Ahmadinejad talks with Syrian ally before journey to U.S.

reply to post by seagull


I got the part about the US citizens being held by Iran.
I was more interested in the Iranians being held by the US, their background and stories etc.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by seagull

 

I got the part about the US citizens being held by Iran.
I was more interested in the Iranians being held by the US, their background and stories etc.

Sorry, 'bout that... Coming to the end of a long day...

To the best of my knowledge, the only Iranians that we may, or may not be holding would be enemy combatants captured on, oddly enough, a battlefield, or criminals caught in the process of doing,well...criminal stuff.

No hikers who got lost and strayed over from Canada, or from Mexico.

But I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Originally posted by seagull
To the best of my knowledge, the only Iranians that we may, or may not be holding would be enemy combatants captured on, oddly enough, a battlefield, or criminals caught in the process of doing,well...criminal stuff.

Possibly Iraqi or Afghan battlefields?
Now why would Iranians be on those battlefields?

One of these days he is going to get popped coming out of the UN/US.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
One of these days he is going to get popped coming out of the UN/US.

Well that would be a disaster IMO.
Let's hope that doesn't happen.

reply to post by SLAYER69


i heard a report last year i think on the MSM that U.S. forces captured Iranians in Iraq. If i remember correctly they said the captured Iranians was smuggling weapons into Iraq for the insurgents.

ETA: i never heard if this report was true, what types of weapons they had smuggled in, or what ever happened to the Iranians they captured.

Asking someone to prove these hikers may be CIA is almost impossible. From an old article though I see this:

A Kurdish official in Iraq has said the three contacted a colleague to say they had entered Iran by mistake on Friday and were surrounded by troops. Iran's state television later said the Americans were arrested after they did not heed warnings from Iranian border guards.

src

Who do you believe ? Both sides are lying sacks of garbage and would say anything to further their cause. Personally I don't believe the hikers story, not with GPS, the location and the previous statement (if it is to be believed). Can I prove they are CIA ? I don't think anyone can unless their own govt indicates otherwise and that wont happen. Are they lousy hikers? Perhaps but if in fact they did not heed the warning then tough luck for them, better get used to Iranian food.

brill

I don't believe that they were just "hikers" and I don't consider it to be proof, just because the government or MSM says so. In fact, I believe this same MSM outlet was also claiming that there were WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This same "media" outlet also claims that anyone suggesting Israel had a hand in 9/11 is a racist and an anti-semite, though to suggest that it is the fault of Arabs is somehow not. Proof that they are "hikers" just because they say so? Sorry, I need something other than that.

In fact, the circumstantial evidence is knee-deep and from the information I have, it is much more plausible that they were intelligence agency assets. The probability that they were hikers is low, though not impossible, however the probability that they are intelligence assets is high, though not definite.

I'm pretty sure that the US has assets on the ground in Iran, as was evident in the protests following the [democratic] presidential election. Furthermore, Iran has a huge bulls-eye painted across their chest because of their euro-based oil Bourse threatening the petro-dollar, according to my own theory. It would actually be a tad-bit foolish to think that the CIA or other intelligence agencies wouldn't have boots on the ground in Iran. If you want a completely anonymous asset to enter the country, it would only make sense that they either enter from Afghanistan or Iraq, otherwise the Iranians are going to have it registered and minded. Unless Americans are visiting family or friends in Iran, they can only travel on tourist visas that are a part of a pre-selected "tour". Americans are watched closely in Iran.

If the US is slipping agents into Iran to get around Iranian customs, as would be expected, these "hikers" are fitting that persona to a "t". Then, there are the claims that these hikers have known connections to intelligence services and whether that is true or not, I have no idea but the source is no less credible than the sources suggesting that they are only hikers.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Well that's an interesting perspective.



Allow me a few minutes to read your links.

reply to post by airspoon


I would think that if they were going to send spies into Iran, they would send someone who could blend into the environment, not a group that stands out like a sore thumb.

If these three had been caught dressed in a manner that made them look like they belonged to the area, then I think you would have a point.

Here is a story on their background, I doubt if they were spys.

articles.sfgate.com...

Bauer studied conflict
Bauer graduated with honors from UC Berkeley in 2007, earning a bachelor's degree with a major in peace and conflict studies and a minor in Arabic. He went to Sudan's Darfur region to research a thesis on the crisis there.

Shourd a former tutor

Shourd is described by those who know her as passionate about teaching, traveling and politics. After receiving a bachelor's degree in English in May 2003, she worked as a tutor with Americorps, a tutoring service in Berkeley and a charter elementary school in Oakland.

"She's a lovely person," said Lisa Miller, director of Classroom Matters in Berkeley, where Shourd tutored mostly middle-school students for about a year. "She's very devoted to making a difference in the lives of young people."

Shourd also worked as a freelance journalist, writing about the Middle East on political and travel Web sites. For a travel site, she wrote a story about Yemen titled "Brave Eyes, Laughing Hearts" about wearing a veil and joining a local family for a Ramadan celebration.

Environmental studies

Fattal, who earned his bachelor's degree in environmental economics and policy, is a Pennsylvania native who recently worked and lived at a sustainable living research center in Oregon.

A friend, Emily Busch, 25, of San Francisco said Fattal founded a class in spring 2005 called "Liberation and reality: moving toward a collective autonomy" through UC Berkeley's student-run DeCal program.

Doesn't sound like spies to me, just foolish idealist poking their noses around where they shouldn't have been.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by airspoon

 

I would think that if they were going to send spies into Iran, they would send someone who could blend into the environment, not a group that stands out like a sore thumb.

If these three had been caught dressed in a manner that made them look like they belonged to the area, then I think you would have a point.

That is something that get's ignored or is deemed irrelevant becuase it doesn't fit into the belief that the CIA is to blame and is responsible for everything that is wrong in Iran.

reply to post by poet1b


There is a huge difference between a "spy" and an "asset". In fact, at least one of the hikers, if not all three, travel to some pretty exoitc places, which is the cream of the crop for CIA or other foreign intelligence agencies. In fact, it used to be that anyone who spent a considerable amount of time in a country outside of the "west", would get debriefed by the CIA and so would be exposed to the agency. Furthermore, the CIA cares little about someone's political points of view, so long as they are not anti-American and sometimes even if they are. If these guys did spend any considerable amount of time in exotic places, I'm sure they were approached by the CIA and if not the CIA, then foreign intelligence agencies meddling in the affairs of whatever country they happen to be in.

Furthermore, they don't just let anyone into Iraq. You can't just hop on the next plane heading to Baghdad, go through customs and be on your way, especially with a US passport. I know these guys were traveling on both US and Syrian passports, but they still had US passports. They would have had to have been there on some type of pre-planned business, such as the press-corps or an American government contract. Allegedly, they were their for vacation, which just doesn't jive for anyone who has been to Iraq and knows the strengent entrance policies. So, how did they get into Iraq, who pulled the strings to get them in and why?

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
Furthermore, they don't just let anyone into Iraq.

You do realize the borders in the region do not have a fence or wall like the US/Mexico border and it is very easy to cross from one country to the next and not even realize one has done so like in his case until it was too late.

reply to post by seagull

You distrust the msm, yet to prove your point you use the msm.

So, in retrospect, when you said you distrust the main stream media, what you really meant was: You disagree/distrust only when it doesn't suit your agenda...

This is a new argument used against those who distrusts and questions the motives of MSM, or any mainstream news organization..

Just because you distrust a media source, doesn't mean you can't use their work as source, you just question their work in depth.

There is reporting, reporting consists the surroundings of an event and the event. To extract propaganda from real news you have to extract many facts from different sources, for example if there is a news report which states American jets kill 70 people, find out who's account is the news source taking, meaning who is the source of the news source, if there are conflicting reports, then you have to take all the conflicting reports in to account, plus the details of the incident, then make your judgement.

When we say we don't trust the media, it isn't because they report outright lies, it is because they report it in a way which can easily manipulate the thoughts of the ignorant.

reply to post by airspoon


I have no doubt that the CIA, or any intelligence service, questions these people, and wouldn't hesitate to use them whenever possible.

Still, unless their biographies have been made up, they weren't spies. They are peaceniks who probably thought the Iranians would give them hugs and send them back across the border with a juice pack.

I imagine we do have spies in Iran, who most likely are Iranians, so we don't need to sneak people in over the border, just find a way to get them money.

Well, to be truly honest, I think Ahmadinejad works for the same people GW Cheney work for, and it isn't the people of Iran or the U.S..

reply to post by poet1b


Again, I'm not talking about spies, I'm talking about assets, huge difference. They could have been relaying a message, mapping the border area or retriving intelligence to be exported out of the country, something not done so easily by an Iranian or someone who entered the country in the right way. Also, how would you account for the strings being pulled to get them in country? There is no way that they could have gotten a tourist visa, as those aren't given out in the current conflict, especially to Americans.

