SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners

SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners

www.timesonline.co.uk

BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed.

There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Mod Edit: Removed excessive copy/paste over the 500 character limit.


[edit on 22-10-2007 by UM_Gazz]

I'm surprised the Iranians aren't screaming bloody murder, unless of course they really are operating illegally in Iraq. I wonder where else the Coalition SF's are operating, possibly over the border from Afghanistan in Eastern Iran.

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

interesting developments..
im wondering if this is the peace and stability in the middle east we were promised? little fieldtrips into iran, turkey playing peekaboo with the kurds, syria getting bombed, taliban gaining strength in pakistan... the war profiteers must be tapdancing all the way to the bank.

i found these quotes from the article interesting..

It was not clear if any of the dead were Iranian.

Officially, Britain has been careful not to blame the Iranian government.

Last week, Bob Ainsworth, the armed forces minister, said the Ministry of Defence was unable to say whether British troops had killed or captured any Iranians in Iraq.

is it possible that various non government factions inside iran are supplying arms to insurgents in iraq? i mean we dont threaten mexico when independant drug cartels smuggle weed across the border, right?
they seem really dodgey about implicating iran directly about the arms smuggling, that leads me to go hmmmm

reply to post by turbokid


Same thing I was thinking. The US Southern border is so porous and smuggling of people, drugs and arms is rife. With such a vast border between Iran and Iraq, it's going to be difficult for the US / UK, let alone the Iranians, to properly patrol and secure it.

and shortly before the iraq war, when i asked myself could this be the start of the big war, the long war, the WW3, the armageddon lead-up, this is what I said.

i thought to myself, "turkey is our moderate ally, pigs will fly before they invade iraq and ally with iran"

and yet, on this PKK issue, which may just be one of convenience for a merger of forces and logistics, the Turks are coming closer and closer to occupying the Kurdish north of Iraq. Then Iran will try to occupy the Iraq Shiite majority through puppets(is already doing so pretty effectively lol).

I said to myself back then, How could the biblical prophecies be fulfilled, how could the Tigris and Euphrates be drained or lessened as an obstacle to a massive army of millions of Iranians and their allies (army of the east it says in the bible) on a March to Israel?

And where would Israel intercept them, with allies of their own, for a pitched battle? At the very spot of Moab, the very site where it says Armageddon will take place. Why? Because its like the first stop on the way to Jerusalem from Jordan! On the frontier if you will of Israel.

Question for all of you: If Turkey occupies Northern Iraq, do you think the Sunni or Shiite's would start terrorist attacking them with bombs? Or do you think they'd leave it alone?

[edit on 10/22/2007 by runetang]

I do have one question.
Does the Australian SAS have enough manpower to effectively operate in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time ?
IMO special forces are the most effective counter insurgency weapon but if a counter insurgency war is to be won they do have to be backed up by regular troops who are waging the battle for the hearts and minds of the locals.

reply to post by xpert11


I believe the SASR has more than enough manpower with 3 squadrons of around 100 men each. They have one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq and the third back in Australia. As far as I know the government hasn't made any mention of their deployments lately, so this article is very interesting if it's true.

So we are entering Iran, performing attacks and crossing back, to stop them entering iraq, performing attacks then crossing back.

Right... Gotchya.

We are performing Anti-terrorist activities, they are performing terrorist activities.

The logic here is overwhealming.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

We are performing Anti-terrorist activities, they are performing terrorist activities.

You got it on one, well done. When Irans funnels weapons into a soveriegn country to destablise it, it is considered terrorism. I agree with you 100%.

So I take it Iraqi insurgents attacking American supply lines are also doing 'anti-terrorist' activities.
Being we are funneling in men, weapons and machinery into their country to use AGAINST them.

Ahh now, sorry thats right.. America is the victim in every case.. even when we occupy their nation!

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

We are performing Anti-terrorist activities, they are performing terrorist activities.

