US Intercepts Iranian Order For Attack On US Embassy In Iraq

cold fjord writes "Another NSA story? The Wall Street Journal reports, 'The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria ... U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf ... U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies. ... Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the "destruction of Israel." ... The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.' What's interesting is this Washington Post story from 2011: Iran's Quds Force was blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq."

Comments

Re:Keep the Distraction Machine Running

[sumdumass]

ou may have hoped for a massive TL;DR response, but I read some of it. Several other lines were untrue: Al-Qaida in Iraq (it came during the war to support the insurgents, was not there to begin with), the fact that 9/11,

Wrong. Members of Al Qeada injured in Afghanistan were being medically treated in Iraq and harbored during their recovery. You are confusing the insurgent groups who did come after the war but Al Qeada was certainly in the country prior to it. We went into Afghanistan not because the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11 but because they refused to turn over Al Qaeda in the country and were giving them safe harbor. The war resolution makes no accusations of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating or anything.

I quote, "underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" (a few knives are hardly a WMD; if anything, 9/11 underscored how easy it is to pull off a terrorist plot with simple tools and some out-of-the-box thinking),

I'm seriously sorry your mental process when to the knives used to overtake the jets that were essentially turned into missiles. The gravity of the situation was large scale attacks on the civilian population instead of the previous attacks on mostly military and governmental facilities.

if anything, 9/11 underscored how easy it is to pull off a terrorist plot with simple tools and some out-of-the-box thinking), the possibility that Iraq would use WMDs in a surprise attack against the US or pass them to terrorists.

What would happen if it was so easy to pull off a terrorist attack and Iraq were to give these terrorist some of those WMDs? Iraq's purpose for keeping them or appearing as they had was completely to defend the country against a superior force (Iran). Do you seriously think Iraq, when it is lobbing scuds at US military bases in the area of shooting at our patrols in the no fly zones would never employ that same strategy?

I asked myself, and I answered myself that the sheeple would not care if no WMDs were not found after the war was started. Who started the war needed an excuse to get it started, not to justify himself afterwards. No WMDs were found, yet I don't see Bush, Rumsfeld and all other war criminals (because that's what they technically are) being brought to court and sentenced to death by hanging (which is what was normally dished out for the crime of war of aggression at Nuremberg).

regardless of what your third grade education has taught you, the original Iraq war had never ended. It was put on hold per UN resolution that Iraq conceded to but never honored the terms of it. The Iraq war was not a war of aggression as it was legitimately a continuation of a previous war when it was realized that the terms of the armistice was not being honored. WMDs did not need to be found as the burden of proving their disposal was not met. Combine that with the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC teams being expelled from the country, forbidden or delayed on site inspections, undeclared dual use materials entering the country, and weapon systems altered to surpass UN limits, any sane person who is capable of thinking would presume the WMDs should have been there. Hans Blix, before the war made this case very strongly. After the war started, he became one of the loudest voices claiming there was no WMDs there. It's all in the UN quarterly reports that are still available online for anyone who has half an interest to download and view.

But I doubt rational thinking and reason would persuade you so I will leave you with something to think about. Nuremberg as you pointed out was ex post facto law prosecuted primarily by someone who never went to law school and was scoffed at by the US supreme court and eventually even the Justice who did the prosecutions as being Ex Post Facto. Nuremberg as well as the far east tribunals were victo