US blacklists Iranian guards

#2
here_be_mike said:
Link to the beeb

Looks like the US is getting a bit more official with its stance on Iran rather than holding new conferences 8O
Not sure this will have any real effect on the Iranians or the IRG, unless however it's a precursor to something else. Put the rule in place, and then you have an excuse to act.

Bit like a gagging order eh? :)


Failing that it's a shot over the bows though.
 
#4
This will be the first time that the American admin. has designated an official branch of a foreign power's military force a 'terrorist organisation.'
In other words they are now using the designation on state, as opposed to non state actors.
 
#5
No, they're not. They're thinking about it!!! Decision isn't for another month. Brilliant example of the media distortion between attention-grabbing headline and actual base facts of the story.
 
#6
Just saw some more about this on Fox news. I suppose as terrorists they would become "unlawful combatants" and win a one way ticket to cuba ? However, what's to stop the Iranians designating some of our units as "terrorist" and as such, feel the need to take away more than ipods from prisoners ?
Scumbags they may be, but this seems to be a dangerous precedent, if they do go ahead with it.
 
#7
deadwood said:
Just saw some more about this on Fox news. I suppose as terrorists they would become "unlawful combatants" and win a one way ticket to cuba ? However, what's to stop the Iranians designating some of our units as "terrorist" and as such, feel the need to take away more than ipods from prisoners ?
Scumbags they may be, but this seems to be a dangerous precedent, if they do go ahead with it.
Well, possibly not, really. The powers to be in Iran, have said the IRG/Quds aren't exporting terrorism. So we have two options :

a) It's being done at the will / behest / under a blind eye of the Iran powers, in which case it's time to dust of the B52's.

b) It's being done outside the will of the Iranian powers, as non uniformed "subversion", outside of Iran, i.e. terrorism.

Either way, once designated as terrorists they can, should, and no doubt will be dealt with accordingly by both military, financial and political means.

I will lose no sleep over this matter. Big Boys Games have Big Boys Rules.
 
#8
CarpeDiem said:
No, they're not. They're thinking about it!!! Decision isn't for another month. Brilliant example of the media distortion between attention-grabbing headline and actual base facts of the story.
No they are not just thinking about it they are going to do it. It is through this designation and the use of executive order that an attack on Iran will happen.
When the administration 'thinks out loud in public' it is merely testing the water. This is just to check and see whether there might be any little difficulties that need to be dealt with before proceeding. They announced the idea first to draw fire. Then when they properly introduce the measure any opposing views will have already been expressed and any effect already spent.


They almost needn't have bothered. Any opposition to neo con plans that might have once existed in America seems to have packed up and gone home.
 
#12
Bugly said:
Taz_786 said:
Lets hope the ayatollahs dont come out with their own version of Hitler's Commando Order in retaliation.
You being an anti jew, muslim extremist supporter would like that wouldn't you.
Anti Jew? Why don't you use a term anti-Semite?

Back to the theme. If our American friends make this unwise step it would undermine Geneva conventions and the Iranians could lawfully claim that as USA doesn't follow them then Iran is not bounded by the conventions toward USA and ... other countries that would join USA in a possible war with Islamic republic.

Indeed, let's regard (an abstract) situation: a group of countries attack another. One country attacker don't respect the Geneva conventions. Its allies by the fact of participation in a war also lose protection provided by the conventions.
 
#13
:? excuse my lack of knowledge of islamic nutter squads....but do the IRG come under the control of the Ayatollahs and not the regular military ?

That sounds like a really really bad thing because the old immans are sometimes a bit short on reason and religious thoughts ,yet quite happy to preach die infidel die !

The septics want to be very careful pissing off the Ayatollahs, because they haven't got the manpower to go into Iran,the last thing they want/need are thousands of holy head bangers going into Iraq to join the ones already there ! The whole region would get unstable and Fook knows what would happen if the Muslims of the world unite! :evil:
 
#14
Yes, the IRGC answers directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who has ultimate oversight over foreign and defence policy and far from being a nutter is a very shrewd individual.
 
#15
KGB_resident said:
Bugly said:
Taz_786 said:
Lets hope the ayatollahs dont come out with their own version of Hitler's Commando Order in retaliation.
You being an anti jew, muslim extremist supporter would like that wouldn't you.
Anti Jew? Why don't you use a term anti-Semite?

Back to the theme. If our American friends make this unwise step it would undermine Geneva conventions and the Iranians could lawfully claim that as USA doesn't follow them then Iran is not bounded by the conventions toward USA and ... other countries that would join USA in a possible war with Islamic republic.

Indeed, let's regard (an abstract) situation: a group of countries attack another. One country attacker don't respect the Geneva conventions. Its allies by the fact of participation in a war also lose protection provided by the conventions.
Sergey, please list the article and action that would be undermined? If one does not abide by criteria to be considered a combatant, then you are not protected by its laws. Is Iran a signer on the Geneva Convention?
 
#16
You are talking about a uniformed branch of a sovereign state's armed forces though.

How can a unit of IRGC patrolling its own country's borders or waterways be considered 'terrorist'?
 
#17
Taz_786 said:
You are talking about a uniformed branch of a sovereign state's armed forces though.

How can a unit of IRGC patrolling its own country's borders or waterways be considered 'terrorist'?
Always got an excuse for terrorists and their supporters haven't you.
 
#18
Taz_786 said:
You are talking about a uniformed branch of a sovereign state's armed forces though.

How can a unit of IRGC patrolling its own country's borders or waterways be considered 'terrorist'?
In that instance, then how can Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other military body be labeled a terrorist? Aren't they simply doing the same thing? Hezbollah sorta has uniforms, Hamas was voted into Palestinian government weren't they?

The difference here is that IRGC is not a military group of a sovereign country but more of a private militia under control of Khomeini and not the state. There's your difference and it is significant.
 
#19
The difference here is that IRGC is not a military group of a sovereign country but more of a private militia under control of Khomeini and not the state. There's your difference and it is significant.
Isn't Khomeini (sp?) the head of state?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads