It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Iran Acts Against Terrorists

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
An Afghan warlord thought to have joined forces with the Taleban and al-Qaeda, has had his assets frozen by Iranian officials. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami group is thought to have been responsible for attacks on Afghan and foreign forces in Afghanistan. A number of al-Qaeda members have also been captured according to UN official Mr Munoz. Iran has also become aware of other commercial operations thought to be funding terrorist activities.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Iran has frozen bank accounts belonging to a former Afghan warlord suspected of joining forces with Taleban and al-Qaeda militants, the UN says.

The chairman of one of the UN's sanction committees says Iran has frozen "considerable assets" under the control of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

His Hezb-e-Islami group is suspected of carrying out attacks on foreign and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

Iran has also apprehended a number of al-Qaeda operatives, Mr Munoz says.

Mr Munoz, the chairman of the UN Security Council committee which monitors sanctions against al-Qaeda and the Taleban, was speaking at an open meeting of the council after visiting Iran and other countries.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I thought that this article was interesting and important due to the allegations made that Iran supports terrorism. Iran has been accused of aiding and financing terrorists in foreign countries, but this information suggests such accusations are at least not one hundred percent true.

With Iran striving to get nuclear energy there have been fears that some of the technology may reach terrorist hands. This article could be viewed negatively as an attempt to pretend they are doing this just to look good while they seek to attain nuclear energy. It could also so be viewed positively, that Iran doesn't support terrorism and can be seen as trying to help the world's war against terror.

I prefer the positive view, but I am sure there are many who do not.




posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Let's just say that they don't want want to give a free invitation to the u.s. government to come celebrate newyears eve with them in a big bang.

I guess the usa government has to invite herselve as unwelcome guest. Iran will try to walk queitly until they can wield the big stick. Therefore trying to link all kinds of terrorist activities DURING that time is laughable, it is just not in irans interest, but if you feel they must go down, just believe what you want to believe.....

However, I expect a big flare in worldwide terrorist activity in case of an israeli/usa bombraid on their installations.

We could finally see what if that old Hezbollah rumour is true, that they should have a large number of short range missiles on standby in Lebanon, for Teheran to give green light if they feel stepped upon?



[edit on 19-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I really believe that the sentiments of our present administration against the Iranian government are already set in place.

Not matter what the Iranian government do or say our administration will keep the negative propaganda on that country and the agenda will never stop.

Iran can become Christian, Jesus, democratic loving country but the plans for that country are already set and in gear they will remained as our administration has tag them "Axis of evil" and they will be deal with accordingly.

Their actions will be seen as another diversion to avoid US retaliation.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Iran did something similiar a few months ago by arresting 9 Al Qeada. It really doesn't mean much.

Iranians and weapons keep flooding over the border to help the insurgency in Iraq. Plenty were found fighting with Al Sadr.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I did a quick check into how many Iranians had been found in combat in Iraq. All I could find is that 80 Iranians were fighting with Sadr, another 30 in another situation.

I would hardly describe that as flooding and I would not say that that had anything to do with the Iranian government either.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Exactly. He just tried another unqualified comment against Iran. It's funny how the media worked on Americans - again - thought they'd have learned.

If people flood from somewhere they come from arabian countries and not from persian Iran. But I guess, 99,9% here don't know the difference



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
America's actions against Iran is not earning us any brownie points. I mean, Iran is like the only country that's actually prosecuting terrorists majorly, aren't they? America and all these other European nations are just lolli-gagging.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

I did a quick check into how many Iranians had been found in combat in Iraq. All I could find is that 80 Iranians were fighting with Sadr, another 30 in another situation.


That's what we know of. That's what we caught, and were able to identify. How many more of the dead were Iranians?

How much equipment has crossed over the border of Iran and Syria?

Why were Iranians crossing the borders during the invasion, and why did they capture British soldiers and parade them around on TV blindfolded?


America's actions against Iran is not earning us any brownie points. I mean, Iran is like the only country that's actually prosecuting terrorists majorly, aren't they? America and all these other European nations are just lolli-gagging.


Saudi Arabia started a fairly intense anti-terrorist campaign after 9/11, and so has Pakistan. Those are two nations cooperating with us. Iran's small gestures don't seem to mean a whole lot when there's evidence that Bin Laden's son's hiding in the country, along with many top Al Qaeada agents, and they catch 9 grunts.


Sep

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran's small gestures don't seem to mean a whole lot when there's evidence that Bin Laden's son's hiding in the country, along with many top Al Qaeada agents, and they catch 9 grunts.


Bin Ladin's son is under arrest in Iran and was offered to America in exchange for MKO or MEK members, and the US government refused this offer.


[edit on 21-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   

and why did they capture British soldiers and parade them around on TV blindfolded?


armed Soldiers / crossed border / foreign country / without permission

Got it?


Saudi Arabia started a fairly intense anti-terrorist campaign after 9/11, and so has Pakistan. Those are two nations cooperating with us.


Jesus, you are one funny guy. Cooperation? Intense anti-terrorist campaign? Just that you know - if Osama and his pals weren't after the Saudi family and the Pakistanian government you wouldn't see any help coming from them. This is just self-defense, nicely made up as "cooperation in the war of terror"
You actually believe you have partners in the Arabian, Persian and Asian world? Sorry.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by mahsa]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Bin Ladin's son is under arrest in Iran and was offered to America in exchange for MKO or MEK members, and the US government refused this offer.


From what I remember, this was just speculation. Iran was also refusing to deal with America on the issue, as well. I haven't found anything reliable stating Iran had Bin Laden's son. I did find this:


Iran has previously said it planned to try about a dozen suspects, described as middle-ranking al-Qaeda members

...

However correspondents say reports of the trials are likely to anger Washington, which has repeatedly urged Iran to hand over all al-Qaeda suspects it holds.


news.bbc.co.uk...


armed Soldiers / crossed border / foreign country / without permission


Three patrol boats of 8 men that may or may not have crossed those borders is hardly a security threat. Is that an excuse for humiliating them on TV? Why did it take days to release them?


Jesus, you are one funny guy. Cooperation? Intense anti-terrorist campaign? Just that you know - if Osama and his pals weren't after the Saudi family and the Pakistanian government you wouldn't see any help coming from them. This is just self-defense, nicely made up as "cooperation in the war of terror"
You actually believe you have partners in the Arabian, Persian and Asian world? Sorry.


The reason the Saudi government is hated by Al Qeada in the first place is because they've cooperated with America. They've been angry with the Saudi government since the Gulf War.

Same with the Pakistani government. He only gets less popular each time he cooperates with us. There was never any threat to Pakistan from Al Qeada.

They help us because they want to stay close to America. It's beneficial to both of them for a number of reasons.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Disturbed Deliverer]


Sep

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
From what I remember, this was just speculation. Iran was also refusing to deal with America on the issue, as well. I haven't found anything reliable stating Iran had Bin Laden's son. I did find this:


I was refering to things like this :


"We have exclusive new details tonight on talks between the US and Iran, a nation the President said was part of an axis of evil. Iran can help the American fight against terrorism, but apparently they have named a price." NBC (Brown) adds, "These three, among the most wanted members of Al Qaeda. The alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq, [Abu Mussab al Zarqawi]. Bin Laden's third oldest son, [Sa'ad bin Laden], known to be planning new Al Qaeda operations. The Al Qaeda spokesman, [Suleiman abu Gaith], famous for introducing bin Laden in this videotape after 9/11. Many US officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key Al Qaeda operatives over to the US or their home countries -- for a price -- in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or the MEK. The MEK has been attacking Iran's Islamic government from Iraq and is now there under US military control."


www.juancole.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

I was refering to things like this


That doesn't back up what you said, really. It speculates that Iran might hand them over if we give them something they want. That's pretty vague. It's just what a few unnamed US officials are supposed to be saying, as well.

You'll notice it never says Iran has any big names in custody, though. Iran has seemingly not said who they caught, or who they're prosecuted.

Now, you tell me, is that really proof of them helping against terrorism?


Sep

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Now, you tell me, is that really proof of them helping against terrorism?


Depends, to a person does not want to accept Iran helping against terrorism, then no.

There are also many other links but I doubt you would want to read them

For people who do:

For months, Tehran has quietly signaled that it would turn over high-ranking Al Qaeda members in exchange for MKO members now in Iraq.



www.csmonitor.com...


Tehran expressed a willingness to extradite Al-Qaeda's Sayf al-Adel (see above) in exchange for Mujahedin Khalq Organization leaders, but Washington rejected this offer.


www.iranianvoice.org...

Or www.daneshjoo.org...


[edit on 21-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:26 AM
link   
From what I understand, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization is considered a terrorist group by the Iranian government. Ths group is/was known to have multiple bases within Iraq and much of their funding came/comes from Iraq.

They requested terrorists be handed over in exchange for terrorists, a fair deal?
So it would appear that in exchange for helping deal with "our" terrorists" they wanted help against their "terrorists". I do not see why this deal was rejected.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Sorry double post.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Kriz_4]


Sep

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
From what I understand, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization is considered a terrorist group by the Iranian government.


The United States government also considers them a terrorist organization.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Depends, to a person does not want to accept Iran helping against terrorism, then no.


They have top level officials in their country. What does catching a few grunts show?

You'd have to be naive to consider that a real effort.


There are also many other links but I doubt you would want to read them


Considering they all seem to be talking about secret talks, it doesn't seem all that reliable. Even if it were true, the details probably aren't. There could be many factors involved that go beyond what any of them mention.

None of these proved your earlier claims that they did capture Osama's son, either.


Sep

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
None of these proved your earlier claims that they did capture Osama's son, either.


How about this:

Saudi Arabia asks Iran for son of bin Laden


Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States have a common enemy in al-Qaida, Prince Bandar said, because of Osama bin Laden's avowed hatred of Shiites, the predominant branch of Islam in Iran.

"Al-Qaida is more extreme against Shiites," Prince Bandar said. "Iran has no interest in protecting these people, but I think it gets into politics."

Tehran has not rejected Saudi Arabia's request, the prince said.

"They've said they want to finish their investigation first, and then we will share and we will talk about it," he said. "We're handling Iran with sensitivity, but at the same time, we're very serious about extraditing terrorists."



www.iranexpert.com...


Saudi Arabia would not ask Iran for something Iran doesnt have, IMHO

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Sep]


Sep

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Sep]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join