U.S. troops allowed to kill Iranians plotting attacks in Iraq

[Jawz II]

FULL STOP. Jawz, you posted 1 (counte em, 1, one) article. That does not make it several and it hardly came from a 'credible news source' as well.

Dont make it worse by blatently lieing about your material.

No I have posted 2, count em 2 articles, and as I said I will post several articles. I will. Youre the one lying.

Now then, I ask...is the article you linked to the extent of your proof? Because it does not mention sunni vs shia violence in any way, shape or form.

This thread is about americans defending themselves against "iranian insurgents" which Im saying dont exist, remember?

Its not about sunni/shia violence. Gee I wonder why youre trying to change the subject?

Actually, your article says this as well: Insurgents have increasingly also turned on Shia targets - both those linked to the Shia-dominated Iraqi government and civilian targets such as Shia shrines and festivals.

So think about that for a minute. Do you think its shia insurgents targeting shia? Or could it be sunnis targeting shia shrines and festivals?

And lest you forget, one of the most violent groups over there right now is shia - The Mehdi Army:

Again this is not about sunni/shia violence, and besides the sunnis are the more violent and have killed more shiaas than vice versa but that dosent really matter, its not what we were talking about.

I know about the mahdi army. I actually saw some american soldiers detain a pick up full of armed men in baghdad (dont remember if it was TV news or a documentary, but ill dig up something on that as well if you like), they took away their weapons and a while later order came down that were to let them have their weapons back and go on their merry way.

when the reporter asked the american soldier why that was he said: the men were mahdi army, and they help the americans fight the insurgents. they know theyll get all the power anyway.

the mahdi army did have a face off with the american army, I remember that, but I also remember them changing their minds and deciding to play ball.
As in stop the anti-american sentiment in their newspaper (which the americans had shut down earlier thus sparking the said face off) and to form a political party and also to lay down arms (which they didnt, i dont blame them, that would be suicide in todays iraq)

This is actually one of the main reasons the sunni insurgents changed focus from blowing up americans to blowing up shiaas.

Could this be why a lot of the violence occurs in sunni areas? If you are going to cause violence, dont do it on your home turf. Part of the reason violence happens in sunni areas, is that is where the sunni targets are.

I suppose Jawz would have us believe that Moqtada Sadr is just a peace loving kind of guy.

Bottom line Jawz, the global security link doesnt say its primarily sunnis or shia being more violent. It merely states where most of the violence occurs. You make a logical fallacy in assuming that because the violence occurs in sunni dominated areas, that it is sunnis doing the violence, when most likely the truth of the matter is that those areas are violent because that is where the shia attack the sunni.

Oh yeah, move a bunch of armed (the locals wont hide any weapons for you, so you gotta carry them around) strangers (shias) into a sunni area and blow some americans up and disappear. Repeat thousands of times.

Im sure that will work very well, Im sure none of the locals will find anything unusual about that, specially in rural areas and small town where many of these IEDs and ambushes take place.

Great conspiracy theory, whats next? got anything good on 9/11?

The article covers the insurgency (as in iraqis fighting the occupation) and not terrorism (shia/sunni violence).

So thats your strategy? Instead of talking about the issue at hand and providing some kind of proof , youre gonna try to change the subject and make up conspiracy theories?

alrightie then.

 

[MobBoss]

A sub-debate at hand was who had the obligation to provide sources, a debate that you were actively involved in. I correctly predicted what would happen, despite the fact in an earlier post you said you would return the favor of providing sources. You are just annoyed that my prediction turned out correct.

I am providing refuting sources, or are you unable to click on the links?

And my annoyance stems from you breaking forum rules. No more, no less.

 

[storealex]

And I humbly submit that those 'rules' are indeed routinely broken - and that the 'rules' as they are would be totally cast aside if the situation became dire enough.

The rules are not rutinely broken by several of your allies. On the contary, there has only been two cases of Danish troops doing something they were not supposed to:

- Case one. A Danish officer threathens a captive. Against the rules of war, she face trial.
- Case two. Danish special forces arrest a group of armed men in Afghanistan, and hand them over to American troops. The Americans torture them, and it is later found out that the armed men were security guards (In Afghanistan, Uniforms and ID is not always used)

That's it. We've been in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning, yet we have not found "the situation dire enough to break the rules of war on a routinely basis"

The reason you think the statement is lame is because you dont have imagination enough to see the point at which those 'rules' would no longer apply. Do you doubt for a single instant that a nation state would gladly lay down and die when it could survive by breaking the rules? Please.

But is the survival of America at stake here? Or is it in fact America which invaded an other country, thousands of miles away?
And didn't Rommel prove that even when all is at stake, you can still fight with dignity?
How come the rules of war are good enough for your allies, but not for you?
How come the top US commander in Iraq just changed the American viewpoint on this, to a viewpoint identical to that of your allies?

Could it be that your were initially wrong?

 

[JollyRoger]

I am providing refuting sources, or are you unable to click on the links?

I'll take that as a "Thank you JR for finally shaming me into keeping my word."

You're welcome.

And nowhere in your link (not links) do I see anything about Iranians, one of the points of contention in your source war and the topic of this thread. You're sourcing from Fox News, so I am sure if there is one, you could find it there.

 

[Jawz II]

Heres an articles about allegded iranian millitary aid to iraqi insurgents (I will post several article on that other thing the OP and the rest of us were talking about btw, chill):

In two reports on March 17, Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron repeated President Bush's claim that Iran has helped Iraqi insurgents build deadlier improvised explosive devices (IEDs), but Cameron omitted the fact that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that there's no proof to back up such a claim. In a report on the March 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume in which he claimed that "the U.S. believes Iran is harming, not helping, in Iraq," Cameron replayed Bush's March 13 statement , in which the president said that "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq." And on the March 17 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Cameron reported that "[e]arlier this week, the president said that a lot of the IEDs, the roadside bombs in Iraq, have components that appear to come from Iran."

However, in neither report did Cameron mention that, at a March 14 Pentagon press conference with Pace and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Pace said, in response to a question apparently asked by Reuters reporter Charlie Aldinger, that he had no proof that the Iranian government was sending the improved IEDs to the Iraqi insurgency. From the press conference:

Q: Well, I would like to ask you about Iran, sir.

RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm?

Q: You and General Pace and, indeed, the president and others have had intimated strongly in recent days that Iran is stirring -- actively stirring up violence in Iraq. You said that Revolutionary Guards and IEDs and weapons are moving across the border from Iran. What you have not said conclusively is whether the government of Iran and the mullahs are sponsoring that activity. Do you have proof that they are, indeed, behind this, the government of Iran?

RUMSFELD: Pete?

PACE: I do not, sir.

RUMSFELD: The -- let's disaggregate the question so that it's answerable with reasonable precision.

Q: As in "avoided."

 

[MobBoss]

Mobboss I'm confused; I can't remember what the debate was about now.

And I found that the US-backed Maliki was/maybe still is Sadr's ally.

Then let me explain it to you. Maliki is shia...so is Sadr. Maliki is in charge, but since he is a shia, he has been loath to put the hammer down on Sadr for the violence Sadr has been causing. The US for a long time has pointed out that Sadrs penchant for violence is a very large part of why Bagdhad is having problems.

That help?

No I have posted 2, count em 2 articles, and as I said I will post several articles. I will. Youre the one lying.

Jaws.....when you posted that you had linked several articles from 'credible sources' you had actually posted only ONE. That is the truth. Figure it out.

This thread is about americans defending themselves against "iranian insurgents" which Im saying dont exist, remember?

Well, this thread is also about who is causing the violence. I think more evidence is available that points to shiite groups like Al Sadr and his militia.

Its not about sunni/shia violence. Gee I wonder why youre trying to change the subject?

I am not trying to change the subject. I am calling you out on a bs statement you made earlier. Dont like it? /shrug.

Again this is not about sunni/shia violence, and besides the sunnis are the more violent and have killed more shiaas than vice versa but that dosent really matter, its not what we were talking about.

