| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Iran wants to Swap Brit. Soldiers for 40 Iranian Suicide bombers | |
| 2004-06-24 | |
| From MEMRI and The London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "A source close to the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guards told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of the real reasons and factors in the apprehension of the three British Navy vessels and the arrest of the sailors by Iranian Coast Guard patrol forces on Monday [June 21, 2004]. He indicated that the British Army command in Iraq had understood the message sent them by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards command by their capture of the ships." âDetention of 40 Volunteers for Suicide Operations Was Great Concern to the Revolutionary Guardsâ "According to the source, the content of the message was very simple: âRelease our comrades, whom you are holding, and we will release your soldiers.â The source clarified that the detention of 40 volunteers for suicide operations by the Ukrainian forces acting in Iraq was of great concern to the Revolutionary Guards command, because they [the 40] constituted the first group of volunteers participating in the Organization for the Commemoration of the Shahids, which was established recently by Revolutionary Guards Commander Col. Dhu al-Qadr. "Al-Sharq Al-Awsat was informed that one of the senior leaders of the Revolutionary Guards, who had formerly held the post of head of the Committee for Iran-Ukraine Military Cooperation, had gone to Kiev for talks regarding the Iranian detainees. However, it turned out that the Ukrainian units had already handed the volunteers for suicide operations over to British forces acting in southern Iraq. "Despite contacts between the Iranian and British military committees at the borders and daily contact between them in small conflict resolution - [such that] this has become routine since the British forces entered southern Iraq - the British command has so far refused to acknowledge that it is holding 40 Iranian volunteers in one of its detention camps. According to the Iranian source, this caused the Revolutionary Guards leadership to seek a semi-military solution to bring its men back from Iraq."
| |
| Posted by:George |
| #33 LOL! |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-06-24 11:39:51 PM |
#32 Aris, truly, this is well meant:Christos anesti! Alithos anesti! |
| Posted by: cingold 2004-06-24 11:38:40 PM |
| #31 ...the odds do seem a little bit slim of it happening any time soon. Funny, it's always us Yanks that get accused of not having any patience (wry grin) The "Shatt" has been a long-contested waterway. I suspect this was a local Revolutionary Guard (IRG) unit that took matters into its own hands. Tehran decided to back them (not that they could do anything else). I would postulate the next time there are RN/IDC ops in that waterway, there will be back-up. If it comes to blows, no worries. The IRG aren't known for their professionalism. From personal experience, Boghammers can be sunk... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-06-24 11:36:37 PM |
| #30 AllahHateMe> Since Jen has not yet accused anyone of fucking goats, or found kindergarten insults to match their names (e.g. Katsaris-Catshit), Jen has been a paragon of maturity in this thread -- using her normal standards as a baseline of comparison, that is. -- As for the belief that "Iran will be dealt with" it seems there's nothing more than blind religious faith to support it. Keeping the faith that Bush will "deal" with Iran seems to me rather akin to the idea of keeping the faith that Jesus shall return to reward the innocent and smite the wicked. Sure, Bush *might* deal with Iran, and Jesus *might* smite the wicked, but for those of us who don't already have iron belief in these personas, the odds do seem a little bit slim of it happening any time soon. But, by all means, keep the faith. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-06-24 11:19:02 PM |
| #29 And I guess you calling rex a smug little prick was all mature? Pot meet kettle. You still skirt the issue. At issue isn't what I believe. I know what the Bush doctrine is and I fully support it. At issue is what the majority of Americans believe. And if you read the polls, unfortunately they beleive the MSM. As for the taking of the Brits, it's not the first time something like this has happened, and it won't be the last. That's reality. Try it on for awhile. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2004-06-24 10:12:46 PM |
| #28 If one is going to make a case for action, it makes sense to lay out all the valid reasons up front... But in reality there's was only one that was workable: the WMD, and non-compliance with previous UN resolutions. Those in opposition of the war would have still opposed it no matter how many valid reasons you lay out before them. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-24 9:15:04 PM |
| #27 Trading the 40 back to the Iranians would be an excellent choice as long as it is not specified whether the suicide bombers should be returned in the unexploded state. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-24 5:14:50 PM |
