Yo Bliar - Iran are arming Hezbollah

Is Bliar telling the truth

  • Yes and he has proof

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No he is lying as usual and just wants another war

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Possibly but if he is telling the truth it is merely an unrelated coincidence of the facts and his s

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
The Deranged Leader "Yo Bliar" is at it again, having dispatched the Fleet (what remains of it) to the coast of Lebanon to evacuate our passport-holders a few days after everyone else has started the process using civilian charter ferries.

I am sure "Yo Bliar" was keen to have the ships there "just in case" Dubya agreed to some more Middle Eastern action, under the pretence of an evacuation.

Instead of Dubya's usual enthusiasm for military action, he is dispatching Condi at some point. So Bliar is now claiming Iran are arming Hezbollah.

Heaven forbid! The innocent Iranians? Now, as someone said on another thread, Iran is probably supporting Hezbollah as much as they can without ending up on the receiving end themselves. But Bliar has "form" with his claims, whether 45 minutes to destruction or a claim (later withdrawn by the Foreign Office) about Iranian detonaters found in Iraq last year.

So, is Bliar telling the truth?

A. Yes, and he has proof.
B. No, he just wants to start another war to ensure his "legacy" at all costs.
C. Possibly, but if he is telling the truth it is merely an unrelated coincidence of the facts and his statement.


Blair accuses Iran of arms supply

Mr Blair confirmed British nationals were to leave Lebanon by sea
Tony Blair has accused Iran of supplying weapons to attack UK troops in Iraq, and of giving arms to Hezbollah so it could target Israel.
In a statement, he told MPs it was important to implement a 2004 UN resolution calling for Hezbollah to be disbanded and support for it to end.

UK and America have long blamed Iran for supplying Hezbollah with weapons to fight a proxy war against Israel.

These claims have been rejected by officials in Tehran.

Iran has also denied arming insurgents in Iraq but it has stepped up rhetoric against Israel and the US in recent days, warning any attack on Syria would "definitely make the Zionist regime face unimaginable losses".

In a statement to the Commons earlier on Tuesday, Mr Blair said: "Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria.

"By the former in weapons - weapons, incidentally, very similar if not identical to those used against British troops in Basra.

"By the latter in many different ways, and by both financially."

Mr Blair's official spokesman clarified later: "What he is simply saying is stating the obvious, which is that the rockets that have been fired into Israel have been analysed as being from that source.

"We have compared that with what has been happening around Basra. That obviously has implications."

British officials have accused elements in the Iranian regime over the proliferation of sophisticated explosives capable of piercing the armour of British vehicles in Iraq.

It said the devices, with infrared triggers, had been blamed for the deaths of at least 14 British soldiers in the past year, although Tehran had denied any involvement.

Conservative leader David Cameron said it was "absolutely clear for everyone to see that the involvement of both Iran and Syria in Hamas and Hezbollah is deeply destructive and needs to be addressed".

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell pressed the government to call for an unconditional and immediate ceasefire.

"How will it be possible to insert an international force unless there is a ceasefire? Such a force can hardly fight its way in," he said.

Mrs Beckett said Tony Blair would not go to the Middle East for now
Mr Blair urged both sides in the crisis to take account "of the human situation" and asked that military action by Israel was "proportionate".

He went on: "We grieve for the innocent Israelis and innocent Lebanese civilians that are dead, for their families that mourn, and for their countries that are caught up in the spiral of escalating confrontation."

He called for the UN Security Council resolution on the future of Hezbollah to be brought into force.

"How it's implemented, however, is very, very difficult, given the state of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese nation at the present time."

He pledged to "keep up the diplomatic pressure on Iran to come into compliance with its international obligations", and said he would "urge Syria to take the action it could take in relation to Hezbollah, if it wanted to do so".

Earlier, UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that an international force would be "potentially a viable option" in ending the crisis.

She explained Britain was "talking to the UN" about the role of such a force in brokering "a sustainable ceasefire", adding it was unhelpful to dismiss the idea without offering any alternatives.

She also claimed Hezbollah had "poured petrol on a bonfire" by "firing rockets into Israel all the time".

Mrs Beckett called for "the unconditional release" of the two Israeli soldiers captured by Lebanon.

She also wanted "all of those who are involved in the region to act proportionately to the problems that we all know they're experiencing".

Meanwhile George Galloway, leader of the Respect party, has criticised the failure of world leaders to resolve the crisis.

"The best way is to have a ceasefire, and that is what the G8 should have called for and didn't, because Mr Bush and Mr Blair refused to allow them to do so.

"As long as people are being slaughtered in their dozens... then this matter is going to continuing spiralling, and maybe spiral out of control," he told the Today programme.

