Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs (re: Karbala attack)

[conjur]

Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Two_I...rals_suspected_of_complicity_0201.html

Citing Pentagon officials, Fox News Channel is reporting that two Iraqi generals are suspected of complicity in a Jan. 20 attack in Karbala, Iraq that killed five US troops.

"There are 2 senior Iraq generals that US officials say are now suspect of involvement in an attack against American forces in Karbala on Jan. 20th," a Fox News host reported on air. "A number of people were killed. These gunmen apparently stormed an Iraqi security dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs. So again, US officials are saying that 2 senior are suspected of taking part in an insurgent attack that killed 5 American soldiers."

The fake US military convoy that kidnapped and killed 5 soldiers had previously been blamed on Iranian elements.

"We have Pentagon officials telling us this was incredibly sophisticated orchestrated attack, at troubling attack from their perspective," Fox News Reporter Mike Emanuel reports live on air. "There's a great investigation underway trying to figure out exactly how this happened and who may have been behind it. There is some suggestion due to the level of sophistication, planning, coordination, perhaps Iranian agents had been involved in some way. Now we have sources telling us that at least 2 top iraqi generals are the center of this investigation being looked at to see if whether they may not be loyal allies ot the united states, after all. Whether they may be traitors in betraying US forces serving in Iraq trying to help their country."

Originally, the US said the five soldiers had been killed during fighting, but the Associated Press revealed the US statement was a lie.

"It makes you wonder if they are able to pass themselves off as Americans and get into this place in Karbala, could they do further attacks in places like the Green Zone," Emanuel continued. "Driving up in SUVs looking like they are an American security detail or American forces going into other places, other locations and perhaps put more Americans at risk. So, there are a lot of questions at this point. Again, it's early on in the investigation. We're hearing sources whether they're looking at the possibility that Iranian elements, parts of the Iranian government may have been involved. Now, the latest, 2 Iraq generals under suspicion."

More details as they become available.

DEVELOPING...

Well, well, well.

Any of the Bush-loving warmongers care to explain how you all "knew" it was Iranians that were involved in the attack at Karbala? I'd like to hear the spin on this one!

But, given this news, is there really any reason why our troops must remain in Iraq to act as target practice?

 

[nullzero]

This is a turn for the worse... This just shows no one in the Iraqi army can be trusted. We trained and armed the Iraqi army and soon they will turn on us. When they turn on us on a wider scale whatever hope was left will be shot down.

 

[Aimster]

According to certain members on this forum you are an idiot if you do not believe Iran had something to do with the attacks.

 

[dahunan]

Certain members of this forum will conveniently ignore this post and keep spouting their propoganda

 

[Sinsear]

I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

But due to those theories we have keyboard warriors in forums all over the internet begging the US Mil. to bomb Iran.. You have retired Generals saying Iran should be bombed etc etc

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

It MAY have been Martians. But my money is on the Iraqi Generals. Fits the pattern

 

[Aimster]

There is never any evidence that points to Iran being involved inside Iraq (militarily against U.S).

The Bush administration is doing exactly what they did before the invasion of Iraq. Keep putting things into the media to make the public fear Iraq. The public started to fear Iraq and we went to war with them.
Now they are putting as much information about Iran into the media to make Iran seem as if they are up to something.

Why is Bush doing this? Because he wants to attack Iran's nuclear sites and that might lead to an invasion. I don't get why he has to B.S about it. The country seems united in stopping Iran's nuclear sites no matter what, but neither the Democrats nor Republicans seem to have the balls to do it now.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

But due to those theories we have keyboard warriors in forums all over the internet begging the US Mil. to bomb Iran.. You have retired Generals saying Iran should be bombed etc etc

And in just about every forum there are keyboard hippies denouncing our government, our country, its military and asking for free handouts. It goes both ways.

 

[Lemon law]

Given that the evidence trail now points to Iraqi generals---the question now becomes whose interests were they serving?

But somewhat best case scenario for GWB&co.---it will turn out these rogue Iraqi generals got their marching orders from Iran.

But then again it could turn out these rogue Iraqi generals could be allied to some rogue Iranian generals and these Iranian generals were plotting to overthrow the government of Iran.---which would cast the incident in an entirely different light.

So I urge all to reserve judgment and not jump to conclusions about these type of things.---and to some extent--we may never know.

But if you beat the war drums and bust open hornet nests---lots of people will be stung in strange ways.

 

[Aimster]

Iraqi generals became Iraqi generals for a reason. I suspect they had a great resume that included being part of Saddam's military.

Unless they just picked names out of a hat and one man got to be general and the other got to be front line infantry.

One day Iraq's military will turn on the U.S. It is just a matter of time. When the pride of the Iraqis return they will want the U.S out of their country. U.S might not want to leave

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iraqi generals became Iraqi generals for a reason. I suspect they had a great resume that included being part of Saddam's military.