You got it on one, well done. When Irans funnels weapons into a soveriegn country to destablise it, it is considered terrorism. I agree with you 100%.

And an illegal invasion of a country to overthrow a government is what then.

and when the USA funneled missiles into Afghanistan to fight the governement that `ok`

and when the USA supplied chemical weapons to hussein thats `ok` then


the exuberance of your hypocrisy is most dilapidating.

and when the USA funneled missiles into Afghanistan to fight the governement that `ok`

Err the missiles were used against the Soviet occupies and not the Afghan government. IMO it is pretty sick to oppose measures that can prevent arms being supplied to the people that kill civilians en mass . The real victims are the Iraqi people who are being slaughtered by the insurgents that some people support.
Besides why cant people keep there political views about the war out of this thread and stick to the topic at hand ?

The likes of the SAS would be more effective in the role of harassing the enemy supply lines rather then operating in urban areas for the simple reason that foreigners would stand out a mile away in a crowd.

Originally posted by xpert11

Besides why cant people keep there political views about the war out of this thread and stick to the topic at hand ?

the topic at hand is terrorists being attacked by 'righteous' groups, because one are considered either by another.

In my mind, understanding who the REAL terrorists are , and whom the real 'righteous' people are , would be the first step in understanding whats going on.

People say its OK for foreign forces, who are occupying Iraq to enter Iran and kill terrorists.
Yet, its wrong for Iraqi's to attack the terrorists that have occupied their nation.

Its one or the other..
You cant have both!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
In my mind, understanding who the REAL terrorists are , and whom the real 'righteous' people are , would be the first step in understanding whats going on.

Look assuming that the report is true Iran is smuggling arms into Iraq that could be used to fuel the civil war.
Do you really think that people who blow themselves in market places and make there fellow Iraqis there prime target are not real terrorists ?

People say its OK for foreign forces, who are occupying Iraq to enter Iran and kill terrorists.

That is a part of one of most poorly thought out statements I have read on ATS.
Has it ever occurred to you that if countries like Iran weren't aiding the enemy it is more likely that coalition troops could leave Iraq . Assuming the report is true Iran is lucky that the SAS aren't calling in air strikes against targets in Iran.

Originally posted by Harlequin
And an illegal invasion of a country to overthrow a government is what then.

Illegal in whose eyes ? Yours ?

and when the USA supplied chemical weapons to hussein thats `ok` then

I am never failed to be surprised by the ignorance of people. FYI as you obviously don't know and because you're into finger pointing, it was actually the French and teh Germans who built Saddams chemical arsenal. But hey believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

the exuberance of your hypocrisy is most dilapidating.

So are your poorly chosen words

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
the topic at hand is terrorists being attacked by 'righteous' groups, because one are considered either by another.

Amd you consider Iran to be righteous, that s what your saying right ? It is righteous to funnel weapons to people who are more concerned about killing their own than fighting any percieved foreign agressor. Please.

People say its OK for foreign forces, who are occupying Iraq to enter Iran and kill terrorists.
Yet, its wrong for Iraqi's to attack the terrorists that have occupied their nation.

LMAO, ridiculous statements, you obviously don't understand the definition of a terrorist. But people lke you revel insupporting others who diliberately target civilians and kill them en masse. I am not sure what perverse enjoyment you get from that, but I'm sure you'd make a good subject for a psychology class.

Its one or the other..
You cant have both!

Originally posted by mad scientist

Illegal in whose eyes ? Yours ?

also a few other people, such as kofi annan who said the invasion was “not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
"There is no precedent in international law for aiming to use force to change a regime, says Professor Lowe."
that sounds outside of the law to me. not to mention neocon war hero Richard Perle admitted it was illegal but said it was necessary because it was the "moral thing to do"
www.guardian.co.uk...
but nevermind all that right?

