Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US 'spies' To Go On Trial In Iran  
User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

Three Americans are due to go on trial in Iran, accused of spying and illegally entering the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12375575

The best part..

Ms Shourd was freed on health grounds last year and returned to the US, under a $500,000 (£314,386) bail.

Iran has said she will forfeit bail money if she does not return to stand trial..


Yeah..right..$500,000 or your life...hmm..such a hard choice to make..

Hiking in a war torn country that borders a country that punishes its citizens for speaking against a sham election is not the brightest idea...I guess these "hikers" never heard of the Appalachians.


אני תומך בישראל
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Seems strange they would let her go on bail, and especially leave the country.

What were the health reasons ?

Otherwise, its just a case of posturing, what else would you expect ?

And they are just innocent victims.

Its old news. !

[Edited 2011-02-05 23:53:25]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3503 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 1):
And they are just innocent victims.

They are innocent, but not smart.



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1750 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 2):
but not smart.

Well, that's another thing all together   



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19953 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1733 times:

It's in situations like this where I think the U.S. actually should stand up and show some backbone.

"FYI: if you execute U.S. citizens on bogus charges, we'll take that as an act of war and we'll fire missiles at every government target in Iran. Lots of them. Including that fancy reactor you have. Just a friendly warning."

Were they smart? No. No U.S. citizen should go within 50 miles of the Iran border. But if you listen to the story, they were at a resort and there was no clear marking of where the border was.

Why do I think we should do this? Because it's obvious that Iran is jerking around with us again. Also because this sort of attack would destabilize the country enough for the rebellion to take hold again and finally end the repressive dictatorship there. We don't have to drop one troop on the ground.

[Edited 2011-02-06 00:46:59]

User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6348 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Are they innocent? Yes, probably...none of us can say 100% without having inside government knowledge, but I would bet 99.99999999998% they are innocent.

But wow...from Day 1, I have claimed these must be the most idiotic people on the planet. I canceled my trip to Cairo this week because of a clash between pro and anti-government groups just to be safe...who the hell goes hiking in Iraq near the border of Iran? If you have to worry about "not knowing where the border is" of a country that you will get arrested for crossing into...you should hike in another place.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 2003, 14078 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
It's in situations like this where I think the U.S. actually should stand up and show some backbone.

"FYI: if you execute U.S. citizens on bogus charges, we'll take that as an act of war and we'll fire missiles at every government target in Iran. Lots of them. Including that fancy reactor you have. Just a friendly warning."

Last week Iran hanged an Iranian-Dutch woman. Acc. to the Iranian government she was executed as a drug dealer, but here family and friends claim that this charge is bogus and that she was executed because of her involvement with the protests of 2009.
Since Iran doesn´t recognise an Iranian changing citizenship (apparently she became Dutch several years ago, but for the Iranian government if you are born as an Iranian, you´ll stay Iranian forever) , they refused to let Dutch diplomats or defenders to see her in prison.
Since she was quite wealthy fromlegal sources of income, acc. to her family and friends it is unlikely that she resorted to drug dealing.

Jan

[Edited 2011-02-06 03:08:01]

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11669 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
Also because this sort of attack would destabilize the country enough for the rebellion to take hold again and finally end the repressive dictatorship there. We don't have to drop one troop on the ground.

That would be a very foolish and aggressive move; it could just as easily rally the people behind their leaders by proving the drivel which pours from Ahmadinejad's mouth, and then what have you achieved? Killed tens of thousands of innocent people, cowardly destabilised an entire country and no doubt wrecked the US's already damaged relations with most Muslim countries forever.

Sure sounds wise to me...


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 7):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
Also because this sort of attack would destabilize the country enough for the rebellion to take hold again and finally end the repressive dictatorship there. We don't have to drop one troop on the ground.

That would be a very foolish and aggressive move; it could just as easily rally the people behind their leaders by proving the drivel which pours from Ahmadinejad's mouth, and then what have you achieved? Killed tens of thousands of innocent people, cowardly destabilised an entire country and no doubt wrecked the US's already damaged relations with most Muslim countries forever.

