1.php

Arms To The Ayatollah
The main tool by which U.S. policy makers sought to secure their position in Iran in 1985 and 1986 was secretly providing arms and intelligence information. As a proclaimed neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was not supposed to supply weapons to either side. Nevertheless, U.S. allies kept the combatants well-stocked.[74] Israel transferred vast quantities of U.S.-origin weapons to Iran;[75] to what extent U.S. permission for these shipments was obtained (as required by U.S. law) is not known, but surely the U.S. had enough leverage to prevent the transfers if it had wanted to.

In 1984, because of Iranian battlefield victories and the growing U.S.-Iraqi ties, Washington launched "Operation Staunch," an effort to dry up Iran's sources of arms by pressuring U.S. allies to stop supplying Teheran.[76] U.S. secret arms sales to Iran in 1985 and 1986 thus not only violated U.S. neutrality, but undercut as well what the U.S. was trying to get everyone else to do. The cynical would note that Operation Staunch made the U.S. arms transfers to Iran that much more valuable.

When this arms dealing became known, the Reagan administration was faced with a major scandal on several counts. Proceeds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. And though the administration's professed uncompromising stand on terrorism was always hypocritical, given its sponsorship of terrorism in Nicaragua and elsewhere, being caught trading "arms-for-hostages" was particularly embarrassing.

Now, in fact, this would not have been the first time the U.S. offered Teheran arms for hostages. In October 1980 the Carter administration had declared that spare parts for U.S. military equipment could be sold to Iran if the U.S. embassy hostages were released promptly.[77] There was even talk among U.S. officials about pre-positioning some spare parts in Germany, Pakistan, and Algeria so that the Iranians could get the equipment as soon as possible.[78] Republicans charged that Carter was trying to buy the hostages out in time for the election; there is some evidence that the Republicans in the meantime were engaged in an election maneuver of their own: negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election to ensure a Reagan victory.[79]

In any event, political influence not hostages was the Reagan administration's objective. Regardless of what was in the President's mind (as it were), the National Security Council was clear that the political agenda was key.[80]

Whatever the arguments for purchasing the freedom of hostages, trading weapons to obtain their release is another matter entirely, since one is exchanging for the lives of some hostages the lives of those who will be fired on by the weapons. And trading weapons for "a strategic opening" is more reprehensible still, particularly so when the weapons are going to the country whose army is on the offensive. Reagan claimed that the weapons were all defensive in nature,[81] but this is nonsense. Anti-tank missiles in the hands of an advancing army are offensive. And U.S. officials knew exactly what Iran wanted the weapons for: for example, as the Tower Commission noted, North and CIA officials discussed with their Iranian contacts "Iran's urgent need" for "both intelligence and weapons to be used in offensive operations against Iraq."[82]

The intelligence that the United States passed to the Iranians was a mixture of factual and bogus information. The CIA claimed that the false information was meant to discourage Iran's final offensive, by for example exaggerating Soviet troop movements on the northern border.[83] But if the U.S. simply wanted to discourage an Iranian attack, it could have done this more easily by telling Iran of Washington's contingency plans to use U.S. air power in the event of an Iranian breakthrough against Iraq.[84] The misinformation about the Soviet Union, however, had the added advantage of inciting Iranian hostility to Moscow and to the local communists.

U.S. intelligence did not deal only with the Soviet Union, but covered the Iraqi front as well. CIA deputy director John McMahon claimed that he warned Poindexter that such intelligence would give the Iranians "a definite edge," with potentially "cataclysmic results," and that he was able to persuade North to provide Iran with only a segment of the intelligence.[85] North, however, apparently gave critical data to Iran just before its crucial victory in the Fao Peninsula in February 1986.[86] It is unclear to what extent North was acting on his own here, but it is significant that despite McMahon's warnings, neither Poindexter nor CIA Director Casey reversed the plans to provide the Iranians with the full intelligence information.[87]

At the same time that the U.S. was giving Teheran weapons that one CIA analyst believed could affect the military balance[88] and passing on intelligence that the Tower Commission deemed of "potentially major significance,"[89] it was also providing Iraq with intelligence information, some misleading or incomplete.[90] In 1986, the CIA established a direct Washington-to-Baghdad link to provide the Iraqis with faster intelligence from U.S. satellites.[91] Simultaneously, Casey was urging Iraqi officials to carry out more attacks on Iran, especially on economic targets.[92] Asked what the logic was of aiding both sides in a bloody war, a former official replied, "You had to have been there."[93]

Washington's effort to enhance its position with both sides came apart at the end of 1986 when one faction in the Iranian government leaked the story of the U.S. arms dealing. Now the Reagan administration was in the unenviable position of having alienated the Iranians and panicked all the Arabs who concluded that the U.S. valued Iran's friendship over theirs. To salvage the U.S. position with at least one side, Washington now had to tilt -- and tilt heavily -- toward Iraq.

Notes:

74 Cordesman, _Iran-Iraq War..._, pp. 23-36.
75 Leslie H. Gelb, "Iran Said to Get Large-Scale Arms From Israel, Soviet and
76 Europeans," _New York Times_, 8 Mar. 1982, pp. A1, A10; Cordesman, _Iran-    Iraq War..._, p. 31.
77 S.Prt. 100-60, p. 21.
78 Murray Gordon ed., _Conflict in the Persian Gulf_, New York: Facts on File, 1981, p. 163.
79 Brzezinski, _Power and Principle_, p. 504.
80 Christopher Hitchens, _Nation_, 20 June 1987 and 4 July 1987.
81  Tower Commission, p. 27.
82 _Public Papers of the President, Reagan, 1986_, p. 1546.
83 Tower Commission, p. 48; see also p. 398.
84 Tower Commission, p. 427.
85 Stork & Wenger, "U.S. Ready to Intervene...," pp. 47-48, citing _Newsday_, 20  May 1984.
86 Tower Commission, pp. 239-40.
87 Cordesman, _Iran-Iraq War..._, p. 38.
88 Tower Commission, pp. 239-40.
89 Tower Commission, p. 279.
90 Tower Commission, p. 73; see also Cordesman, _Iran-Iraq War..._, p. 38.
91 Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," _New York Times_, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.
92 Woodward, _Veil_, p. 480.
93 Woodward, _Veil_, p. 480.
94 Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," _New York Times_, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.



Maybe Qizilbash & total_cbd are right :o

But wait a minute ,

http://www.whois.sc/...iranchamber.com

Website Title:  Iran Chamber Society
Meta Description:  Iranian Historical & Cultural Information Center
Meta Keywords:  Iran, Iran, Persia, Iran Chamber, IranChamber, Iran Chamber Society, Society, Iranian, Persian, Farsi, Persian History, Persian Empire, Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar, Pahlavi, Islamic Revolution, Cyrus, Darius, Shapur, Shapour
Response Code:  200
SSL Cert:  No valid SSL on this Host, Get Secure
Alexa Trend/Rank:  235,923 (1 Month)  178,371 (3 Month)
DMOZ:  4 listings
Yahoo Directory:  Country_Guides
Yahoo Title:  Iran Chamber.com
Yahoo Description:  Read review] - guide to all aspects of the Iranian culture and traditions, history, recipes, and personalities. Also accepts posting of poetry and short stories.
Website Status:  Active
Reverse IP:  Web server hosts 956 websites (reverse ip tool requires free login)
Server Type:  Apache Web Server
(Spry.com also uses Apache)
IP Address:  64.235.234.13 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location:  - California - La Mirada - Lunarpages


How are we supposed to believe in such information provided by USA, the arch-enemy of Iran @)

#39 Whizbee

Whizbee

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,574 posts
  • Interests:Definitely not you.

Posted 11 January 2006 - 06:10 AM

kiddy minesweepers yes a vilepractice but in terms of generalship not bad you have the numbers on your side why waste your frontline units on frontal assaults when there is so much cannon fodder

Cannon fodder? What kind of a heartless freak are you? Their mothers brought each of those children up with immense love and care. They weren't just "fodder". Why don't you send the kids in your family to Palestine/Iraq? They'd be good fodder. No use wasting frontline units.

#40 repenter

repenter

    Born With A Vengeance

  • Admins
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Beyn-ul-Harameyn

Posted 11 January 2006 - 10:45 AM

(bismillah)
(salam)


Oh Imam Ali, witness that we are not the people of kufa, we wont turn our backs, and we will offer our life, and our bloodline to defend what you defended.

We will fight what you fighted, and will befriend whom you befriended. So people of the world(and those on shiachat) learn that true shias(iranians, iraqis, syrians, lebs etc) will
Do anything neccecary to DEFEND(not attack unless attacked) against the oppressors.


YES even offering our lives, and saying goodbye to our children and fathers and brothers and sisters and mothers. Don't say children this children that. If islam is in danger, thes yes our children will also go to war. Just like Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein and Hazrat abbas did when they where at young age.

People have forgotten what the real meaning of sacrifice means.

Imam Khomeini stopped the war because the west realized that iran could not be defeated unless we strike the cities and take this beyond war. And so they did. Imam Khomeini said stopping this war is like drinking a class of poison. And by then the message was spread, and iran was not in danger of being occupied anymore. You whom critize, are sitting in your comfy chairs and good life thinking you are in the position to judge by something you heard from you parents and something your history teacher thought you.

#41 Qizilbash

Qizilbash

    1/2 Italian 1/2 Persian Shia

  • Banned
  • 2,515 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 10:48 AM

(bismillah)
Imam Khomeini stopped the war because the west realized that iran could not be defeated unless we strike the cities and take this beyond war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The war was stopped because Iran ran out of weapons and Iraq had acquired high-tech weapons that could level Iranian cities to the ground.

Edited by Qizilbash, 11 January 2006 - 10:48 AM.


#42 repenter

repenter

    Born With A Vengeance

  • Admins
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Beyn-ul-Harameyn

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:58 PM

(bismillah)
(salam)


^ And attacking cities is not war, its masacre of innocent people. On the break of defeat they(saddam) were desperate, so they started hitting the cities randomley with no specific target. Pick up a book why don't ya. And yes, not the books you get from you local school in the west.

#43 Hasnain

Hasnain

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,548 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 03:25 PM

Let me get this straight, USA and Israel, who were both allies of Iraq in that era, supplied weapons to their archenemy in the region?  @)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright, you tell me where else would Iran buy ammunition that could work in American made weapons? When Iran was desperate enough, it DID buy weapons from Israel.

#44 Guest_DjibrilCisse_*

Guest_DjibrilCisse_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 January 2006 - 03:49 PM

Oh Imam Ali, witness that we are not the people of kufa, we wont turn our backs, and we will offer our life, and our bloodline to defend what you defended.

We will fight what you fighted, and will befriend whom you befriended. So people of the world(and those on shiachat) learn that true shias(iranians, iraqis, syrians, lebs etc) will
Do anything neccecary to DEFEND(not attack unless attacked) against the oppressors.


YES even offering our lives, and saying goodbye to our children and fathers and brothers and sisters and mothers. Don't say children this children that. If islam is in danger, thes yes our children will also go to war. Just like Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein and Hazrat abbas did when they where at young age.


Ameen, rabbul 3lameen.

May Allah bless you. May you be among the first to be chosen in the army of our 12th Imam (as)

Alright, you tell me where else would Iran buy ammunition that could work in American made weapons? When Iran was desperate enough, it DID buy weapons from Israel.


Is this speculation or are you stating a fact? If it is supposed to be a fact, do you have any kind of source handy?

#45 Hasnain

Hasnain

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,548 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:05 PM

Is this speculation or are you stating a fact? If it is supposed to be a fact, do you have any kind of source handy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I researched this for a history projects about two years ago...

"Israel was one of the major supporters of Iran in the war. While compared to today these countries have much enmity towards each other. But then because the question of oil, Israel was confident in Iran’s victory, so it bided on Iran. Israel became one of the main weapon suppliers to Iran during the war. Of course this was a very oily relationship."

