Iran Unites Terrorists For Attacks On US Troops And Israel

Originally posted by skippytjcYou use this source to question the bias of another source?

I'm not questioning bias, every source is biased, if only in the manner of what it decides to include and not include in its headlines. But, the level of knowledge contained within Wikipedia allows it that certain status to question the validity of Debka's stories, yes. If you read the Wikipedia entry for Debka instead of running your keyboard, you will see that it offers both pros and cons of this source, it is neither pro- nor anti-Debka.

Also, I don't think using Debka as a source to corroborate another Debka story is really any kind of validation. Also, don't play innocent, you were calling for moderators to delete posts that questioned this source. Freedom of speech 1, TA 0.

But, apart from being a jackass , I'll throw you some bones that Iran is 'uniting the terrorists'...

The general said improvised explosive device components manufactured in Iran have made their way into Iraq, but there's no provable connection that the Iranian government is directly providing bomb components to terrorists in Iraq.

"I can't tell you whether or not that happened with the orders of the Iranian government," Abizaid said in response to a senator's question. "But I can tell you that terrorists in northeastern Iraq used the Iranian northwestern border to move back and forth across the border."

www.defenselink.mil...

And then there is Bush claiming Iran was supplying IEDs, but then we find out it was another lie when General Pace said they could not verify this was indeed happening. The source speaks along the same lines as Pace, except it goes into more detail.

Btw, the link for your original story no longer works TA, I think they changed it to a different headline. Why do you think they took it off their website?

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Jamuhn]

I have been talking with many older people regarding our Iraqi war...

It seems that my 30 something mind hasn't been able to grasp one thing that all the ol timers know without question...

Iraq isn't on the verge of a civil war...and what we hear is what our government wants us to hear

they are experiencing occassional grudge attacks on a small scale, and insurgency agains't the occupation- end o story...

The mainstream AND conservative voice media would all have us beleive that iraq is on the verge of bloody civil war...
only NPR and the soldiers themselves will say different.

So considering where that leaves the holes in this DEBKA story is of interest...
because DEBKA gets info from somewhere...

So does this talk mean that Iran is threatening to cause a civil war, or is offering to help prevent one if their demands are met?

regardless... even if Iran is on decent terms with Shia islamic population in Iraq, they were at war forever, so shouldn't be able to promise anything really

I hope this stays within topic for you TAH...
these are my questions regarding that story.
go.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Also, don't play innocent, you were calling for moderators to delete posts that questioned this source. Freedom of speech 1, TA 0.

I was, and still am, calling on moderators to delete those posts because they are off topic, and have nothing to do with the story itself. On topic conversation: TA 2, Jamuhn -3

When are these double standards going to stop, huh mods? How many more posts are you going to tolerate in this thread that are off topic before one of you realizes that I was right in complaining in the first place about these posters who want to come in and discredit a source that ATS members have used for years? Why all of a sudden is my story being targeted, and worse, why all of a sudden are you choosing to NOT do anything about it? Damn, might as well just delete the whole thread now, it'd be easier.

The subtext of his words was that three years after the American invasion, the Iraqi army still cannot be trusted to handle the guerrilla war fought by Sunni insurgents. He also implies that the insurgents and their al Qaeda allies are in control of 25 percent of Iraq.

One reason that the Iraqi army is so slow to stand up is the fact that they are still being infiltrated at all levels by the enemy. It's difficult to succeed when you can't trust your partner to cover your back.

from Jamuhn
And then there is Bush claiming Iran was supplying IEDs, but then we find out it was another lie when General Pace said they could not verify this was indeed happening.

"I can't tell you whether or not that happened with the orders of the Iranian government," Abizaid said in response to a senator's question. "But I can tell you that terrorists in northeastern Iraq used the Iranian northwestern border to move back and forth across the border."

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the second statement as true but the first as not even plausible? It doesn't seem like such a stretch to me; as a matter of fact, it seems quite likely.

Originally posted by jsobeckyWhy is it so difficult for you to accept the second statement as true but the first as not even plausible? It doesn't seem like such a stretch to me; as a matter of fact, it seems quite likely.

Once again, it's not a black and white issue. Bush claimed that there was a connection between IEDs and Iran, and the implication was that it was a solid connection. General Pace, on the other hand, denied that there is a concrete connection. As well, if you read the article I provided above, it states that they are still researching if such a connection exists.

When you want to go to war jsobecky, anything will seem likely. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that Bush pushes propaganda sometimes and that truth usually lies somewhere in the middle? Of course Iran has ill will towards America, but does that mean every single thing the US President says is true? Doesn't it ever cross your mind that Bush is telling half-truths, exaggerating, or fabricating connections?

Wait, I just saw some of you who claimed that sources shouldn't be taken into account for this story go on another thread and talk about how bad the source was for them. What's the deal?

Tell me something, why is that serious journalists verify sources and you all here are saying they shouldn't be verified?

It's obvious some of you WANT this story to be true and you will say anything to get it that way, including asking mods to delete posts you disagree with. What a shame...

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Jamuhn]

The original story link was moved to here by Debka:

debka.com...

Jamuhn, you want to take General Pace's statements as a total rebuttal of Bush's assertions, when that is clearly not the case. Don't make this a case of me blindly believing everything Bush states as the truth.

Iran has funded Hamas, Hizbollah, and Islamic Jihad. I don't think it is so unbelievable that they would actively support the insurgency in Iraq.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Jamuhn, you want to take General Pace's statements as a total rebuttal of Bush's assertions, when that is clearly not the case. Don't make this a case of me blindly believing everything Bush states as the truth.

Iran has funded Hamas, Hizbollah, and Islamic Jihad. I don't think it is so unbelievable that they would actively support the insurgency in Iraq.

Ditto to you my friend, don't take my statements as a case of blindly denying everything Bush says as a lie. In this case though, he did mislead the public yet again; Bush tried to lead the public to believe that there is a solid connection between Iran's government and the insurgency in Iraq. General Pace rebutted the concrete nature of this relationship that Bush is trying to push on the public. Military intelligence is still researching if and how the relationship exists.

Perhaps in the future, we will see that Bush's comments were right, but that doesn't give his comments any validity in the present.

The greater implications of this discussion is how the president will try to present any upcoming conflict to the public. A lot of us here know the truth about many issues regarding Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda, and terrorism in general. But that truth is often at odds or has an awkard position in relation to the speeches that the president makes. For me at least, this is troublesome.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I believe this may be the link to their source story:
Iran's secret talks with Iraqi militants spark fears of proxy war
[edit on 19-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]

Everyone is jumping on how debka is not a "mainstream Journalistic source" and not to be believed. I guess the telegraph out of the UK also fits the status of non-mainsteam and not to be believed?

/rant on
There are too many people on this site that want to follow their own agenda rather than discuss the information presented in the original post. If you have a valid case for or against it, please post. If all you want to do is belittle the original post, simply because you don't agree, then please find another site. Frankly I am getting sick of all the drama.

If you truly want to deny ignorance, come up with something that either has proof for or proof against. This means you may have to do a little work, rather than just spout your own beliefs.
/rant off

[edit on 3/21/2006 by darkelf]

Originally posted by darkelf
There are too many people on this site that want to follow their own agenda rather than discuss the information presented in the original post.

Well if you'll notice darkelf, at this point it is usually newer members arguing the source issue, cause all the regulars here are long over it. It has been discussed a billion times, and there is no good answer other than, "stay on topic." In extreme cases I have seen where the mods will trash a post right away if the story is outrageous and the source is clearly bogus. But I can't recall any of them trashing a story sourced from Debka, although I may well be wrong. But it's over now, let's get back on track and discuss the story, thanks.