Ahmedinajad has spent a lot of time trying to rally the masses against the "foreign enemy" (America, Israel, whatever) -- and he is only the most recent in a long line of tyrants who have done so. An attack on Iran I do not think would destabilise it, but it might well give Mr A the support he craves, thus solidifying his and the republican Guards position, and weakening the Supreme Council, which I believe is what more or less keeps him in check.

As for the unfortunate American duo left in Iran, they were dumb, but they're not spies. But they are now pawns in a bigger game. In order for them to get home, America is going to have to go to Iran with something.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
"FYI: if you execute U.S. citizens on bogus charges, we'll take that as an act of war and we'll fire missiles at every government target in Iran. Lots of them. Including that fancy reactor you have. Just a friendly warning."

DocLightning, we don't often disagree, but I have to take issue with you on this. Missiles (or bombs) don't win wars; they only, at best, 'soften up' the country concerned. To 'win,' you have to invade and occupy the place. A glance at the map will tell you that Iran, being mostly mountainous, is 'impossible' country to invade and occupy - especially with the relatively tiny active ground-forces that the USA, like the rest of us, maintains 'in time of peace.'

So any attack by bombers and/or missiles - apart from killing numbers of innocent Iranian civilians - would do nothing significant in terms of influencing the Iranian bigwigs, who will be safe in their underground shelters. All it will do is further alienate Iranian public opinion against the West in general, and the USA in particular. And probably do much the same in a number of other Middle-Eastern countries.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 7):
That would be a very foolish and aggressive move; it could just as easily rally the people behind their leaders by proving the drivel which pours from Ahmadinejad's mouth

Couldn't agree more with PlymSpotter's point. I don't know what the answer to this problem is (except to tell people from the West not, in future, to be stupid enough to go anywhere NEAR the Iranian border). But I'm quite certain that 'missiles and bombs' can only make a bad situation worse..........

[Edited 2011-02-06 06:30:51]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19953 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):

DocLightning, we don't often disagree, but I have to take issue with you on this. Missiles (or bombs) don't win wars; they only, at best, 'soften up' the country concerned. To 'win,' you have to invade and occupy the place. A glance at the map will tell you that Iran, being mostly mountainous, is 'impossible' country to invade and occupy

We don't have to invade it. We need to destroy enough military and government targets that the rebel movement can take hold.

Basically, it would send a message that the U.S. does not take kindly to kidnapping and executing our citizens.

And remember, the vast majority of Iranians have no love for their government.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
We don't have to drop one troop on the ground.

I think you may have to if you go down that path.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
To 'win,' you have to invade and occupy the place. A glance at the map will tell you that Iran, being mostly mountainous, is 'impossible' country to invade and occupy -

That's right NAV20.

Just cast your mind back to the problems associated with fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. From what I have read/heard its an almost impossible task fighting in those mountainous regions of the world, let alone trying to pin point and track down possible insurgents



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19953 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):

Just cast your mind back to the problems associated with fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a very different situation. You have a basically bronze-age society there. Iran is a much more advanced society with an intellectual tradition and already a large, organized resistance waiting for an opportunity. If we'd just wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan, various warlords would have come in and tried to carve out their feifdoms.

I don't think that would be the outcome in Iran. I think there would be a revolution and a new government would take place, hopefully a more secular one.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
ran is a much more advanced society with an intellectual tradition and already a large, organized resistance waiting for an opportunity.

I don't think that would be the outcome in Iran. I think there would be a revolution and a new government would take place, hopefully a more secular one.

Iran also has a large underclass of impoverished and rather poorly educated people. Who think the sun shines out of Ahmedinajad's *ss, at least as long as the subsidies continue. I know there was a lot of anger about the reduction in the gasoline subsidy last year.

But I think America pounding the crap out of Mr A & the RGs, if it came to that, wouldn't cause the masses to rise up in righteous anger and throw him out. More likely he'd be out there rallying them to fight the Great Satan. The middle class might be tempted to revolt, but they also know what happened to many people ID'ed as part of the post-election demonstrations last year.

In any event, these kids aren't going to be executed. Iran will extract something from the USA to get them back.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineiakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3313 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
It's in situations like this where I think the U.S. actually should stand up and show some backbone.

Never thought about a totally different picture than what the government (US in this case) wishes you (we) to know ?

What if the USA was holding some Iranian citizens and Tehran sees it appropriate to use some disoriented/distracted/inattentive hickers (without a map and a GPS ??) as bargain chips ?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 2003, 14078 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

Some years ago the Iranians arrested a German sports fisherman, who was fishing in the waters of some islands (with a guide from the UAE) in the Strait of Hormuz, which are contested between Iran and the UAE. The islands themselves have been occupied by Iranian troops still under the Shah and the native Arab population expelled.

The German was arrested as a spy and was incarcerated in Iran for several years, along with a German businessman who was arrested in Teheran for allegedly having an affair with an Iranian woman, until the German government gave in and released two Iranians, who in 1992 under orders of the iranian intelligence service had assassinated several exile Iranian politicians in a Greek restaurant in Berlin (the "Mykonos assassinations" and were serving life terms in Germany.

Jan


User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5728 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
I don't think that would be the outcome in Iran. I think there would be a revolution and a new government would take place, hopefully a more secular one.

I think the lesson from the failed uprising of 2009 was that as long as any revolt stays contained within cities, the Ahmedjihad's regime stands a good chance of survival. For that very reason and given the "popularity" of the Great Satan among the non-urban population, any direct or indirect US involvement is probably counterproductive to efforts to make the revolt truly popular.
As far as those who will go on trial I think there is not much the governement can do in such situations. At the same time one has to question their judgment and ability to think through consequences of their actions.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11669 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1428 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Basically, it would send a message that the U.S. does not take kindly to kidnapping and executing our citizens.

No, it would send the message that Americans hate Iranians. I can't believe you are honestly suggesting such a dispicable attack over the foolishness of three US citizens. I am disgusted.



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):

We need to destroy enough military and government targets that the rebel movement can take hold.

The trouble is, even if all the missiles or bombs went exactly where they were aimed (which would be just about the first time in history that that has ever happened) the 'military' targets would be manned by conscript soldiers and the 'industrial' ones would be operated by ordinary Iranian workers. Killing lots of them would hardly have the effect of mobilising Iranian public opinion in favour of the USA?

As to any rebel movement 'taking hold,' the one 'most likely to succeed' would appear to be the 'Mujahadeen-e-Khalq' - which, again, is hardly likely to lead to improved Iran-US relations  :-

"Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahadeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and to the European Union’s terrorist list in 2002 because its attacks have often killed civilians."

http://www.cfr.org/iran/mujahadeen-e...-peoples-mujahedin-iran-pmoi/p9158

Please don't think, doc, that I don't sympathise with the three Americans in their predicament. My point is just that military action (especially the large-scale, indiscriminate 'blitz' that you are proposing) would just make their situation a darned sight worse........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8638 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

Quoting sw733 (Reply 5):
who the hell goes hiking in Iraq near the border of Iran?

You're asking about people who travel to Iraq, which is in a warzone. Given that kind of fearless travel, I would expect Iran to be a peaceful place with excellent law and order, compared to Iraq. Iran is known for being friendly to tourists! Clearly these were adventure travelers who had a lot of moxie, no plan, and a taste for danger. They were also very unlucky on top of that.


User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6348 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
Iran is known for being friendly to tourists!

I know, I have been there. They are very friendly. It's not Iran that I am curious about...it's the whole "hey, let's go to Iraq" thing. Who thought of that idea?!?!

And besides, it's not even the Iraq thing that makes me scratch my head, but rather why they went so close to the border with no means of accurately finding out where it exactly was.

Just poor choices on their part...they crossed a border illegally because they were idiots. Are they spies, no, but should they face some sort of punishment...yeah, anyone who crosses any border illegally should.


User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

Think about this though, if you took Iran out of the picture, who is left to stir up the Middle East?
When we leave Iraq, who will try to influence a continued insurgency in Iraq? (Iran) Who is a continuous threat to Israel? (Iran) Who are we worried about influencing the new Egyptian Gov? (Iran)
Now look at a map of Iran, and see how many sides of their country we already have troops, and could launch an attack from? Afghan, Iraq, Turkey, the Persian Gulf; we have them surrounded, they would seriously be stupid to screw with us.
And I say this, as I sit 60 miles from the border of Iran, on the #1 base they would strike back against.
Doc, you gave me chills!
Stay Safe!


User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 21):
if you took Iran out of the picture,

Won't be happening anytime soon. Iran, unlike Iraq, has a capable military and would probably even use nukes if attacked. The only way to change their mentality at this stage is with diplomacy/negotiations...war won't solve anything..it'll only add to the growing mess that is Iraq and Afghanistan.



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 22):
and would probably even use nukes if attacked.

They don't have nukes......yet.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1158 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 21):
Think about this though, if you took Iran out of the picture, who is left to stir up the Middle East?

Mudboy, what exactly do you mean by 'taking Iran out of the picture'? The population of Iran is 73M. Surely, if we attacked Iran ( I say we because Commonwealth forces are helping you in both Iraq and Afghanistan) we'd end up with the same kind of 'tiger by the tail' that we have hold of in those places - not enough soldiers to occupy them properly, just a constant drain of casualties and no progress worth mentioning towards a political settlement?

Quoting Mudboy, Reply 21 - "Now look at a map of Iran, and see how many sides of their country we already have troops, and could launch an attack from?'

Have another look at that map and, first of all, note all the mountains! Sure, you could 'launch an attack' - but it would stand no chance at all of succeeding, with so few US/Commonwealth troops available. And don't forget that all supplies would have to come either through the Suez Canal or through Pakistan/Afghanistan; not exactly 'secure lines of communication.'

Almost can't believe that, given the mess we've ended up with in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are still people in favour of attacking yet a third country with our tiny regular forces. As far as I know, 'Third time lucky' doesn't apply to wars.......

Unless, of course, you can persuade the President and Congress to bring back the draft and spend a couple of years building and equipping armies big enough to do the job of invading Iran properly........  

[Edited 2011-02-07 19:15:54]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineogre727 From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 721 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
I don't think that would be the outcome in Iran. I think there would be a revolution and a new government would take place, hopefully a more secular one.

I am sorry... but this post is absolutely appaling... I mean, why do you think you have the right to alter things in a country and "provoque" a revolution???? whether we like the regime there or not (and I certainly don´t) this approach is very disrespectful and has been the root of the US´s flawed international politics approach.

I am appaled.



Sigh
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Major Oil Field On Fire In Iran posted Sun Jan 3 2010 08:26:00 by MadameConcorde
Some People Shouldnt Be Allowed To Go On Holidays! posted Wed Jun 17 2009 05:41:37 by OA260
US Congress To Vote On Mandatory Paid Vacation Act posted Thu May 21 2009 16:59:47 by StasisLAX
HSV To LAX To OAK On UA In '80 posted Tue Jan 1 2008 09:49:40 by Xtoler
US 'has To Act' On Climate Report posted Tue Apr 3 2007 00:59:20 by OzGlobal
US 'Licence To Snoop' On Flying Britons posted Mon Jan 1 2007 15:58:56 by AeroWesty
JGPH1A To Go On A Diet! posted Fri Dec 15 2006 11:17:20 by Gkirk
It Isn`t Good To Be A Porno Star In Iran posted Thu Nov 30 2006 23:04:44 by Oldeuropean
Who's Next To Go On Idol posted Fri Apr 28 2006 21:39:09 by Civ4b2fan
Jane Fonda To Go On Anti-war Tour Of America posted Tue Jul 26 2005 18:53:43 by ConcordeBoy