I don't remember any more which source it was exactly, but a list of all my sources for that report is below:

Instant Empire: Saddam Hussein's Ambitions for Iraq, by Simon Handerson
Iran: A country Study [area book series]
Iraq: A country Study [area book series]
Net Iran: http://www.netiran.c...0615XXFP01.html
MSN Encarta: http://encarta.msn.c...61580640#endads
George Washington University: http://www.gwu.edu/~...EBB82/press.htm [The National Security Archive]

#46 Guest_DjibrilCisse_*

Guest_DjibrilCisse_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:38 PM

Ok I've found it. The only link that works is the GWU (Goerge Washington University) source. It claims that Israel sold weapons to both, Iran and Iraq. There aren't many details, but the question arises: if this is true, were Iran and Iraq aware that their weapons were coming from Israel?

I raise this question for two reasons:

1) The same article claims that when Rumsfeld offered Iraq Israeli assistance, they refused it. If they refused help from Israel, then why would they knowingly buy weapons from them?

2) The article claims that Israel's weapons were sold through Turkey. Keeping in mind the fact that Israel had a large stockpile of weapons (also from the article), and therefore used this stockpile to arm both Iraq and Iran, to fuel the fight, then the question arises if Iraq and Iran thought they were buying their weapons from Turkey. Iraq had already refused Israels help and Iran have always been anti-Israel. Note that the leader at the time was Ayatullah Khomeini.

#47 Abbas_Zaidi

Abbas_Zaidi

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,463 posts
  • Location:Delhi,India
  • Interests:No time for interests...

Posted 11 January 2006 - 05:05 PM

Cannon fodder? What kind of a heartless freak are you? Their mothers brought each of those children up with immense love and care. They weren't just "fodder". Why don't you send the kids in your family to Palestine/Iraq? They'd be good fodder. No use wasting frontline units.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Sorry Whiz cudnt resist replying to this...

Talking abt mothers, once my cousin who lived in Qum for many yrs met an old lady from a village near Qum...She had 5 sons all of whom were killed in the war...my cousin asked her how does she feel losing all of her sons in the war...her answer is quite touching...she said that if she had 5 more then she wud have sent them too....after all she said she is a follower of Shezaadi Zainab(SA)...

Edited by Abbas_Zaidi, 11 January 2006 - 06:29 PM.


#48 Abbas_Zaidi

Abbas_Zaidi

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,463 posts
  • Location:Delhi,India
  • Interests:No time for interests...

Posted 11 January 2006 - 05:11 PM

"Israel was one of the major supporters of Iran in the war. While compared to today these countries have much enmity towards each other. But then because the question of oil, Israel was confident in Iran’s victory, so it bided on Iran. Israel became one of the main weapon suppliers to Iran during the war. Of course this was a very oily relationship."


This is absolutely false and not at all possible...The fact is (I saw on the History Channel) Iran bought weapons from European companies who actually bought the spare parts from Israel....And the documentary says Iranian officials and Imam Khomeini were aware of this...

So that doesnt mean Iran bought weapons directly from Israel....It;s totally illogical as there are many countries in this world who develops weapons apart from Israel and US...

#49 repenter

repenter

    Born With A Vengeance

  • Admins
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Beyn-ul-Harameyn

Posted 11 January 2006 - 07:04 PM

(bismillah)
(salam)


I don't have a source so dont quote me on this, however when i visited iran and asked the same question. Many professors and historians, even clerics said that iran, through lebanon had a dollar making machine that iran was going to use to ruin the dollar. However iran made an arms deal/trade with the US to not do so. As i said, this is more detailed and complex, im just simplifying it. And i bet iran had other objects possiblities at hand that was for the benifit of the US, and hence the trade.

#50 Abbas_Zaidi

Abbas_Zaidi

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,463 posts
  • Location:Delhi,India
  • Interests:No time for interests...

Posted 11 January 2006 - 07:10 PM

(bismillah)
(salam)
I don't have a source so dont quote me on this, however when i visited iran and asked the same question. Many professors and historians, even clerics said that iran, through lebanon had a dollar making machine that iran was going to use to ruin the dollar. However iran made an arms deal/trade with the US to not do so. As i said, this is more detailed and complex, im just simplifying it. And i bet iran had other objects possiblities at hand that was for the benifit of the US, and hence the trade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Can u plz elaborate....Couldnt understand what are u saying...u mean to say that Iran blackmailed US to get benefits to give benefits ? and how on earth did Lebanon make that machine ??



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users