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

reply to post by marg6043


So if the US forces pull out, then the Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, etc... will all bury the hatchet and shake hands, knowing they managed to kill enough of their fellow citizens to drive us out? That's an interesting theory.

Originally posted by Dr Love

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

Is this a trick question? Perhaps keeping the country from completely imploding, and providing security while infrastructure is returned. Or maybe ensuring that the Iraqis could vote safely might fall into this category. Perhaps you could tell me how many of the 18 provinces in Iraq are stable(14 or 15 at last count). I suppose the ethnic groups would settle their differences peacefully if it weren't for our negative influence.

reply to post by BlueRaja


No, they would not but that is something they most face in order to take control of their country without US intervention.

Bush was not that stupid, in order to keep US involved in that nation he knew that the country will be at war with each other sectarian gruops, so much for betting on the population of the nation you are invading.

On the second post you did I got a link for you.

Is the Surge Working? Ask the Data, Not the Politicians,

It seem that even Iraq government debt is already growing, for a nation that had so much tax payer money been funneled to the corporations doing the reconstruction that nation is actually without any economy at all, no even oil production has inproved.

freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com...

Where all that money has gone.

This article gives some more info on how the Iranian was identified:

Photo led to arrest of alleged Iranian bomber

BAGHDAD (AFP) — US forces used a photograph to identify an Iranian they arrested in northern Iraq as a wanted bomb smuggler, a military spokesman said on Friday amid claims by Iran the detainee is a businessman.

"I can't provide the specific evidence we have for security reasons, but I can say that coalition forces identified the individual on the scene from a photo, so we are confident we have the guy we were looking for," Major Winfield Danielson told AFP.

This reminds me of the Iranians freed in Iraq after the UK 15 were released.

Maybe a deal can be worked out to allow Robert Levinson to come back to his family in the US.


[edit on 2007/9/21 by JacKatMtn]

This story is getting strange, now the Iraqi President Talabani wants the US to immediately release the suspected Iranian soldier.

Talabani claims the man is a civilian official and was concerned that Iran may close the Iranian border in the Kurdish Iraq region which would hurt the area economically.

Iraq president demands US free seized Iranian

BAGHDAD - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani demanded the immediate release on Saturday of an Iranian detained by the US military, after Iran’s ambassador said the arrest called into question Iraq’s sovereignty.

In my previous post I alluded to the 5 Iranians being held by the US, I thought that they were released but according to this article the 5 are still in US custody:

The US military is continuing to hold five Iranians it detained in the northern Kurdish city of Arbil in January on suspicion of aiding insurgents.

But the five have never been charged and Iran insists they are diplomats.

[edit on 2007/9/22 by JacKatMtn]

Originally posted by marg6043
One Iranian men will cause the downfall of civilization as we know it.

Please don't tell me that you really believe Iran only sent 1 man.

Originally posted by Dr Love
Iran caught a British ship in their water and gave the sailors mafia-style sweatsuits, and food and water for cryin' out loud. What leads you to believe the US guy would be treated any different?

The fault in your logic is that the British ship was NOT in Iranian waters.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
So many of you gladly accept rumor, heresay and outright propaganda from dubious sources when its accusing the US and/or the Bush Administration of evil/illegal acts. But then you turn around and demand a mountain of proof before you're willing to consider that our enemies are capable of such acts.

Great post!
Its unfortunate that it is very true.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Is this a trick question? Perhaps keeping the country from completely imploding, and providing security while infrastructure is returned.

Eh? Keep Iraq from imploding? Care to explain what you mean by imploding?

Usually when an agent is captured, they just detain them indefinetly, not declare war.

If there was a whole division in there shooting up the place and garrisoning structures, that would be another thing. Special operations forces do not cause wars, they just provide evidence of interferance.

All those who support war with Iran, please by all menas go to your local recruiters office, and tell them you want to join so you can participate in the war with Iran. If you just got back from the military, good for you, go do it again. Thats what supporting war is all about, supporting it ALL THE WAY!

WHOA!

I just tripped over this:

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has blasted the United States for the arrest Thursday of an Iranian and called for his immediate release.

The U.S. military said the detainee is a member of an elite Iranian unit that has been accused of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq, but Talabani said he is a civil servant who was on an official trade mission in Iraq's Kurdistan region

Source
So much for seeing proof that these men were smuggling weapons, eh?

My source here is CNN. Usually I wouldn't source them (as I don't believe them to be free of political motivations), but in this case it's an example of how this is even in the mainstream now. Of course, the CNN article is written in a way to cast doubt...

Here's the BBC version (shorter, but with better info):

The government of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq has demanded the release of an Iranian arrested by US forces on Thursday.

The US military said the man was a member of the elite Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and that he was involved in smuggling explosives.

Both the Iraqi Kurds and Tehran said the man was an Iranian trade official in Iraq on the invitation of the Kurds.

US-led forces seized the man in a hotel in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya.

BBC Story

So... the US Military is caught lying to us? Again?

This also kinda kicks Rasputin13's post in the balls, dunnit?
post by Rasputin13

Originally posted by Rasputin13
So many of you gladly accept rumor, heresay and outright propaganda from dubious sources when its accusing the US and/or the Bush Administration of evil/illegal acts. But then you turn around and demand a mountain of proof before you're willing to consider that our enemies are capable of such acts.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by BitRaiser]

Just to offer the other side of the arguement I wanted to offer this clip of an retired Air Force Col. on CNN who went off the reservation on Wolf Blitzer. He said we are already at war with Iran with elements doing operations inside their country. Intelligence and on the ground operations.