Again, you make a wild statement with no proof or basis of fact. On the news it is more than evident that the majority of violence is being caused by Shiite militia groups. I have posted a couple of articles showing this. All one has to do is watch the tv and hear 'Al Sadr this' or 'Al Sadr that'.

Oh yeah, move a bunch of armed (the locals wont hide any weapons for you, so you gotta carry them around) strangers (shias) into a sunni area and blow some americans up and disappear. Repeat thousands of times.

Ah...no..not at all. Think about it. Sadr city is a shiite dominated slum in the middle of the Sunni triangle. By default any violence done in Sadr city, is in the sunni area - and as your false logic says - should be atributed to sunni muslims? I think not.

 

[MobBoss]

The rules are not rutinely broken by several of your allies. On the contary, there has only been two cases of Danish troops doing something they were not supposed to:

Thats the only two that have been caught and persecuted. Surely you are not so naive as to think those are the only two who have ever broken the rules?

I stand by my allegation.

And didn't Rommel prove that even when all is at stake, you can still fight with dignity?

And look where it got him. He killed himself. Thats very dignified.

Could it be that your were initially wrong?

Again, I stand by the quote and the saying behind it. Those who do what has to be done will win. Just ask Jack Bauer.

 

[JollyRoger]

Those who do what has to be done will win. Just ask Jack Bauer.

Who is Jack Bauer? Is he one of our new Generals?

 

[MobBoss]

10 char blah

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Who is Jack Bauer? Is he one of our new Generals?

He's a star in a neoconservative pornographic series, called 24.

 

[Xanikk999]

He's a star in a neoconservative pornographic series, called 24.

Just because its an action thriller related to terrorism it suddenly has an agenda with the neoconservatives?

Tell me your joking right...

oh wait you said porno so its a joke. i hope.

 

[Little Raven]

Again, I stand by the quote and the saying behind it. Those who do what has to be done will win.

Uh...tautology FTW?

Of course, if you thinking popping a few more Iranians is 'what has to be done,' then I fear you're in for a sad surprise.

 

[Xenocrates]

Where did this Jack Bauer = US General come from? Everyone knows that the top US Generals are Stanley Laurel and Oliver Hardy.

Mobboss you really come alive when your back's against the wall! If only that attribute extended to the political scene too...

 

[MobBoss]

Uh...tautology FTW?

Of course, if you thinking popping a few more Iranians is 'what has to be done,' then I fear you're in for a sad surprise.

Nah, to clarify, I dont think popping a few more Iranians is going to help anything.

My whole point of that is having rules in warfare is just misplaced chivalry. When the gloves come totally off, the person who holds back will lose. Just my opinion mind you, but one I happen to believe in a lot.

 

[Xanikk999]

Where did this Jack Bauer = US General come from? Everyone knows that the top US Generals are Stanley Laurel and Oliver Hardy.

Those guys werent even funny comedians, how could they be good generals?

I know your joking but i dont get it.

Explain it please.

 

[MobBoss]

Where did this Jack Bauer = US General come from? Everyone knows that the top US Generals are Stanley Laurel and Oliver Hardy.

Mobboss you really come alive when your back's against the wall! If only that attribute extended to the political scene too...

Actually, Xeno, my backs not on the wall on this one. Its more than evident that shiite militias like the Mehdi Army or Badr brigade are the primary vehicle of secular violence in Iraq today.

 

[Panda]

If there are Iranians plotting / committing acts of violence, they are terrorists and should be exterminated.

If there are Iranians plotting / committing acts of violence on order from their government, it's an act of war.

I for one don't doubt for a second that the Iranians would have the moral scruple to do this, and consider it a possibility. Then again, I'm not consumed by a rabid hatred for all things American.

 

[JollyRoger]

I just asked Jack Bauer what he thought of the results of the 2004 Presidential elections:

Part of getting a second chance is taking responsibility for the mess you made in the first place.

Then I asked him if such responsibilty had been taken:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Pretty quotable guy that Jack Bauer. What does he say about Iranian interference in Iraq?

I'll get back to you.

I need to talk to the president.

Sounds a lot like Tony Snow or Alberto Gonzales if you ask me.

http://www.stubaker.com/24/index.html

 

[Jawz II]

Jaws.....when you posted that you had linked several articles from 'credible sources' you had actually posted only ONE. That is the truth. Figure it out.

Lie! I actually said "I will post several articles". Go back and look it up. And I will, althought maybe not tonight, since Ive been spending so much time calling you on your lies instead of looking up articles.

Well, this thread is also about who is causing the violence. I think more evidence is available that points to shiite groups like Al Sadr and his militia.

Lie number 2.
Well, no its not. Its about american soldier having recived permission on killing "iranian insurgents" in iraq.

I am not trying to change the subject. I am calling you out on a bs statement you made earlier. Dont like it? /shrug.

Lie number 3.
Oh yes you were, you started talking about secretarian violence in iraq, when the thread and discussion clearly was about Iranians allegded supplying of arms to the insurgents and foreign fighters and iranian actively killing americans in iraq.
That attempt at changing the subject and this comment is pure BS.

Again, you make a wild statement with no proof or basis of fact. On the news it is more than evident that the majority of violence is being caused by Shiite militia groups. I have posted a couple of articles showing this. All one has to do is watch the tv and hear 'Al Sadr this' or 'Al Sadr that'.

no proof? is that like how you dont provide any proof at all?
At least Ive provided 2 articles (for some reason 1 of them is invisible to you) untill now, and digging up more is certainly not difficult, anyone with a search engine and time can do it.

Ah...no..not at all. Think about it. Sadr city is a shiite dominated slum in the middle of the Sunni triangle. By default any violence done in Sadr city, is in the sunni area - and as your false logic says - should be atributed to sunni muslims? I think not.

Of course not, who said violence done in sadr city should be atributed to sunni muslims?

where did you get that from?

heres a wiki article for you to read:

refers to the armed resistance by diverse groups within Iraq to the US occupation of Iraq and to the establishment of a liberal democracy therein. The fighting has clear sectarian overtones and significant international implications (see Iraqi Civil War). This asymmetric war is being waged by Iraqi rebels, almost certainly with assistance from both foreign governments (most likely Iran and Syria) and loosely termed NGO's. The campaign, called the Iraqi resistance by its supporters, and anti-Iraqi forces[1] by its opponents (especially the Iraqi Government and the Coalition forces), is accused of numerous human rights violations. A 140-page Human Rights Watch Report is the most detailed study to date of abuses by insurgent groups [2].

The insurgency began shortly after the 2003 US Invasion of Iraq and before the establishment of a new sovereign Iraqi government. Originally, the insurgents targeted only coalition forces and the interim government (eg., the Coalition Provisional Authority) formed under the occupation, but as the fighting continued, the insurgents have targeted anyone they feel supports the current democratically elected Iraqi government. Many militant attacks have been directed at the police and defense forces of the new Iraqi government. They have continued during the transitional reconstruction of Iraq as the new Iraqi government has developed under the auspices of the United Nations.

The insurgency seems to have widespread support, even though most Iraqis welcomed the US invasion[3]. According to a recent poll, 47% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces, but not of attacks on Iraqi security forces, or civilians[4]. When broken down along sectarian lines, a remarkable 88% of Sunni Muslims approve of the attacks, while other groups do not support the attacks at all. This is not surprising, as the Sunni minority controlled the government of Iraq during the administration of Saddam Hussein. Iraq's deep sectarian divides have been a major dynamic in the insurgency, with the insurgency finding much weaker support from some segments of the population than others.

Composition

The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. Because most of these insurgents are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas. :

* Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein's former nomenclature, e.g. army or intelligence officers;
* Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi self-determination;
* anti-Shi'a Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (these three categories are often indistinguishable in practice);
* Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;
* Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");
* Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party[citation needed]) and other leftists;
* Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
* Members of the Badr Organization, a militant arm of the prominent Shi'a political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
* Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money; and
* Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency).

Anyway, I have to be somewhere soon, so to be continued. Ill post a few more articles in a few days.

 

[Luckymoose]

Why don't we just invade Iran already. Before someone gets hurt.