| #26 Bomb-a-rama - Well then we will have lost and once the ramifications of this has settled on the public i do believe there would be political consquences for a kerry admin. This is a different war than vietnam and we could not just walk away and assume our position is the world would stay stable. Our economy, the bond markets, oil prices would all spiral out of control and the american public would feel the pain - in their pockets. And we would have to put our tail between our legs and leave the ME and with it 50 years pax americana. And to the majority of Americans both dems and replubs (at least 80%) this would be unacceptable. Maybe i am putting too much faith in the american public but i just cannot see it another way. I do believe the in the american spirit is still alive and will fight to my last breath to ensure this. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-24 4:33:41 PM |
| #25 ..if so then a kerry admin would have no choice but to respond with force... Not really. The other choices are to respond in a symbolic manner (read: meaningless), or to not respond at all. I'd figure the symbolic gesture would be right up Kerry's alley. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-24 3:51:19 PM |
| #24 rex - have some paitence...the Bush doctrine (as in the Monroe and Truman doctrines) is long term..iran will be dealt with but we need to get over our prez election's...and we do not have to do a WWII style invasion to begin to deal with iran...diplo pressure...naval pressure..covert assistance to the iranian people (must remember there is another voice in iran unlike iraq - they do need to be helped and it could end up like romania ), strikes agaisnt strategic sites, missle batteries in the stait of hormuz, marines could take some beach front property..all of these will put extreme pressure on the regime...and force them to focus back on their homeland instead of exporting their bullshit.. and if kerry wins i firmly believe iran will think they have won and begin to exert themselves and try and muscle us out of the region..if so then a kerry admin would have no choice but to respond with force... |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-24 3:45:39 PM |
| #23 AllahHateMe, what you say about the Bush doctrine and his "selling" of it is true only if you believe what the MSM is telling you, which I don't and which a lot of the American people don't. And saying that someone with whom you don't agree is "off their meds" is a juvenile retort not worthy of this forum, IMO. I frankly think that people who "order" Bush to do things they think he's not doing are grandiose, arrogant and controlling. President Bush and his team are on the job. And by calling these killers "diaperheads" you make them perjorative and harmless, which they're not. Not now. Thank God these Brits are back in British custody, but the fact remains that the Iranians tried it on--so both sides are no longer "virgins" in that respect. And there's another story here about Afghan forces taking back Herat which is right next to Iran and has been an Iranian entry point to Afghanistan, so Iran is now being squeezed from the east and the west. All in all, we need to have more faith in God and in President Bush. (Only political asshats like Bill Clinton are obsessed about their re-elections.) It's going to be a long week until the Iraqi handover and we need to keep the Faith. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-24 2:43:42 PM |
| #22 If you want to be evil like the Islamist we are fighting you can parachute them down with boomer belts, which arm on deceleration upon hitting the ground. Then they become live ordinance, like the Korean was when they found his body. Though somehow it all strikes me as barberic. /end fantasy |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-24 1:39:10 PM |
| #21 Re #7: "You turn over the 8 brit Navy men, or we will kill all 40 of your suicide bombers and air drop them on Tehran." Hey AP, should we set the 40 suicide bombers for air bursts before we drop them on Tehran ? |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H 2004-06-24 12:37:59 PM |
| #20 So are these guys free yet or not? Not very clear with all the contradictory stories, especially since the media seems to be in no hurry to really cover agressive behavior by anybody other than the US. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-24 12:06:03 PM |
| #19 Americans are sick of war. They have had it with GI deaths and Americans being beheaded. If Bush puts one toe into Iranian territory to "rescue" non American soldiers whose lives are in no danger, Kerry will be given the Oval office on a platter. This sounds weird, but I'm almost hoping that Kerry gets elected. All these assholes that are "sick of war" don't understand that they have by default a vital stake in our current efforts to clean up the Middle East. They're a bunch of spoiled little pricks. I mean, where's the logic in getting all worked up about the current casualty count that took a year to reach, when in Vietnam it took only a COUPLE OF MONTHS to reach the same point? (assuming an average of 100 KIA each week around '68 or so) And what's the deal with the beheadings? Well those people in the ME that got dismembered chose to go there and they knew the risks. We can't fully protect Americans everywhere in they go on OUR soil, so how in the hell are we expected to protect them on foreign soil? If anything, these beheadings prove that Islamofascism and the modern world are incompatible, and that any ideas of coexisting with it are delusional. At the risk of sounding very mean-spirited, if Kerry is elected I can only hope that some of these same people that weren't inclined to see our current efforts through to their logical conclusion become victims of the terrorism that they are so unwilling to confront and exterminate. Bush lost control of the argument (because the media hates him) and allowed the lefties to frame the argument around two reasons out of a plethora of reasons to invade Iraq. Well that's pretty much his fault. If one is going to make a case for action, it makes sense to lay out all the valid reasons up front instead of pinning all hopes on one or two. And it pays to make sure everybody's clear on it, by explaining it in no uncertain terms, and doing so promptly. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-24 11:46:51 AM |
