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.

 

U.S. Military Says It Nabbed Iranian Commando In Iraq

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
found this on bbc news too


news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Still not clear, this is again considered "bad" because of what exactly?

I'm not sure about you, but I personally consider war to be a bad thing.
War = Bad
Not good
Foul

Real people will die.
On both sides.
Some might be bad, but most will be good.

Yes, sometimes war is unavoidable. Sometimes the good fight must be fought, but that still doesn't make the fight good in and of itself.

War should always be the last resort and only taken in the interests of defending the lives of innocent people. Even then, it should be a somber decision, taken with regret and never to be celebrated.

I'd hope every rational person on the face of the Earth understands this to be an undeniable truth.

People who sit in their comfy couches watching Fox/CNN (or in their office chair bent over their keyboard) and root for war breaking out make me sick.


On Topic:
If this report is true, then the proof needs to be shown and done so by credible and impartial authorities. The individual captured should be turned over to the UN for interrogation.

If the UN finds that this man was in fact operating under Iranian authority to support rebel fighters, stringent sanctions and boarder control should be implemented as the letter of international law states.

I very much doubt we will ever see any real proof.
Show me some Iraqi WMDs.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Anti-Governemnt may also be called


a `Freedom Fighter`

or a terroist

the USA gave MILLIONS to the IRA to blow up ordinary UK people,

pot kettle black.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Please prove and post evidence which clearly show the US government knowingly and willingly through state agencies funded and supported the IRA against the UK. I chose my words carefully, you did not, private citizens can do as they like...



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
i know you chose your words carefully , as did i, insinuation works both ways.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why should it not be a reason to military attack Iran if the suspect is indeed from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps? And why is this "not very good at all"? I for one consider the capture of Iranian agents in Iraq very important, especially if they are responsible (in any way) for attacks on US troops and citizens alike.


Well, its a bit hypocritical to accuse someone of meddling in Iraqi affairs.. being we illegially invaded and occuipied them.

what makes out interference in Iraq legit, and theres considered a terrorist attack?

its just biased media, because the US are begging to hit Iran, but need a public reason!



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja


If they're Iranian, and they're in Iraq fighting against the Iraqi government, that sounds like a pretty clear example of being anti-government. The point is that they're in another country, killing Americans. That's a hostile act-period.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by BlueRaja]


hostile act?

We invaded and occupied Iraq, and declared anyone resisting our occupation terrorists.
now the people helping the resistance attack are, also terrorists.

I put the question to you, would you help canada fight the russians if they occupied?

Some of you are a joke in your logic, you are too much of a conformist with bush!



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
How freakin scary is it when Agit8dChop is the voice of reason?


Seriously though, I do not understand all the people who say this now gives us the right to attack Iran, we should bomb them, or that this is a hostile act. The US has been killing and or funding (directly or indirectly) others who eventually go out and kill. It is no big secret and has been going on FOREVER.

Secondly, how do I know they didn't dress up and Israeli and say he is Iranian? Would you really put it past the Bush administration to do so? How do we know that maybe the person they will parade in front of the cameras is not really a CIA asset?

Everyone must keep in mind that the US is looking for a reason to go after Iran. I would not take ANY report from the MSM at face value or fact.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Dont often post as research can show anything you want to, be it yeh or neh.

Common sense should take the forefront in these matters,

History has shown (evidence is abundent and i will not try to patronise you by posting links etc) that the US induced its involvment in WW2 with Pearl harbour,Vietnam,Korea,Iraq etc.

Why do you think this push to take on Iran is any different?

I am not anti American just anti war. Having been involved in a few of them i can honestly say that they are not much fun for civvies or combatants.

If you research the large corporations, you will identify the winners and losers. eg IBM in WW2 and the multinational co-operations of today are doing the same thing in Iraq today. We lose friends and family and they are ina win/win by destroying the countries infrastructure and then bid for the rights top rebuild the aforementioned infrastructure they so carefully destroyed.






[edit on 21-9-2007 by juggle]

[edit on 21-9-2007 by juggle]

[edit on 21-9-2007 by juggle]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen


Secondly, how do I know they didn't dress up and Israeli and say he is Iranian? Would you really put it past the Bush administration to do so? How do we know that maybe the person they will parade in front of the cameras is not really a CIA asset?

Everyone must keep in mind that the US is looking for a reason to go after Iran. I would not take ANY report from the MSM at face value or fact.