"Israel holds thousands of prisoners who were kidnapped by them in Israel, in Lebanon, in Palestine and they should exchange them for the prisoners who've been kidnapped by Hamas and by Hezbollah," Mr Galloway said.
Let's not forget who advises Billy Liar on the Middle East - Lord Levy, who won't be at all biased, will he? And let us not forget the donors Lord Sainsbury and Lord Drayson, or Lord Cronysmith, amongst others One thing beyond dispute is that the Dear Leader knows on which side his matzos is buttered...
Thought this might interest some of you...it's a projection of the range of various S/S systems from a predicted firing location in central Lebanon, using Google Earth.

It's small but you can touch it to make it bigger...
I think we have proof, but its not the time to strike now doing that would send a clear message to the Arabs that the Wests only aim is to destroy them.
Latest on BBC is that Israel reckons Iran started it all to divert attention from its nuke programme.


Israel claims Iran link to crisis
Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers last week was timed to divert attention from Tehran's nuclear programme, the Israeli PM has claimed.

Ehud Olmert said that the cross-border raid in which the two soldiers were taken and eight others killed was co-ordinated with Tehran.

US President George W Bush meanwhile accused Syria of trying to use the crisis to get back into Lebanon.
This is a plotline not even worthy of Scooby-Doo.

"Damn those pesky kids, I would have gotten away with it..."

"No Scooby, don't pull the beard, that doesn't come off..."
Disinformation or paranoia - who knows? And every word Bush utters seems to be designed to embolden the Israelis. Instead of condemning the violence on BOTH sides and brokering some sort of peace, he's fanning the flames and building justification for the Israelis to carry on dismantling and destroying Lebanon.

Edited to add: This evacuation needs to be completed as quickly as possible before Simple Simian puts his unfeasibly long hairy foot in it again
It might be that Hezbollah (that is Iran's proxy) has less support than the usual suspect israel-bashers think

Wadi Batti, an Iraqi columnist,
"By initiating the confrontation with Israel, Hizbullah has made a mockery of the Lebanese government and leaders, who are now seen as pawns in the hands of Nasrallah. How long will the Arabs continue to fight on behalf of Iran?" Trying to explain the Arab attitude, Palestinian political analyst Ashraf al-Ajrami noted that many Arab countries were afraid of Iran and did not want to see the Iranians spread their influence. "The Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, believe that no party has the right to drag the entire region to a military confrontation with Israel," he wrote in the Ramallah-based Al-Ayyam daily.

"These countries believe that there is no room for mistakes and adventures. The Arabs are worried about Iran's plans in the region, especially with regards to Iraq and the development of nuclear weapons, and their attempts to influence events in Lebanon and Palestine. A large number of Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, see Iran as a future adversary."


Ahmadinejad is under pressure to respond to a carrots-and-stick offer by the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany. He knows that a positive response to the offer could mark the end for his strategy of extending the Islamic Republic's influence throughout the Middle East.Ahmadinejad, Assad and Hizbullah may well have planned for a limited conflict with Israel, one in which the Jewish state would ultimately back down, handing them a moral victory. Their plan may have been based on the assumption that Israel would not dare widen the scope of the war triggered by Hamas and Hizbullah.

Today, the trio find themselves alone. Most Arabs refuse to be dragged into a bigger war - in the shaping of which they had no say. Moreover, most Lebanese do not see why they should risk the destruction of their country solely to allow Hizbullah to remain a state within a state.

The "Israel diversion" tactic may have passed its sell-by date.

The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.


and from a lebanese Blogger

What is next…more death…destruction…But what befuddled me was those people exuberant with joy who drove around in their cars because Hezbollah hit an Israeli warship. Unbelievable we are getting destroyed back in to the Stone Age and they are happy… Good for them…just do not cry when our country is utterly destroyed, you want war than you should accept its consequences, and you should bear them alone, not make a whole people bear them with you…

All what I feel is intense anger against Hezbollah… and all who stand by them…


i note that hezbollah did not hand the israeli hostages to the lebanese government to do as they thought fit...
as well as, of course, the british mission east of suez
If Israel is saying the abductions were orchestrated to distract people from Irans Nuclear programme.
Why has Israel made this distraction larger - to the tune of a week long artillery barrage? Instead of negotiating the release of the Soliders and letting the world continue to see the flaws in Iranian policy.

Iran previously could have been deterred from its nuclear programme, but with the house of cards falling down next door, and the job of trying to re-stabilise, or at least prop up the political infrastrucutre in the region, no one can prevent Iran doingwhat it likes by way of arming itself.