Unless they just picked names out of a hat and one man got to be general and the other got to be front line infantry.

One day Iraq's military will turn on the U.S. It is just a matter of time. When the pride of the Iraqis return they will want the U.S out of their country. U.S might not want to leave

Exactly, plus I know this is unheard of and has never before happened but what if the Generals are working for their own benefit. You know actually trying to gain more power for themselves?

 

[Lemon law]

We can't leave Iraq---we have all those lucrative oil contracts to defend---and we stole em fair and square.

Who has a bigger army to say any different?

But that was what was wrong with Saddam---he used to be our man in the mid-east---but there is nothing lower than a corrupt dictator who won't stay bought.-------once he disappointed Rummy and Cheney--he was doomed.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: conjur
Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Two_I...rals_suspected_of_complicity_0201.html

Citing Pentagon officials, Fox News Channel is reporting that two Iraqi generals are suspected of complicity in a Jan. 20 attack in Karbala, Iraq that killed five US troops.

"There are 2 senior Iraq generals that US officials say are now suspect of involvement in an attack against American forces in Karbala on Jan. 20th," a Fox News host reported on air. "A number of people were killed. These gunmen apparently stormed an Iraqi security dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs. So again, US officials are saying that 2 senior are suspected of taking part in an insurgent attack that killed 5 American soldiers."

The fake US military convoy that kidnapped and killed 5 soldiers had previously been blamed on Iranian elements.

"We have Pentagon officials telling us this was incredibly sophisticated orchestrated attack, at troubling attack from their perspective," Fox News Reporter Mike Emanuel reports live on air. "There's a great investigation underway trying to figure out exactly how this happened and who may have been behind it. There is some suggestion due to the level of sophistication, planning, coordination, perhaps Iranian agents had been involved in some way. Now we have sources telling us that at least 2 top iraqi generals are the center of this investigation being looked at to see if whether they may not be loyal allies ot the united states, after all. Whether they may be traitors in betraying US forces serving in Iraq trying to help their country."

Originally, the US said the five soldiers had been killed during fighting, but the Associated Press revealed the US statement was a lie.

"It makes you wonder if they are able to pass themselves off as Americans and get into this place in Karbala, could they do further attacks in places like the Green Zone," Emanuel continued. "Driving up in SUVs looking like they are an American security detail or American forces going into other places, other locations and perhaps put more Americans at risk. So, there are a lot of questions at this point. Again, it's early on in the investigation. We're hearing sources whether they're looking at the possibility that Iranian elements, parts of the Iranian government may have been involved. Now, the latest, 2 Iraq generals under suspicion."

More details as they become available.

DEVELOPING...

Well, well, well.

Any of the Bush-loving warmongers care to explain how you all "knew" it was Iranians that were involved in the attack at Karbala? I'd like to hear the spin on this one!

But, given this news, is there really any reason why our troops must remain in Iraq to act as target practice?

I posted in another thread how I thought it may be Iranian involvement. I also pointed out that intelligence operatives generally do not take the lead in such operations but work thru indigenous forces. The possible impliction of 2 Iraqi generals fits my original analysis. The question remains were the Iranians actually involved. I still believe so, but that is speculation as I have stated before. Getting hard confirmation will be difficult.

I find it interesting that you quote a Pentagon report for supporting your position however in many, many past posts, you constantly harp on how much the military lies and are not to be trusted.

 

[Lemon law]

I would remind you all that WW1 was started by a rogue government official that maintained his own little personal terrorist cell on the cheap. It was he who provided the bombs and cheap pistols. And his main plot was foiled---and just by chance the car carrying the archduke and his wife happened to divert onto the street Pricip happened to be on---and just a few shots from a cheap pistol started WW1. Does it really matter what fantasies various perps have in their faith that some act of violence will lead to a greater good.

They are nuts---pure plain and simple---and we are greater nuts if we ascribe their actions to a government they may be tangentally associated with without first better understanding the facts---something like Peal Harbor and the Japs clearly take a entire government behind it. Lesser actions could be due to anything.

 

[M00T]

ProfJohn must be taking a nap.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

But due to those theories we have keyboard warriors in forums all over the internet begging the US Mil. to bomb Iran.. You have retired Generals saying Iran should be bombed etc etc

And in just about every forum there are keyboard hippies denouncing our government, our country, its military and asking for free handouts. It goes both ways.

denouncing our govt.. = Freedom and Free Speech
denouncing the military... our military should be held in high skepticism
free handouts = better than 30,000 plus dead in other countries

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

But due to those theories we have keyboard warriors in forums all over the internet begging the US Mil. to bomb Iran.. You have retired Generals saying Iran should be bombed etc etc

And in just about every forum there are keyboard hippies denouncing our government, our country, its military and asking for free handouts. It goes both ways.

What does that have to do with this particular issue? Nothing, that's what. Turn off your partisan auto-pilot why don't you . . .

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I don't remember anyone or any newscast I've seen so far saying it was definitely the Iranians but rather that one investigative angle was that there may have been Iranian involvement due to the complexity of operation and the efficiency in carrying it out.

So far there has been nothing but conjecture and theories; no evidence or proof one way or the other.

kind of like the iraqis may have had WMDs? maybe was good enough before, why not now? dont tell me the administration learned from their mistakes because history has shown that is not possible.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur
Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Two_I...rals_suspected_of_complicity_0201.html

Citing Pentagon officials, Fox News Channel is reporting that two Iraqi generals are suspected of complicity in a Jan. 20 attack in Karbala, Iraq that killed five US troops.

"There are 2 senior Iraq generals that US officials say are now suspect of involvement in an attack against American forces in Karbala on Jan. 20th," a Fox News host reported on air. "A number of people were killed. These gunmen apparently stormed an Iraqi security dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs. So again, US officials are saying that 2 senior are suspected of taking part in an insurgent attack that killed 5 American soldiers."

The fake US military convoy that kidnapped and killed 5 soldiers had previously been blamed on Iranian elements.

"We have Pentagon officials telling us this was incredibly sophisticated orchestrated attack, at troubling attack from their perspective," Fox News Reporter Mike Emanuel reports live on air. "There's a great investigation underway trying to figure out exactly how this happened and who may have been behind it. There is some suggestion due to the level of sophistication, planning, coordination, perhaps Iranian agents had been involved in some way. Now we have sources telling us that at least 2 top iraqi generals are the center of this investigation being looked at to see if whether they may not be loyal allies ot the united states, after all. Whether they may be traitors in betraying US forces serving in Iraq trying to help their country."

Originally, the US said the five soldiers had been killed during fighting, but the Associated Press revealed the US statement was a lie.

"It makes you wonder if they are able to pass themselves off as Americans and get into this place in Karbala, could they do further attacks in places like the Green Zone," Emanuel continued. "Driving up in SUVs looking like they are an American security detail or American forces going into other places, other locations and perhaps put more Americans at risk. So, there are a lot of questions at this point. Again, it's early on in the investigation. We're hearing sources whether they're looking at the possibility that Iranian elements, parts of the Iranian government may have been involved. Now, the latest, 2 Iraq generals under suspicion."

More details as they become available.

DEVELOPING...

Well, well, well.

Any of the Bush-loving warmongers care to explain how you all "knew" it was Iranians that were involved in the attack at Karbala? I'd like to hear the spin on this one!

But, given this news, is there really any reason why our troops must remain in Iraq to act as target practice?

I do not recall any officials saying that it was definitely the work of the Iranians. Every single official source that I've seen quoted has used words like "might", "may be", or "one possibility."

Even these two Iraqi Generals are only "suspected" of being involved.

Most people call this the evolution of an investigation. The initial suspects are not always the culprits, but they're a damn fine place to start.

I'd like to refer you to your own link:

"Again, it's early on in the investigation. We're hearing sources whether they're looking at the possibility that Iranian elements, parts of the Iranian government may have been involved. Now, the latest, 2 Iraq generals under suspicion."

 

[DealMonkey]

Case-in-point. Some folks were ready to bomb on a maybe. So lame.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As I have been saying for a while: Bombs yes, invasion no.
How many people want to bet that if this information is solid and presented to the American people that a majority of them will support a limited strike against Iran?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
According to certain members on this forum you are an idiot if you do not believe Iran had something to do with the attacks.

wrong... you're only an idiot if you believe that Iranian operatives have nothing at all to do with some of the violence in Iraq.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
According to certain members on this forum you are an idiot if you do not believe Iran had something to do with the attacks.

wrong... you're only an idiot if you believe that Iranian operatives have nothing at all to do with some of the violence in Iraq.

Prove it.
You cannot.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
According to certain members on this forum you are an idiot if you do not believe Iran had something to do with the attacks.

wrong... you're only an idiot if you believe that Iranian operatives have nothing at all to do with some of the violence in Iraq.

Prove it.
You cannot.

So you are saying Iran has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any violence in Iraq?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
According to certain members on this forum you are an idiot if you do not believe Iran had something to do with the attacks.

wrong... you're only an idiot if you believe that Iranian operatives have nothing at all to do with some of the violence in Iraq.

Prove it.
You cannot.

So you are saying Iran has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any violence in Iraq?

I'm saying you cannot prove it and nobody on this forum knows squat about Iranian politics or interests other than what they read on FoxNews, etc.

The media makes Iran to be dangerous and "scary" so therefore people assume that there is no possible way that a scary nation can possibly not do any harm.