| #18 #6 Having "prisoners" suddenly converted into "hostages" seems a very good cause for belligerence. A war on two fronts might not only split our forces--it might also split the violent Islamist's numbers into more managable quantities. But perhaps I'm hoping for the best with the reform movements in Iran. I just had a bright idea (probably floated here before, but I'm new on the scene). We need to rotate our troops in between Afghan and Iraq! But, to give the enviros a boost, we'll do it via land, instead of flying them. Then, the Spec Ops and 1st ID can meet and have coffee in Tehran en route to the others' former combat zone! |
| Posted by: BA 2004-06-24 11:34:58 AM |
| #17 One word: heads. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-24 10:35:20 AM |
| #16 With no malice to the soldiers or the British â Iâm glad they picked on them instead of us. Nice of the Mullahâs to spare Tony all that pre-emptive BS. Of course, it wonât stop the moral equivalence crowd from saying that our soldiers, are really, terrorists too. One thing I never get about the moral equivalence crowd is why they think we should care what they say. If one idea is no better or worse than another, and if evil doesnât really exist â then why shouldnât everyone just do whatever he/she wants toâ¦including George Bush? By their own standards, Bushâs hegemonic paradigm is as good as their own. Because of all the confusion as to whether or not the soldiers would be released, itâs clear that they are hving an internal âdebateâ inside Iran. Obviously, some of the Mullahâs think this is stupid and fool hardy and have tried to stop the insanityâ¦.but unfortunately it appears that the insane ones prevailed. It begins. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5333 2004-06-24 9:51:58 AM |
| #15 good point Laurence! |
| Posted by: Anonymous5333 2004-06-24 9:38:40 AM |
| #14 I think that this is a perfect opportunity to point out that the government of Iran is negotiating for the return of their terrorists. This isn't some shadowy group, it's the "government" of Iran. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-24 9:17:26 AM |
| #13 Quit being such a mindless bimbo Jen. Someone's off her meds. The diaperheads are just preening, they don't have any freaking nuclear weapons(yet). That's an ignorant statement saying they do. It will be obvious when they do. A deterrent only deters if BOTH parties know it's there. They'll test one when they have it to show the world they've got big dicks now. And Bush better fucking start tailoring everything he does to win the election. Otherwise we're going to be up shit creek with that idiot Kerry (who happened to float a boat in Vietnam) at the helm. That's somewhere I sure as hell don't want to be. Bush lost control of the argument (because the media hates him) and allowed the lefties to frame the argument around two reasons out of a plethora of reasons to invade Iraq. You can't wish that fact away. Not sure where the situation stands now. I've heard they've been released and I've heard they are still being held. If the latter, I absolutely agree with Howard. Great Britain should sow some fear in hearts of the diaper heads. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2004-06-24 9:08:14 AM |
| #12 Now we have them back, I say we execute these 40 suicide bombers - give them their wish so to speak. Blowing a couple of their ships out of the water may also help persuade the Mullahs not to f*ck with the Brits. If the moderates have finally lost then cut all ties and bomb that power station. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-06-24 6:06:43 AM |
| #11 So, they think the British are as stupid as Israelis. Why not, after all? |
| Posted by: someone 2004-06-24 5:30:38 AM |
| #10 We took a calculated risk by invading Iraq first. Now that we have our hands full liberating all those wonderful peace loving Iraqis, [not] Iran is taking advantage of the situation and making googoo eyes and sticking its tongue at us. Big deal. Iran knows it can go only so far with this charade. Why drag Israel into your paranoia about Iran? Israel can take care of itself, especially if we don't stick our compassionate big noses in Israel's defensive policies. Iran would never pull this stunt on Israel because it knows better. But because Uncle Sam and the UK misjudged how easy Iraq would be to "liberate", Iran is pulling our chain. We need to grin and bear it. We have too many irons in the fire. As for lecturing me about the 16 UN resolutions business, puhleaze, Uncle Saddam needed to say bye bye, and the 16 UN resolutions was as good an excuse as any to have him pack his bags. As for George Bush not tailoring actions for re-election...I sure hope he does or he will not get re-elected, pure and simple. Bush and Kerry are running neck and neck in case you have not noticed. This election is for George Bush to lose and he has lost alot to Kerry even though Kerry has as much charisma as a door knob, according to recent polls, largely because of the Iraq War. Americans are sick of war. They have had it with GI deaths and Americans being beheaded. If Bush puts one toe into Iranian territory to "rescue" non American soldiers whose lives are in no danger, Kerry will be given the Oval office on a platter. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-24 4:19:41 AM |
| #9 rex, the fact that you argue the WMDs issue the way you do shows that the Leftist press was successful in brainwashing you! The issue was not whether Bush "lied" or had bad info on the WMDs. The issue was whether or not Saddam had complied with the standing 16 resolutions--he didn't. We regime changed him by military force to make sure he had disarmed. And I really don't think that Iran is just posturing. These are diaperheads with nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach our troops in Iraq certainly and/or Israel. And there are too many nuke plants in Iran for Israel to take out alone. Nor is Bush the kind of man to tailor how he fights this war according to his re-election campaign. Bush is going to do what's right to defend America and Americans. (Quit being such a smug little prick, rex.) |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-24 3:41:49 AM |
| #8 'I think "Iran" and "parking lot" is more like it.' That's just silly, rex. Whoever heard of a parking lot made of glow-in-the-dark radioactive glass? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2004-06-24 3:30:44 AM |
| #7 You are hoping for "reform" in Iran, #6? Err...wasn't it Iran that had the Shah and Western opportunities and these same Muslim dolts threw all these possibilities in the trash so they could wear burkas and ride camels to work everyday? Sorry, but I've about maxed out on cheery rose colored visions of democracy in the ME, ESPECIALLY in Iran. Not one GI life is going to ever be sacrificed by the US on behalf of those losers in Iran. Forget about it. Don't even think about it. It makes me and most Americans crazy to string together words "Iran" and "liberate." I think "Iran" and "parking lot" is more like it. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-24 3:01:43 AM |
| #6 Having "prisoners" suddenly converted into "hostages" seems a very good cause for belligerence. A war on two fronts might not only split our forces--it might also split the violent Islamist's numbers into more managable quantities. But perhaps I'm hoping for the best with the reform movements in Iran. |
| Posted by: therien 2004-06-24 2:50:07 AM |
| #5 The Left did such a good job (dammit!) convincing the public that Bush either "lied" or was misled about WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam wasn't working with AQ and Islamist terrorists, that making the case for Iran will give us all a hernia President Bush said the CIA info about the WMD was faulty, not the Left. Yes, the Left tried to float the idea of Bush lying, but it did not fly. The WH made zero effort to develop the connection between Al Queda and Saddam. I think we need to be careful about blaming the Left for everything under the sun. There are several instances wherein the WH was too lazy to help its cause. Put blame where it rightfully belongs, so errors will not be repeated in the future. As for Iran's action being an act of war...I think Iran is preening now and is not being bellicose. Preening is not an act of war. Look, I am a hawk and I would love nothing better than to flatten Iran, in fact, I'd love to have the entire ME flattened, but alas, my dream is a dream and will never be a reality. Listen up, this is an election year,so, we need to swallow hard and grin and bear it. The UK lads will be fine. Let the diaperheads have their 15 minutes of aping in front of the cameras, and everything will be fine in the end. The time for follow through with Iran is AFTER we have a Republican in the Oval Office in January, 2005 and a HUGE majority of conservatives[not Arlan Spector RINOS] in Congress. We have our hands full now with Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless we want to nuke Iran, we do not have the manpower to take on Iran. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-24 2:19:38 AM |
| #4 How 'bout this for a deal, Iran: You turn over the 8 brit Navy men, or we will kill all 40 of your suicide bombers and air drop them on Tehran. Turn the tables on 'em. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-24 2:15:18 AM |
| #3 The Muslim terrorist are going to make a major mistake and murder someone the Left cares about. So far the ongoing bombings & beheadings have not reached into their treasonous ranks. The Iranian hostage taking of the British Navy men is an act of aggressive war and should be treated as such, opening the door wide for the British & American governments, & then the conservative media to inform the public of Tehran's deep involvement in murdering Coalition troops through their planted agents along with Syrian & other pro-Axis jihadees. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-06-24 12:58:57 AM |
| #2 George, it works for me. And frankly, as I just stated on a related thread, I'd almost prefer for the Eye-Rainians to start it as the Liberal Left (both here and in the UK) have made it virtually impossible for us to take the UN-sanctions-WMD causus belli route that we did with Iraq. The Left did such a good job (dammit!) convincing the public that Bush either "lied" or was misled about WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam wasn't working with AQ and Islamist terrorists, that making the case for Iran will give us all a hernia. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-24 12:38:01 AM |
| #1 Does Israel have any operatives inside Iran that can provide valuable information? I'd say it's about time to contact the Israelis and get some target info/coordinates and get this show on the road. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-24 12:29:44 AM |