Whether you don't think the Iranians are bad or not, has little to do with it, as anyone with two braincells would know that entering a country illegally (other than the US) brings dire consequences, especially these people who travel alot and especially from a country wracked with war.

I happen to think that Iran isn't a bad country and I would feel much safer with the Palestinians in Gaza, as opposed to the Israelis (and I'm Jewish, lol), however I wouldn't dare enter either one of those countries, save for the proper way. So again, their politics matters not.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Maybe the CIA was watching to see what they could get, but I seriously doubt these foolish idealists would have willingly cooperated with the CIA.

I still think they are three peaceniks with more money from probably a trust fund, then they have brains.

As far as diplomatic efforts, it is no more than we see when someone gets lost in the wilderness or out to sea. As a civilization we try to rescue people who get themselves in such jams.

I think the Iranians know they are harmless peaceniks, but are holding on to them, because Dick told them to, cause he hates peaceniks and enjoys screwing with the community.

See www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by poet1b


Interesting discussion, just wondered about this comment:

I think the Iranians know they are harmless peaceniks, but are holding on to them, because Dick told them to, cause he hates peaceniks and enjoys screwing with the community.

Wouldn't it be more logical for Iran to hold them in the hopes that US would release Iranian prisoners?
Whether they are spies or not, Iran has motives for holding them this long.

FACT #1

The authorities charged the three with "spying and illegally entering the country," but they said they entered Iran by mistake after getting lost in Iraqi Kurdistan.

www.google.com...
It seems they have been charged, but not convicted.

FACT #2

"The Islamic republic did this unilateral, humanitarian act. We hope that they appreciate the Islamic republic's deed and do something humanitarian," Ahmadinejad said.

....
Ahmadinejad said he hoped Washington would now release Iranians it is holding.
Iranian media reports have said the United States is holding around a dozen Iranians, some of them detained in other countries at US request.

I don't care how popular "Adventure Tourism" in Kurdistan is, those people were not just hikers in my opinion.

They were warned by travel agents, hotel management, police, and the locals - they were shown detailed maps about where NOT to go. Many were worried about them before setting out, and made sure to imprint the danger of crossing the border. Yet lo and behold, those danger zones are where they ended up wandering to. If they just got lost, then they are so dumb that I'm surprised they even found Iraq to begin with.

It's ABSURD to accuse Iran of "kidnapping". They have laws and protect their borders. Being surrounded on all sides by territory occupied by US and NATO military forces who have demonstrated extreme hostility in the form of forged intelligence reports, unjustified sanctions, massive funding for CIA infiltration/destabilization efforts, pressuring Iranian allies to back away, etc. etc. etc., I'd say they may have an ounce of justification for being a bit paranoid about "hikers who got lost".

Call me crazy. But it's better than being a fear-mongerer.

Something has been bothering me about this whole story. something just doesn't fit with how the 3 got to iraq. its been pretty much common knowledge that the only way you can officially get into iraq these days from the U.S. is if your a government contractor. so that got me thinking about how they could have possibly gotten into Iraq and then to the border of Iran/Iraq.

its just a theory but, IF they had both U.S. and Syrian passports. it could be possible that they went to Syria first and then entered Iraq. made their way across Iraq to the Iranian border.

But then i got to thinking why anyone in their right mind would go "hiking" along the Iraq/Iran border these days. its not really the safest place for anyone lately, esspecially 3 americans.

then i read airspoons posts and i think he is on to something here. these 3 are not spies, but they definately are assets used by 1 of the 3 letter alphabet soup agencies. used as a courier to get intel out of Iran to the west. just this time Iranian border patrol was in the right spot at the right time and either caught these 3 before they could meet there contact along the border, or durring the meeting, or just shortly after and found the intel on one of them.




reply to post by oozyism


Funny your fact #2 leaves out a very important fact according to the MSM. she was released after someone paid a $500,000 ransom i mean bail

It is unclear how long the 32-year-old plans to stay in Oman. The Gulf Arab sultanate played a key role in securing her release by acting as intermediary and handling the details of her $500,000 bail.

source 1

Press TV, the English-language satellite broadcaster, said Ms. Shourd was freed on $500,000 bail, although her lawyer was later quoted as saying her family could not afford it.

source 2

After almost 14 months of mostly solitary confinement in Iran on charges of espionage, Shourd was released Tuesday on $500,000 bail partially because of medical concerns, Iranian officials said. She reportedly is suffering from a serious gynecological condition and found a lump in her breast.

source 3

also to your fact #1. they have been charged and on the day Shourd was rleased Iranian prosecutors said the 2 others will face trial next month.