Posted on 12/28/2006 2:08:31 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Group: Iranians were part of elite force
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago
Two Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq were senior members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards and had coordinated attacks against coalition troops and Iraqi civilians, the head of an Iranian opposition group said Thursday.
The White House said earlier this week that U.S. troops had caught a group of Iranians in a raid on suspected insurgents in Iraq. Two of the men had diplomatic immunity and were released them to Iran, but the other two were kept in custody.
Maryam Rajavi, who heads the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NICR), an anti-regime umbrella group based in Paris, said the two men being held were senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Qods force and were responsible for sectarian attacks in Iraq.
She cited the group's intelligence officials as the source of the information.
It was not possible to independently verify Rajavi's claim, but the group has provided relatively accurate information on developments in Iran over the past several years, including details on the country's secretive nuclear program.
In Washington, a Pentagon official said Thursday that U.S. forces had found "indications and evidence that all of the people rounded up, including the two Iranians, are involved in the transfer of IED technologies from Iran to Iraq." IED stands for improvised explosive devices, or small bombs that are commonly used in attacks in Iraq.
The U.S. military has confirmed that troops found documents, but it was not clear if any actual explosives were found.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not yet been made public, said that U.S. forces are currently working out ways to turn over the Iranians to the Iraqis, but
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"If accurate, this should mean military action or threat of serious action against Iran. I see zero sign of either. Bush ought to add a zero tolerance policy to his new approach.
Politics leads to a sell out of our troops. There ought to be calls for retaliation against any nation that is killing our soldiers. But while conservatives don't want to criticize Bush, the democrats want to prevent any military action against Iran. So we have no one calling for a more aggressive reaction."
The real question is why we haven't a least conducted special opps to blow up a government building near the mullahs, torch an oil field or something else nasty to send the message to these people that 'we can touch you'. Bush is going to be remembered by half of America as the worst POTUS ever so he may as well take his shot to protect us and send the enemy the message.
I'm with you. From the ISG report being ignored (as it should have been)to the talk of surging troops.... Not to mention Rummy leaving. I think a new phase of the war is about to be opened in the next 30-60 days now that elections are no longer a factor.
Preferably in bite sized chunks.
I hope that is for dog food and not for the Iraqi's.
"I'm with you. From the ISG report being ignored (as it should have been)to the talk of surging troops.... Not to mention Rummy leaving. I think a new phase of the war is about to be opened in the next 30-60 days now that elections are no longer a factor."
Agree 100%, it looks like the stage is being set.
1) Rumsfeld is out. I liked him a lot - he rebuilt the military after the Sinkmaster sunk it. But he carries a lot of baggage and Bush doesn't need the headache of the pundidiots screeching about him during a campaign.
2) More troops being sent to Iraq. The extra troops are to free up some for strikes into Iran.
3) Iraq Study Group - Bush used this for his famous rope a dope. After the election the news idiots thought they saw a "new Bush" who would follow the ISG recs and cave in to the Dems. He actually got some good press from this and it shifts attention from the real moves being made.
4) Drip drip drip announcement after announcement about the Iranians fueling the violence in Iraq.
I hope we're both right. Iran with nukes is not acceptable.
Going to bed agreement bump!
["2) More troops being sent to Iraq. The extra troops are to free up some for strikes into Iran. "]
Okay, before you put your foot in your mouth, why don't you tell the rest of the world when the strikes are going to occur in Iran?
Let the Tomahawks fly...!
"Okay, before you put your foot in your mouth, why don't you tell the rest of the world when the strikes are going to occur in Iran?"
I have no idea. My guess is that if it's going to happen, it will be before summer.
"Pinging to you since you wrote this and apparently accept it as correct. "Blair is also one of the strongest advocates of dialogue with Iran and a staunch believer that Iran has a role to play in restoring stability in Iraq.""
Yes, that is correct. It's not really clear whether you're saying that I'm wrong about Tony Blair's views on Iran, or that Blair's views on Iran are wrong?
That's pretty much been the guiding principle behind British (and American) Middle Eastern policy over the past 60 years.
It looks like the guiding principle has changed. I hope you don't mind too much.
Just to re-emphasise, I'm not Tony Blair. Improbably, this does seem to be a point of confusion.
What the hell happened to "you're with us or against us?" Do something, Bush. For God's sake, please challenge Iran.
By the way, Saddam is hung. I'm sure that's the best news you've heard in a while, right?
"I don't know why you're confused, but just keep telling yourself that "I'm not Tony Blair" and you'll be fine soon."
You're attacking Blair's views on Iran, yet somehow you appear to believe that you're attacking me, on the basis that I made a statement in another thread on what Blair's views are. It's really quite strange.
"By the way, Saddam is hung. I'm sure that's the best news you've heard in a while, right?"
Slightly off topic? If I were a socialist British prime minister with an annoying penchant for snappy yet meaningless soundbites, then I'd reply that my government doesn't support the use of the death penalty but that it was a matter for the Iraqi people to decide and we support their decision as a sovereign nation :)
I asked you about Saddam to get your opinion. So you give me Blair's again. And you say I'm the one who is confused about who you are.
Why is it a meaningless statement, by the way, if that's what Blair said about Saddam's execution? Do the Iraqis not have the right to punish a dictator who murdered so many of the people there? It seems like a very fair end for a man who caused so much suffering in my snappy and meaningless thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.