Secondly, Bush has promised that in a weeks time he will ask Israel to break off its attack. Well done Bush, that doesnt sound like you support Israeli action does it? and Im sure that as soon as you write a strongly worded letter to the Israelis All guns will Cease fire immediately.

It looks like the Dear Leader is getting ready to volunteer our Soldiers again!
MrPVRd said:
Maybe the Israelis kidnapped their own soldiers?

No, definitely too much wine tonight. Perhaps.
I don't think so. Watch Loose Change 2nd Edition (with or without the wine) and you may regret reproaching yourself over that statement.
Pillager said:
It looks like the Dear Leader is getting ready to volunteer our Soldiers again!
Do we have any spare?

He could ask the Queen to lend him the Woofers after they finish their stint on Saturday at Buck House. As long as they're back for tea by the following Friday!!!
Why would Israel want to remove attention from the Iranian weapons programme?

Or do they jsut want to hog the limelight and justify their militarist standing by having a war every few years?............... (oops no thas Bush and Blair)
merkator said:
Pillager said:
It looks like the Dear Leader is getting ready to volunteer our Soldiers again!
Do we have any spare?

He could ask the Queen to lend him the Woofers after they finish their stint on Saturday at Buck House. As long as they're back for tea by the following Friday!!!
Surely there is no one left to send? What were the figures from the article in the Telegraph last week, something like 20% of the British Army on Ops some where, so thats 20% who are just back with in the past 6 months and can't really be sent any where, and 20% about to go some where doing build up training, so thats 40% remaining which being realistic is not much to choose from given the shortage of troop numbers, the drop in recruitment and those choosing to leave when their contracts are up.
And today on the news, Channel 4 tv news at 7 pm, they said the Black Whatch, or the new 3rd Scots is back out to Iraq for the 3rd time? Not going to be great for retention numbers there, i can see why so many want to leave. So who do we send to Lebanon? TA is over commited sending troops to Iraq and Afg, Army is over streached, who is left?
dan_man said:
I think we have proof, but its not the time to strike now doing that would send a clear message to the Arabs that the Wests only aim is to destroy them.
Iranians arent Arabs you numpty.

Who saw Newsnight last night where the Israeli security minister said Iran's nuclear programme would be destroyed but "not by us, by the superpowers" ?

Does he know something we dont?

Its all getting awfully exciting.
Seeing as Bliar has such a spotless record with information of this calibre I am totally shocked anyone could question our beloved leader's statement. For shame all you soulless cynics.

It would not take too much more of the current behaviour from some groups in the region, assisted by outside interests, to really kick off a full blown war. That would only benefit those selling and making arms, aircraft and munitions. In my opinion - formed from seeing the situations develop and partially resolve, dealing with individuals from the region and knowing some of the history - the entire area is, as always, balanced precariously. The OPEC nations want life to continue in its solid 24k manner and as long as that occurs they will remain placated/placid. The Arabs swing between tribal fuedalism and cultured quasi-democracy overshadowed by religious fanaticism. The Iranians want to spread their brand of Sharia across the globe and are obviously keen to expand their lands and influence and are not afraid to take steps to achieve goals. The Israelis keep attempting to expand their territory (anyone remember Lebensraum?) and aggravating the rest of the ME community with their seeming belief they are better than everyone else because they think that is the natural order.

Those in the region or in those communities that attempt to voice a moderate, tolerant stance often find they have unfortunate accidents or get interesting visits at odd hours. Hardly a day goes by, since the first territorial expansions by Israel, that there is not another revenge attack for something. The soldiers being taken is merely being used as an excuse to do what they want. If it really was just about the soldiers they could have easily snatched two similarly important hostages from Hizbollah and negotiated an exchange. They are very good at that. It all smacks of smoke screens and (God forbid) contrived kidnappings by their own of their own. The Iranian nuclear issue is separate but the mileage to be gained by attempting to muddle it in with the current Israeli action is worrying. I always get suspicious the second a politician or civil servant from any country opens their mouth.

Alternative of course is to deport all the wannabe martyrs from both sides back over there and turn the entire region into a decorative glass bowl :D
Taz_786 said:
Who saw Newsnight last night where the Israeli security minister said Iran's nuclear programme would be destroyed but "not by us, by the superpowers" ?

Does he know something we dont?

Its all getting awfully exciting.
Seen. Prosecuting a successful campaign against Iran - whatever 'successful' may mean - is going to require a lot more resources than the Israeli's can muster. Highlighting the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah axis just adds weight to the Neo-Con case for any future action by them and Israel will not start something they can't finish in the meantime. They may however come bursting out of the Golan to keep Syria busy if and when Op Persian Freedom gets under way.

As to Blair's input, I didn't think the issue of Hezbollah's supply chain needed spinning?

Similar threads

Latest Threads