Well being in the military, and having served in Iraq, I would take at face value what the guy on the ground is saying is the case, if he hadn't given me reason to doubt the veracity of the claims. Those who have such strong dislike of Bush, that they're willing to believe anything negative about him, have lost their objectivity. The military isn't in the business of politics, or going around dressing folks up.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Iraq is a sovereign nation, with a democratically elected government. If Iran is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs, and trying to sabotage efforts for stability, then that's a hostile act. US Forces are now working with the legitimate government of Iraq, and Iranian forces/Iranian trained forces, are killing Americans. That's a hostile act, whether it fits in with the Al Jazeera talking points or not.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Funny, but if Iran is "interfering" in the Iraqi .gov's affairs, wouldn't it be an issue for the Iraqi .gov to adress, rather than the US?

But the Iraqi .gov considers Iran an ally, and cooperates with them.

It's the US trying to stoke a conflict with Iran, not the Iraqis.

If "support for insurgents" is such a big issue, why is it that we haven't been adressing the flood of Saudi support for the Sunni jihadist groups - you know, the ones that have been responsible for the vast majority of attacks on US troops? Even according to the US .mil, the vast majority of "foreign fighters" and their support are coming from Saudi Arabia.

But the "supporting insurgents" issue is a canard, made an issue for propaganda purposes only to drum up support for a new war in the Gulf. Just like the WMD issue and our supposed commitment to "spreading democracy".

The neocon plan (as expressed by PNAC) has been to take over Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran since at least the mid-1990's, long before 9-11.

Now that the IAEA is taking the wind out of their sales on the nuclear (non-)issue, they need a new scare tactic to drum up support for war. The "supporting insurgents" claim is just a new tactic - if we really cared about "foreign fighters" attacking US troops, we'd be bombing the stuffing out of the Saudis


But to our neocon leaders, US troops (not to mention Iraqi civilians) are entirely disposable pawns, their deaths useful for their propaganda value. The issue is political power in an oil rich region, not the well being of US soldiers. If they gave a tin damn about the lives of US soldiers, we never would have gone to Iraq in the first place.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


You are joking xmotex you know that the legitimate elected government of Iraq has been no able to work without the intervention of the invaders or their nation?

No even once, overtime they complain or the Iraqi people [ I mean insurgency] gets too pushy the profiters pay millions to keep the corrupted people around the government under their thump.

Yes legit government my bony arse.
Maliki stand no chance against profiters powerful lobbyists.


[edit on 21-9-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Marg,

The US didn't put Maliki in power. That was a result of the Iraqi elections where over 2/3 of the population voted(even under death threats from insurgents). Using your reasoning, the governments of Germany and Japan wouldn't be legitimate after WWII.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Let me put in better words, The Maliki government do not stand a chance to govern by itself as long as the US invading forces are in that nation along with the corporate profiteers funneling money to keep this their way.


CORRUPTION IN IRAQ: AKA 'THE NORMAL' WAY TO DO BUSINESS

www.corporatewatch.org...

War and Occupation in Iraq Corruption, Fraud and Gross Malfeasance

www.globalpolicy.org...

Corruption within the Iraqi government is costing the country billions of dollars

news.bbc.co.uk...

You know all this information is easily accessible in the INTERNET if you just browse by Iraqi government corruption or Corporate corruption in Iraq

I hope this help.


[edit on 21-9-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
And this would be different from, oh, let's say, Blackwater?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Blackwater is nothing more than another group run by Haliburton, pay with tax payer money.

They will stay in Iraq because Haliburton the biggest profiter of this war said so.


Is not what the Maliki elected legit government wants but what the ones running the show and paying the money wants.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Would you agree that it'd be a good thing if groups/nations intent on sabotaging a stable Iraq, would stop, thus allowing US forces/"war profiteers" to draw down?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Would you agree that it'd be a good thing if groups/nations intent on sabotaging a stable Iraq


That quote is rich!


What the hell did the US do to stabilize Iraq?

Peace



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


My friend the biggest saboteurs in Iraq stability and prosperity are the same people that are in Iraq wasting our tax payer money, while making billions at the expenses of the dying and wounded Iraqi people, greed has taken hold of the ones that were supposed to bring the dream of a better life to the Iraqi people as you can see, Iraqis has become and unwanted liability, example the blackwater incident.

If you can not see that then Is nothing I can say to you anymore and not amount of links can open your eyes.

I apologize before hand if I misunderstood you last post.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join