TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq

Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq

quote:

Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq Hassan Kazimi Qomi said the men were "kidnapped" by the US Iran has accused the US of kidnapping five of its citizens who were arrested in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. The US has denied the men were diplomats - it says they were linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and were arming Shia fighters in Iraq. Iran's ambassador to Iraq called last week's arrests "an insult to the Iraqi people". He urged the US to prove that they were helping Iraqi militants. He said the "kidnapped" men were diplomats engaged in legitimate tasks. "These actions are against international conventions which guarantee diplomatic immunity and they are also against the framework of the agreement between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr Qomi told the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad. He denied Iran had any interest in destabilising Iraq, saying the unrest and a flood of refugees could spill over Iran's border. ...

Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq

Who cares!?!?!?

I hope they get water boarded.
or dig a pit and throw thier ass with thier hands tied behind thier back and throw rocks at em. Or better yet, take away thier high speed internet, ship em off to Canada and put them on welfare.

quote:

"These actions are against international conventions which guarantee diplomatic immunity"

oh the f**kin irony!!!!

he needs a history lesson. priceless.

...and so do you star-traveller.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo oh the f**kin irony!!!! he needs a history lesson. priceless. ...and so do you star-traveller.

First of all, that was a different regime in 1979. Second of all, Iran was slapped with an embargo after that. What United States did here was a severe violations of the basic diplomatic laws that are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention. Oh wait - how did America get into the war in Iraq in the first place? Did they have United Nations approval? Was there weapons of mass destruction? Come on, man, United States have crossed like so many lines. Stop pretending. You support the American occupational forces everywhere I go on this forum. And you dont feel guilty at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium First of all, that was a different regime in 1979.

could you explain how the regime was different? different Ayatolah maybe.

quote:

Second of all, Iran was slapped with an embargo after that.

you start a revolution, fine. you overthrow the Shah, fine. to torch our embassy and kidnap our diplomats to hoLd them hostage for no real reason, you get an embargo. problem?

quote:

What United States did here was a severe violations of the basic diplomatic laws that are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.

before you go hiding your argument behind the Geneva Conventions to look for sympathy from anyone for Iran remember first that the Conventions apply only to the players involved in the conflict. what you are implying is that Iran is involved in the conflict. is that your meaning.

quote:

You support the American occupational forces everywhere I go on this forum. And you dont feel guilty at all.

yes i do and no i don't.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Who cares!?!?!? I hope they get water boarded. or dig a pit and throw thier ass with thier hands tied behind thier back and throw rocks at em. Or better yet, take away thier high speed internet, ship em off to Canada and put them on welfare.

Hey now, we have enough international free-loaders thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo could you explain how the regime was different? different Ayatolah maybe. you start a revolution, fine. you overthrow the Shah, fine. to torch our embassy and kidnap our diplomats to hoLd them hostage for no real reason, you get an embargo. problem? before you go hiding your argument behind the Geneva Conventions to look for sympathy from anyone for Iran remember first that the Conventions apply only to the players involved in the conflict. what you are implying is that Iran is involved in the conflict. is that your meaning. yes i do and no i don't.

Different regime as in different leader. Ha, and youy are saying the American government and British didnt OVERTHROW the democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953, Mozadek (sorry if I spelled it wrong)??? Haha /// thats what eventually caused the 1979 revolution, because the oppressive American-installed regime backfired and resulted in the rise of the Islamic republic and the spread of anti-American ideology across Middle East. And all America and Britain to blame.

Well, Iran was slapped with sanctions. Now Americans captured illegally Iranian dimplomats. But I dont hear anyone slapping sanctions on Americans. Ha. When Iranians did it, it was very bad. But Americans got away with it. Ha.

Iran is not involved in the conflict. They have a diplomatic mission, which should be protected according to Geneva Conventions. Iran is not fighting against Americans here despite what you claim. Its United States thats threatening Iran right now with possible attack, not vice versa. So you think that just because Iran borders Iraq they're fighting in the war/resistance? Silly. Americans have yet to produce any evidence that Iran is involved in Iraq War, at least militarily (economically they are involved probably cause the border)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Different regime as in different leader. Ha, and youy are saying the American government and British didnt OVERTHROW the democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953, Mozadek (sorry if I spelled it wrong)??? Haha /// thats what eventually caused the 1979 revolution, because the oppressive American-installed regime backfired and resulted in the rise of the Islamic republic and the spread of anti-American ideology across Middle East. And all America and Britain to blame. Well, Iran was slapped with sanctions. Now Americans captured illegally Iranian dimplomats. But I dont hear anyone slapping sanctions on Americans. Ha. When Iranians did it, it was very bad. But Americans got away with it. Ha. Iran is not involved in the conflict. They have a diplomatic mission, which should be protected according to Geneva Conventions. Iran is not fighting against Americans here despite what you claim. Its United States thats threatening Iran right now with possible attack, not vice versa. So you think that just because Iran borders Iraq they're fighting in the war/resistance? Silly. Americans have yet to produce any evidence that Iran is involved in Iraq War, at least militarily (economically they are involved probably cause the border)

i'm not sure you have a complete grasp of what is going on in the Greater Middle East right now.

if they have evidence of these 5 Iranians aiding the insurgency or even remotely doing what they do in Lebanon, or Argentina ect. then they are fair game.

you see, Iraq is not Turtle Bay or Paris or Stockholm, Iraq is a war zone. Iraq is a infant sovereign nation that has many delicate problems many courageous people are risking their lives to solve.

i know your first basic instinct is to blame America first.

And American soldiers kidnapping Iranian diplomats is fair game? Where's the evidence of the so-called Iranian involvement against Americans in Iraq? None has been given, and you know it. Why don't you answer properly my above points in previous post or rest your case. Diplomats in Iraq are doing their job, and if it wasnt essential they wouldn't be there. According to Americans, couple years back it was announced that major hostilities were over. I repeat a millionth time, under Geneva provisions its the duty of American forces to protect the embassies (even the Nazis didnt get so low as to capturing diplomats that have immunity IN their own embassies), this only seems that Americans are trying to provoke Iran into a war to blame that Iran started it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Iraq is a infant sovereign nation

Weren't they a sovereign nation before the invasion too?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium And American soldiers kidnapping Iranian diplomats is fair game?

Where's the evidence of the so-called Iranian involvement against Americans in Iraq? None has been given, and you know it.[/QUOTE]

first off you don't know if these Iranians were diplomats as much as i don't know they are Iranian interlopers but if American forces just kidnapped these 5 Iraqis to taunt Iran knowing full well Iran won't start a conventional war with us, why in the hell would we risk face like this? why would we be so petty for such measly gains?

your logic only makes makes sense when Iran is expected to always play by the rules. you can't convince anybody of that.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Weren't they a sovereign nation before the invasion too?

yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Where's the evidence of the so-called Iranian involvement against Americans in Iraq? None has been given, and you know it.

first off you don't know if these Iranians were diplomats as much as i don't know they are Iranian interlopers but if American forces just kidnapped these 5 Iraqis to taunt Iran knowing full well Iran won't start a conventional war with us, why in the hell would we risk face like this? why would we be so petty for such measly gains?

your logic only makes makes sense when Iran is expected to always play by the rules. you can't convince anybody of that. [/QUOTE]

Americans have showed, for a hundredth time, they can do anything they please and get away with it, like telling UN to buzz off before the invasion when the world was calling on the diplomatic solution while Americans pushed for an invasion. Plain and simple. And it was Iranian diplomats with political immunity. Yeah.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium And American soldiers kidnapping Iranian diplomats is fair game? Where's the evidence of the so-called Iranian involvement against Americans in Iraq? None has been given, and you know it. Why don't you answer properly my above points in previous post or rest your case. Diplomats in Iraq are doing their job, and if it wasnt essential they wouldn't be there. According to Americans, couple years back it was announced that major hostilities were over. I repeat a millionth time, under Geneva provisions its the duty of American forces to protect the embassies (even the Nazis didnt get so low as to capturing diplomats that have immunity IN their own embassies), this only seems that Americans are trying to provoke Iran into a war to blame that Iran started it.

You need to get your facts straight these Iranian citizens were not captured in their own embassy. The USA did not violate the sovereignty of Iran.

The USA, just as every other nation can arrest and detain diplomats (yes even ambassadors!) for illegal violations, from the mundane: speeding or jaywalking, to criminal offenses like murder, theft, or espionage.

The USA, being part of the occupying powers of Iraq similarly has the same powers vested on to it to detain or arrest any criminals it has probable cause to believe may be involved in a crime or has conducted a crime in Iraq. No diplomatic immunity can change that.

The USA can not however go into an embassy without that nation's permission in the quest to arrest a criminal. But it has not done that in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You need to get your facts straight these Iranian citizens were not captured in their own embassy. The USA did not violate the sovereignty of Iran. The USA, just as every other nation can arrest and detain diplomats (yes even ambassadors!) for illegal violations, from the mundane: speeding or jaywalking, to criminal offenses like murder, theft, or espionage. The USA, being part of the occupying powers of Iraq similarly has the same powers vested on to it to detain or arrest any criminals it has probable cause to believe may be involved in a crime or has conducted a crime in Iraq. No diplomatic immunity can change that. The USA can not however go into an embassy without that nation's permission in the quest to arrest a criminal. But it has not done that in this case.

Some quotes from the link:


"The five men were detained - along with one other who has now been released - at the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, in the northern, Kurdish part of Iraq.

Iran said the building was a consulate, but the US disagreed, saying it had no official diplomatic immunity, and nor did the men.
Mr Qomi said it was not the first such incident targeting Iranians in Iraq.

Late last year, US troops descended on Mr Hakim's residential compound in Baghdad and detained two Iranian officials. They were later released.

He said other diplomatic staff and Iranian businessmen had been detained in the past."






Maybe you're right. The actions of American troops are quite negative, they have yet to implicate the Iranians of any wrongdoing but are arresting their diplomats left and right. And more importantly, where's the evidence?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Americans have showed, for a hundredth time, they can do anything they please and get away with it, like telling UN to buzz off before the invasion when the world was calling on the diplomatic solution while Americans pushed for an invasion. Plain and simple. And it was Iranian diplomats with political immunity. Yeah.

the UN wanted to maintain the status quo expoiting Oil for Food: THE LARGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD! and not lift a finger enforcing their own sanctions.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the UN wanted to maintain the status quo expoiting Oil for Food: THE LARGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD! and not lift a finger enforcing their own sanctions.

Lucky for you, that was discovered much later. Well, lets consider things now - Saddam and his brothers are dead, yet-another Al-Qaeda leader is killed, and according to you, democracy is in Iraq. Mission complete, right? Americans came in to disarm Saddam, right?

Well, now lets get those troops out. From now on its occupation. But I dont want to stirr this Iraq talk here, it wont get anywhere. One thing though, its blatantly obvious that after Saddam's death Americans are occupational forces.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Lucky for you, that was discovered much later. Well, lets consider things now - Saddam and his brothers are dead, yet-another Al-Qaeda leader is killed, and according to you, democracy is in Iraq. Mission complete, right? Americans came in to disarm Saddam, right? Well, now lets get those troops out. From now on its occupation. But I dont want to stirr this Iraq talk here, it wont get anywhere. One thing though, its blatantly obvious that after Saddam's death Americans are occupational forces.

Call it what you want but the Iraqi people are getting their land back.
EOD.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Call it what you want but the Iraqi people are getting their land back. EOD.

Silly. They already had this land.
My guess will be that if they want anything to get back, it will be 'thousands of wasted lifes'.

After an American controlled Iraqi government signs a bill that will give all oil reserves to the US corporations, Iraq will become just another oil-pump nation for the US on a world map. Everybody will forget in a moment, what was going there and what for.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Call it what you want but the Iraqi people are getting their land back. EOD.

lol

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.