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.

 

Snr Iranian Military captured in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   

BAGHDAD, Dec. 24 — The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.



It really begs the question, just how long have we had the ability to capture iranians...

If you beleive, as I do that iran has been playing its hand in iraq for some time.. there probably was always iranian assets on the ground.

is it strange we have chosen to get them NOW, when the sanctions are being imposed and when we are beefing up hardware in the gulf?

Isnt it an ACT of war to be activley maniuplating and assisting a country in a time of war?

ww... w.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world...

[edit on 25-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[Mod Edit: Shortened long link]

[edit on 2006-12-25 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The capture of the Iranian military officials wouldn't even begin to scarth the surface. I doubt that there capture is related to turning public opinion against Iran while I don't doubt that Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with the likes of the US government is the boy who cried wolf to many times.

A more likely ploy would be warnings about some kind of WMD/Nuclear attack that Iran would be launching in the near future.

[edit on 25-12-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Isnt it an ACT of war to be activley maniuplating and assisting a country in a time of war?



while i agree that iran had probably had assets on the ground since the beginning, if we go on the premise that actively manipulating and assisting a country in time of war is an act of war, we (the US) should have been at war with the former soviet union on several occassions. afganistan being the most provocative, as we were supplying people who were actively fighting soviet troops (and if you believe some rumors, cia agents actively engaged russian aircraft with shoulder launched SAMs while teaching the afgans how to use them).....and dont forget korea where russian mig pilots were actively fighting against american pilots. this sort proxy war has been going on for as long as men have been fighting wars against each other. which is why i laugh at the folks here who think we want a war with iran.....if that were true we could have very easily proved their influence in the insurgency a long time ago.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   


bbc

Meanwhile, US forces in Iraq have detained two Iranian envoys who were invited in by President Jalal Talabani.


was reading an article in the bbc



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
After reading the link I pretty much deduce that our Government is trying very hard to find links between Iran and the Insurgency in Iraq, so they are now on a witch hunt for any Iranians to make the conections.

Because so far they have not been very sucessful.

The fact that the names are no released and the information seems unclear makes it very suspicious.

Beside the two diplomats released had papers to be in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul


bbc

Meanwhile, US forces in Iraq have detained two Iranian envoys who were invited in by President Jalal Talabani.


was reading an article in the bbc


Now do they really mean "terrorists" instead on "envoys", you never can tell with the socialists at the BBC, after all they insisted that the London "terrorists" be referred to as the London "Bombers" so as to to marginalize and offend those involved, what a bunch of Tony Benn emulating nutters



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Now do they really mean "terrorists" instead on "envoys", you never can tell with the socialists at the BBC,


Don't be hasty now


We know so far that the Iraqi government wants to start diplomatics talks with iran, but that doesn't seems to sit well with the Bush administration.

So . . . any Iranians entering Iraq should be deemed, Insurgents, Hezbollah fighters and occurs terrorist.
Because Al-qaida are not.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
As far as I understood it, the Iranians were there as guests of the Iraqi government.

If that's the case, our behavior is shameful. You don't go kidnapping diplomats and guests after having promised them safe passage.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Just another case of no honour among thieves.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If you take a moment to read both pages of this article, it may shed a little more light on the matter.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Actually this whole deal will bring one question to mind.


Who really govern in Iraq?

When the legit elected government can not even invite diplomats without having their guess been arrested for not been of the kind that the liberators will like to see.


I wonder.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne You don't go kidnapping diplomats and guests after having promised them safe passage.


Remember the i-ran-ian revolution?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I see it like this:
1: If your neigbor is being attacked by a nation who had no reason to attack them, and then they start up on you, I would personally make sure to have ground assets watching everyones movements closely for personal safety.
2: When the attacker turned to me next, I would make sure to keep them occupied elsewhere for as long as possible so I can prepare defences or at least get people trained to fight an all out gurilla war.
Iran should they be smart, would have spies in Iraq, and if possible giving pointers to the Iraq resistance to keep things stirred up, at this point I would not blame them for not having a doubt in their mind about them being next on the strike list. So what do they have to loose? Nothing. Iran may only have spies and the US military is just trying to trump up charges, however at this stage, when the US military is about one inch from attacking and is only trying to create reason, Iran should either sit tight and do things in the eyes of the world or help the Iraq resistance to keep the military to busy in Iraq to bother them.
Anyway, Iran has spies in Iraq, not a doubt in my mind, Iran DIRECTLY helping the Iraq resistance, 50/50 chance.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join