I am never failed to be surprised by the ignorance of people. FYI as you obviously don't know and because you're into finger pointing, it was actually the French and teh Germans who built Saddams chemical arsenal. But hey believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

France and Germany did help early on but what agit8dChop was pointing out is the hypocrisy of supplying weapons to iraq to be used against iran is ok but iran supplying weapons to insurgents in iraq is wrong.
oh and by the way the US DID supply alot of deadly chemicals and nerve agents to iraq.. not years before but DURING a war with iran.

october 83. Us funnels bombs and Howitzers through other countries to arm iraq, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act
november 83 secretary of state Shultz is given reports that iraq is using chemical weapons on iran
december 83 Rumsfeld visits saddam to assure him of US friendship and material support (remember the infamous handshake picture?)
july 84 CIA begins giving necessary intelligence to iraq to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on iran
march 86 US and Britain block all UN resolutions condemning iraqi use of chemical weapons on iranians. then becomes the only country refusing to sign a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons by iraq.
May 86 US department of commerce licenses 70 biological exports to iraq including 21 batches of anthrax.
may 86 department of commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to iraq.
feb 88 saddam gases kurds in his "Anfal" campaign killing 100,000 kurds.. then.. get this two months later
april 88 dept. of commerce approves shipment of chemicals used to make mustard gas to iraq.
august 88 saddam gases more northern villages.
sept. 88 another shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum is authorized
shall i continue?

www.iranchamber.com...

the funneling of weapons by the US is moral, the funneling of weapons by iran is terrorism.. thats what your saying? if that isnt the definition of hypocricy what is?
anything you can find that iran is doing i cant counter with instances where the US has done the same or worse
iran supporting terrorism? So is the US, the Mujahadeen-e-kalq or MEK has been on the US list of terrorist organisations since 1997 and has been responsible for numerous terrorist acts against iran.. but i guess thats ok?

www.cnn.com...
www.cfr.org...
the US supports these guys too..
blogs.abcnews.com...
once again hypocricy rears its head

iran threating a soverign country? (israel) US is threatening 3, 2 of which we already attacked.
iran trying to make nukes?.. How many thousand warheads do we have?

i wont even mention CIA training Taliban and Alqeda, or iran-contra or material support during the 6 day war, and again during the arab-israeli war, or selling weapons to saudi arabia (where is osama and the hijackers from again i forgot?)
if your going to condemn a country about their actions you should be sure your not doing them yourself.

Originally posted by turbokid

www.iranchamber.com...

You know, I might be wrong, but I think using this site as a source might be a bit on the biased side of things.

Originally posted by turbokid

France and Germany did help early on but what agit8dChop was pointing out is the hypocrisy of supplying weapons to iraq to be used against iran is ok but iran supplying weapons to insurgents in iraq is wrong.
oh and by the way the US DID supply alot of deadly chemicals and nerve agents to iraq.. not years before but DURING a war with iran.

october 83. Us funnels bombs and Howitzers through other countries to arm iraq, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act
november 83 secretary of state Shultz is given reports that iraq is using chemical weapons on iran
december 83 Rumsfeld visits saddam to assure him of US friendship and material support (remember the infamous handshake picture?)
july 84 CIA begins giving necessary intelligence to iraq to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on iran
march 86 US and Britain block all UN resolutions condemning iraqi use of chemical weapons on iranians. then becomes the only country refusing to sign a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons by iraq.
May 86 US department of commerce licenses 70 biological exports to iraq including 21 batches of anthrax.
may 86 department of commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to iraq.
feb 88 saddam gases kurds in his "Anfal" campaign killing 100,000 kurds.. then.. get this two months later
april 88 dept. of commerce approves shipment of chemicals used to make mustard gas to iraq.
august 88 saddam gases more northern villages.
sept. 88 another shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum is authorized
shall i continue?

www.iranchamber.com...

Maybe you can't read you won post, but as I said the US never supplied any chemical weapons to Iraq. It was in actual fact the Germans and the French. The Germans actually built the worlds largest chemical weapons factory in the world in Samarra. You should educate yourslef a little more into the "facts", or at least make an attempt to back up what you say.