[edit on 23-9-2007 by Redge777]

Iran has closed the northern border to Iraq which is what Talabani feared when he demanded the release of the captured Iranian (soldier?/civilian official?). It also mentions the shelling of Iraqi bases in the region?

Iran shuts border with northern Iraq

Iran closed its border with northern Iraq on Monday in protest at the detention of an Iranian by US troops, a day after it confirmed shelling Iraqi rearbases of separatist Kurdish rebels.

"All five entry points on the border between Iran and the (Iraqi) Kurdish region have been closed by the Iranian authorities from today," said Jamal Abdallah, spokesman for the autonomous Kurdish regional government.

reply to post by BitRaiser


Do you have access to the intelligence info which led the military to believe this Iranian guy was who they thought he was? There is always the possibility that the intel may be bad, but I'll reserve judgement till all is said and done, before jumping to conclusions based upon a news story.

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Is this a trick question? Perhaps keeping the country from completely imploding, and providing security while infrastructure is returned.

Eh? Keep Iraq from imploding? Care to explain what you mean by imploding?

If the 14 or 15 provinces that are currently stable started having large amounts of violence, and the casualty figures went into the 100s or 1000s per day(instead of the current levels), I'd say that would be an implosion.
The perception that the media gives is that bombs are going off on every street corner in Iraq, or other violent acts. This just isn't the case. Most of the violence is centralized in a few areas, with occasional violence in other areas.

reply to post by BlueRaja


I thought that might be what you meant by "imploding" but I wasn't sure. If that's the case then you should consider that Iraq was under no risk of imploding, as you put it, before US troops landed. Thought I should point that out.

Anyway, that's off topic.



On topic, it seems from new reports this Iranian the US military has detained was there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. So the report in the OP was another one of those that Cheney asked the media to sell to the public, I guess?

Looks like the powers that be are trying to start another war based on deceptions, but I guess people are weary and will not have it. That would explain the conflicting reports we've been getting.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

I thought that might be what you meant by "imploding" but I wasn't sure. If that's the case then you should consider that Iraq was under no risk of imploding, as you put it, before US troops landed. Thought I should point that out.

Anyway, that's off topic.

 

On topic, it seems from new reports this Iranian the US military has detained was there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. So the report in the OP was another one of those that Cheney asked the media to sell to the public, I guess?

Looks like the powers that be are trying to start another war based on deceptions, but I guess people are weary and will not have it. That would explain the conflicting reports we've been getting.

A lot of examples can be made of the internal stability a brutal dictator can provide. I think if one looks to the future though, a free Iraq is ultimately superior for both the Iraqi people, and the region.

With regards to the Intel, I'm still reserving judgement. There is typically a lot of surveillance by any number of means, and background checking, before a mission to grab an HVT. How long did it take to get the Iraqi government to allow US forces to target Al Sadr? We are talking about a Shia majority government after all, so it's not entirely ridiculous to think that some sympathies to Iranian interests may exist in certain circles.

Again, we know the Saudi's have been heavily involved in supporting Sunni insurgent groups, who despite being a minority have been responsible for the majority of attacks on US troops.

Q: Why don't we see the Saudi's getting the same kind of scrutiny?!?

A: Because it's not really about the deaths of US troops, it's about building a pretext for war.

Our leaders don't give a damn about the well being of US servicemen, they're getting ready to send a lot more of them to their deaths in another futile war on the other side of the planet.



[edit on 9/24/07 by xmotex]

reply to post by xmotex


Let's not overlook the big difference between the two countries. The Iranian government is suspected of using state funded agencies and institutions to supply and support, with full knowledge, the different factions warring in Iraq. The "Saudis" that you keep referring to are individual private citizens of Saudi Arabia which are interfering in Iraq. They are personally sending monetary or material support, not to mention the many Saudis which essentially travel into Iraq to fight the US. Neither situation is desired but one is more serious seeing as how it has the backing of the national government. We could argue that Saudi Arabia could do more to improve the situation or that their government indirectly fosters such an atmosphere etc… And I'm sure I'd agree with you on some of those points but the fact still remains that Iran is the bigger threat. Saudi Arabia will never go to war with the United States, Israel or our allies nor will it attack our interests and assets. As such they are as much an ally as you will get in the region, considering everything that is definitely a plus. They cannot be held responsible at the same level as Iran, the situation is just not the same. However I do agree that our government should be doing more to put pressure of the Saudis to stop the influence coming form it’s territory into Iran.

Originally posted by xmotex
Again, we know the Saudi's have been heavily involved in supporting Sunni insurgent groups, who despite being a minority have been responsible for the majority of attacks on US troops.

Q: Why don't we see the Saudi's getting the same kind of scrutiny?!?

A: Because it's not really about the deaths of US troops, it's about building a pretext for war.

Our leaders don't give a damn about the well being of US servicemen, they're getting ready to send a lot more of them to their deaths in another futile war on the other side of the planet.



[edit on 9/24/07 by xmotex]

I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag with regards to the government not "giving a damn." You could say that with regards to any conflict, if the standard is that any loss of soldiers for some cause means that the powers that be don't care. You're making some rather large and specious presumptions with regards to plans towards Iran as well. If any attack occurs there it'll be airstrikes and cruise missiles. I've yet to hear of any plans for a ground assault to take on the nuclear facilities.