What's new

Breaking: Iran detains U.S navy soldiers entering Iranian territorial waters

Status
Not open for further replies.
The current US government are playing it down as usual. The Democrats are doing everything to keep the nuke agreement unscathed. They cannot afford to lose any face during election fever because the Republicans will be pouncing on their face all year long. These are definitely detained navy soldiers. Let any other country detain a US citizens let alone ten navy soldiers and get away with it like the Iranians have thus far.

I still remember how Pakistan detained Raymond Davis the killer and how the Americans blackmailed 200 million people for his return...

The Raymond Davis release should be blamed on the heir of the victims... Bastards took money and US nationality as blood money for his release.

He is a Takfiris sympathizer, pointing his gun at Shias. If you already do not know.

It's quiet regular these days.
 
What is taqiyya..? I've heard that term a lot here... And only on PDF.
تقیه
Taqiyya means gaining more benefits and choosing the less harm in the social policies, whether by an individual or a society, and it's divided into allowed and forbidden(Haram) kind.
for example when American drone violates Pakistan's sovereignty, you guys can choose to not shoot it down and let it bombard your people and instead denounce it, This behavior is called Taqiyya.
 
Last edited:
Ur link perfectly confirms my point.

Please explain to me how Iran fighting in Syria and Iraq is dependent of the US?
Iran is up to its neck in Syrian and Iraqi swamp. It depends on US air support and must pray that US prevents weapon aid to rebels. If US stops air support and gives green light to arming rebels Assadists with Iranian mercenaries will be squashed within months.

Air forces can't do shit in Iraq
LOL. Never seen anything more retarded than this.

Most of the useful airstrikes aree being done by Russia in Syria because they're striking vital support infrastructure like oil convoys, power stations, command centres etc. The Americans are reluctant to attack these because they don't want the SAA and Iran to makeup ground that can be leverage in Geneva negotiations.

If the Americans left Iraq right now it wouldn't make much of a difference, most of ISIS' support structure and backbone is in Syria.
Yeah, u mean bombing grain silos and calling them oil refineries.


Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!


Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!


Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!
 
Iran is up to its neck in Syrian and Iraqi swamp.

Iran is gaining ground by the day. The SAA recently captured the strategic town of Salma. This is close to ISIS/FSA/Al Nusra supply routes in Turkey. The upsurge in Iranian forces in Syria as well as Russian aircraft has brought this about, otherwise the Americans wouldn't have gotten serious about negotiations. Now that they can't win they want to come to the negotiating table.

It depends on US air support and must pray that US prevents weapon aid to rebels. If US stops air support and gives green light to arming rebels Assadists with Iranian mercenaries will be squashed within months.

Hahahahaaaaaa

Hama-screengrab2.png


These FSA have managed to get some BGM-71 TOW. God, I can't think where that weapon is from. Is it... Belgium? No... Norway... no... 500, help me out here, wheree is the BGM-71 designed, produced and exported from? o_O

It depends on US air support

Lol... the Americans don't give a **** about destroying ISIS otherwise they could have done a few months not over a year. The US want to see Iran's Syrian ally burn, or even better, be "liberated" by the "moderate" rebels. As do Saudi. Thus, any actual bombing of proper targets like oil infrastructure and supply routes is minimal and for the cameras. The rest is just a show.

And I suppose these huge flames are from "grain", yes?

 
Please explain to me how Iran fighting in Syria and Iraq is dependent of the US?

Air forces can't do shit in Iraq, bombing scattered terrorists is useless unless you're strafing with ground attack craft like AC-130s, Apaches or warthogs. Neither of which the US is doing.
Most of the useful airstrikes aree being done by Russia in Syria because they're striking vital support infrastructure like oil convoys, power stations, command centres etc. The Americans are reluctant to attack these because they don't want the SAA and Iran to makeup ground that can be leverage in Geneva negotiations.

If the Americans left Iraq right now it wouldn't make much of a difference, most of ISIS' support structure and backbone is in Syria.

False. Even the Iraqis said they only managed to take back Ramadi thanks to Coalition Air Strikes

Even in Syria, US airstrikes made a big difference, Kurdish territories doubled and prevented the seize of Kobane
on contrary, Russia hasn't managed the same level of change in Syria.
 
good for those soldiers, they will receive a 400 dollar hacoupian suite + IRGC warm hospitality.
bad for the rest of Americans. they will loose several thousands dollars of their assets :D + their hegemony fantasy

wait a minute, one of them is a woman, :oops:
------
since Mr Rohani doesn't want any tensions, I suggest to hand them over to the American representatives in Syria, those (so called moderate) cannibal terrorists.
 
Last edited:
False. Even the Iraqis said they only managed to take back Ramadi thanks to Coalition Air Strikes

Even in Syria, US airstrikes made a big difference, Kurdish territories doubled and prevented the seize of Kobane
on contrary, Russia hasn't managed the same level of change in Syria.
Russia is doing same think what they did in A stan .
 
good for those soldiers, they will receive a 400 dollar hacoupian suite + IRGC warm hospitality.
bad for the rest of Americans. they will loose several thousands dollars of their assets :D + their hegemony fantasy

wait a minute, one of them is a woman, :oops:
------
since Mr Rohani doesn't want any tensions, I suggest to hand them over to the American representatives in Syria, those (so called moderate) cannibal terrorists.

Indeed, your leader wants to return them pretty quickly.
 
False. Even the Iraqis said they only managed to take back Ramadi thanks to Coalition Air Strikes

Even in Syria, US airstrikes made a big difference, Kurdish territories doubled and prevented the seize of Kobane
on contrary, Russia hasn't managed the same level of change in Syria.
The SAA is actually taking large swaths of land around Aleppo, because of both Russian Airstrikes and Russian supplied T-90As for the 4th mechanized division.
The u.s launched airstrikes against Saddam's Iraq in 1990 and managed to break an Army of almost 1,000,000 men.
Yet with the same air force plus everyone else they can't defeat a couple of poorly trained jihadists that can barely hold AK-47s (and M-16s). It is clear from this alone that the u.s doesn't really seem to want ISIS gone.
At least not enough to do efficient airstrikes.
Ur link perfectly confirms my point.


Iran is up to its neck in Syrian and Iraqi swamp. It depends on US air support and must pray that US prevents weapon aid to rebels. If US stops air support and gives green light to arming rebels Assadists with Iranian mercenaries will be squashed within months.


LOL. Never seen anything more retarded than this.


Yeah, u mean bombing grain silos and calling them oil refineries.


Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!


Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!


Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!

You are clearly paranoid.
I remember Iraqi dispouria said something similar about their country from 1991-2002.
"We are too important to u.s foreign policy. Saddam is the boogyman that keeps the other Arabs in line. The u.s won't get rid off him.
We all know how that worked out for them.
Russian airstrikes destroy 472 terrorist targets in Syria in 48 hours, 1,000 oil tankers in 5 days — RT News
I have no doubt food sources are targets.
But its mostly camps, refineries and hideouts getting hit
 
They may have drifted due to a technical issue. As a goodwill gesture Iran should release them.
 
Good article on New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-holds-us-navy-boats-crew.html?_r=0

And some of the comments by NYT readers:

1- I'm sure President Obama will issue another apology to Iran, the last one for our ships getting in the way of their missile, this one for entering the internationally disputed territorial waters, maybe with a tear from the left eye. He will offer to pay for the fuel expended by Iran, food provided to sailors and the room charge. Meanwhile I 'am sure the Iranians have been all over the boats, seizing and copying the code books, radar, weapons and anything they think is valuable. Wonder how the interrogation of our forces went. Maybe President Obama will speed up the $150 billion dollar check promised in the nuke deal, after all Hezbollah and Hamas need the money to fund terrorist attacks against Israel and the West.

2- I accept the fact of our government's need to carry out surveillance on countries that wish us ill even though we may have to work with them from time-to-time.

What I don't understand is "why" our military would schedule this type of "off course" incident so close to one of the key implementation dates of our nuclear deal with Iran.

If I believed in conspiracy theories, or multiple shooters on the grassy knoll, it would be easy to believe that the military was attempting to scuttle the deal. The only other option would be to believe that commanders in the navy were stupid.

So, Admiral Richardson. Which is it?

3- Something smells fishy. Someone in the Navy needs to have their feet held to the fire to find out how something this stupid could happen. I'm not usually a conspiracy type, but this does not sound right. Is someone in the Navy trying to create an international incident? Someone needs to answer for this.

4- A riverine boat, accompanied by another, has a mechanical failure. They then drift into Iranian waters together. Am I to believe that neither vessel had a rope?

5- How unforgivably stupid for us to wander into Iranian waters at this delicate time. We should have been nowhere near that line. Somebody in the Navy should lose their ranking after this incident. This gives ammunition to both the hard core right in Iran and the Neo Con hawks in the U.S. It is infuriating that we could be so incompetent. Let's hope cooler heads prevail all around. Should be a nice backdrop for Obama's last State of the Union.

6- They timed it well, in time for Obama's state of the union address. They have no respect for the president, reflected in their behavior during and following the atrocious nuclear deal. This just makes him look that much more like a bumbling incompetent.

7- The Iranians know they can do anything they want and Obama will do nothing because he is so desperate to make a deal with them.

8- If a Republican was president we’d invade Iraq again.

9- Q: What would happen if two small Iranian Naval Boats strayed into US territorial waters?

A : Obama and Kerry would convene a session of the UN and offer Iran hundreds of billions of dollars to turn their ships around. Then, Kerry would condemn Israel.

10- How odd that a technologically advanced navy would "wander accidentally" anywhere at all. After all, my Samsung telephone has a GPS is perfectly able to let me know where I am when I ride my bike home. I am perplexed

11- Great.
Now our Navy appears to be unable to stay out of Iran's territorial waters.
We are very lucky that Kerry is Secretary of State - or these sailors might be held hostage for years.
Let's hope they are returned soon - but if I understand how Iranian politics works, there will be a "price".
I wonder what that will be.

12- Without reading any responses, let me guess: the democrats blame America and claim every American statement is a lie and very Iranian statement is the truth The democrats praise Iranian "restraint" for not killing the bloodthirsty imperialist cowboy murderers as they should have!

Indeed, your leader wants to return them pretty quickly.

It is not about returning them, which I am sure Iran will do as a magnanimous humanitarian gesture.

The implication that comes out of this is, for US supported Arab absolute monarchy dictatorships in the region. When they see their master humbled and play accordingly with Iran, they get the message loud, clear and strong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom