Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: U.S. officer: Iran sends Iraq bomb parts

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    U.S. officer: Iran sends Iraq bomb parts

    U.S. officer: Iran sends Iraq bomb parts
    AP
    02/11/07
    BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military officials on Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces.

    The military command in Baghdad denied, however, that any newly smuggled Iranian weapons were behind the five U.S. military helicopter crashes since Jan. 20 — four that were shot out of the sky by insurgent gunfire.

    A fifth crash has tentatively been blamed on mechanical failure. In the same period, two private security company helicopters also have crashed but the cause was unclear.

    The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said it traced to Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.

    The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.

    Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the display was prompted by the military's concern for "force protection," which, they said, was guaranteed under the United Nations resolution that authorizes American soldiers to be in Iraq.

    Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

    The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there.

    The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    The briefing on Iran was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month.

    Senior U.S. officials in Washington — cautious after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion — had held back because they were unhappy with the original presentation.

    The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents.

    It included a power-point slide program and a handful of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades which the military officials said were made in Iran.

    The centerpiece of the display, however, was a gray metal pipe about 10 inches long and 6 inches in diameter, the exterior casing of what the military said was an EFP, the roadside bomb that shoots out fist-sized wads of nearly molten copper that can penetrate the armor on an Abrams tank.

    The EFPs, as well as Iranian-made mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades, have been supplied to what the military officials termed "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He is a key backer of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

    The U.S. officials glossed over armaments having reached the other major Shiite militia organization, the Badr Brigade. It is the military wing of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leaders also have close ties to the U.S.

    Many key government figures and members of the Shiite political establishment have deep ties to Iran, having spent decades there in exile during Saddam Hussein's rule. The Badr Brigade was formed and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

    The U.S. officials said there was no evidence of Iranian-made EFPs having fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents who operate mainly in Anbar province in the west of Iraq, Baghdad and regions surrounding the capital.

    "We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran.

    An intelligence analyst in the group said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" — mainly in the Mahdi Army — to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.

    The analyst said Iraq's Shiite-led government had been briefed on Iran's involvement and Iraqi officials had asked the Iranians to stop. Al-Maliki has said he told both the U.S. and Iran that he does not want his country turned into a proxy battlefield.

    Last week, U.S. officials said they were investigating allegations that Shiite lawmaker Jamal Jaafar Mohammed was a main conduit for Iranian weapons entering the country. Mohammed has believed to have fled to Iran.

    U.S. officials have alleged for years that weapons were entering the country from Iran but had until Sunday stopped short of alleging involvement by top Iranian leaders.

    During the briefing, a senior defense official said that one of the six Iranians detained in January in the northern city of Irbil was the operational commander of the Quds Force.

    He was identified as Mohsin Chizari, who was apprehended after slipping back into Iraq after a 10-month absence, the officer said.

    The Iranians were caught trying to flush documents down the toilet, he said. They had also tried to change their appearance by shaving their heads. Bags of their hair were found during the raid, he said.

    The dates of manufacture on weapons found so far indicate they were made after fall of Saddam Hussein — mostly in 2006, the officials said.

    In a separate briefing, Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons, deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, said that since December 2004, U.S. helicopter pilots have been shot at on average about 100 times a month and been hit on an average of 17 times in the same period.

    He disclosed a previously unknown shootdown, a Blackhawk helicopter hit by small arms fire near the western city of Hit. The craft crash-landed but there were no casualties. Simmons was on board.

    The major general said Iraqi militants are known to have SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles but none of the most recent five military crashes were caused by those weapons. He said some previous crashes had been a result of such missiles but would not elaborate.

    As road travel has become unacceptably dangerous in Iraq, U.S. forces increasingly have turned to helicopters for transportation of troops and supplies. Simmons said U.S. helicopters were in the air for 240,000 hours in 2005 and he estimated the total figure this year would reach 400,000 hours.

    North of Baghdad, a suicide truck bomber crashed into a police station, killing at least 30 policemen. A total of 73 people were killed or found dead across Iraq. The U.S. military said Sunday a soldier was shot and killed the day before in volatile Diyala province northeast of the capital.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    245
    Yes true, we must stop this. Unfortunately this is just now more proof for bush to attack Iran. Lets remember we have lost over 3,000 troops there so far and only 170 have died from Iranian weapons.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by DTBusta
    Yes true, we must stop this. Unfortunately this is just now more proof for bush to attack Iran. Lets remember we have lost over 3,000 troops there so far and only 170 have died from Iranian weapons.
    Only 170 have died from the Iranian EFP's...........

  4. #4
    for the hype on Iran by the white house and the press, this is pretty weak evidence. I bet you could find US serial numbers on weapons being used by the insurgents

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    for the hype on Iran by the white house and the press, this is pretty weak evidence. I bet you could find US serial numbers on weapons being used by the insurgents
    so it is your stance that Iran is not involved in the Iraq insurgency?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    so it is your stance that Iran is not involved in the Iraq insurgency?
    never said that. i'm just noticing how the white house is running the Iraq playbook all over again. they're saying they have no intention of attacking Iran but are bringing naval attack groups to the gulf and the black sea as well as patriot missiles. Bush also said that they were waiting for the Iraqi inspection process to complete while sending troops to the gulf and eventually invaded Iraq. De ja vu

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    245
    not as much as there being made out to be. Bush is practically handing Iraq to the shia...and Iran, why bother with all this hype.And yes 170 out of 3,000 is pretty small.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Thats 170 that we know of and can prove, But the real issue here is that Iraq is a mess, and were it not for the insurgents, terrorists and Sadam supporters, Iraq would be at peace. Why does no one address this simple fact? Iraqi police and military recruitment is at an all time high. They want stability, they want an end to the rule of the terrorists, Which Iran is supporting and financing and arming.

    Iran is clearly not interested in a successful peaceful democracy in Iraq, because it causes reflection of there own theocratic oppressive regime.
    Last edited by singern; 02-12-2007 at 09:10 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by singern
    Thats 170 that we know of and can prove, But the real issue here is that Iraq is a mess, and were it not for the insurgents, terrorists and Sadam supporters, Iraq would be at peace. Why does no one address this simple fact? Iraqi police and military recruitment is at an all time high. They want stability, they want an end to the rule of the terrorists, Which Iran is clearly supporting and arming.
    Iran is clearly not interested in a successful peaceful democracy in Iraq, because it causes reflection of there own theocratic oppressive regime.
    Because of Iraq turns into a Democratic country, the far-left will have alot of back-peddling to do. It is very sad that a segment of our population is actually rooting with the terrorists and insurgents to win to further their own idealogy.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Because of Iraq turns into a Democratic country, the far-left will have alot of back-peddling to do. It is very sad that a segment of our population is actually rooting with the terrorists and insurgents to win to further their own idealogy.

    Your right about that, I have come to belive that in the US, it is more important to discredit Bush than to achieve the goal.

    Like Billy Crystal said on SNL, "Better to look good than to feel good"
    Last edited by singern; 02-12-2007 at 09:23 AM.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Because of Iraq turns into a Democratic country, the far-left will have alot of back-peddling to do. It is very sad that a segment of our population is actually rooting with the terrorists and insurgents to win to further their own idealogy.
    How so? The far left cared about Iraqis when the US and the west were arming Saddam while he was gasing the kurds and Iranians and starting war with Iran. The far left was against the Iraq sanctions that was leading to the death of thousands while the Clinton adminstration was supported it. I polically important segment of the population was supporting for the death of Iraqis.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by singern
    Thats 170 that we know of and can prove, But the real issue here is that Iraq is a mess, and were it not for the insurgents, terrorists and Sadam supporters, Iraq would be at peace. Why does no one address this simple fact? Iraqi police and military recruitment is at an all time high. They want stability, they want an end to the rule of the terrorists, Which Iran is supporting and financing and arming.

    Iran is clearly not interested in a successful peaceful democracy in Iraq, because it causes reflection of there own theocratic oppressive regime.

    That doesn't prove Iranian government gave them the weapons. The weapons could have easily come from the black market. If the US analyzed a lot of the weapons being used by the insurgents, al qaieda, the taliban etc, they would find serial numbers from US companies.

    The Iraqis have a right to defend themselves. If Russia overthrew the US government and placed a bunch of American puppets to lead it, I doubt you'd salute and support it. You'd probably take up arms to overthrow it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    The Iraqis have a right to defend themselves. If Russia overthrew the US government and placed a bunch of American puppets to lead it, I doubt you'd salute and support it. You'd probably take up arms to overthrow it.
    Defend themselves from who? The US set them free, the Iraqi population is overwhelmingly against the terrorists, and militants who are mostly foreign insurgents, and local Baathists.
    If the terrorists would lay down there weapons, Iraq would be at peace. No one but those who support the militants are denying this....

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by singern
    Defend themselves from who? The US set them free, the Iraqi population is overwhelmingly against the terrorists, and militants who are mostly foreign insurgents, and local Baathists.
    If the terrorists would lay down there weapons, Iraq would be at peace. No one but those who support the militants are denying this....
    You call that freedom? The Iraqi population is also against the occupation too. So would you lay down your arms if the Russians overthrew the government?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    245
    God damit. I'd support Bush if the ends justified the means, but they dont. Yeah it would be so nice as to say "with out" the insurgents it would be peaceful. No one to blame here except for Bush's original expectations. They new it to be false but went all over th news channels lying about what they would expect and what they would expect to find. They have to answer to these errors. This is the president, bad intelligence bad...who else are they going to blame now. Us for wanting to know why there have been soo many errors. Dam Id support Bush if they were good at carrying out war but they aren't. They should have caught saddams vice President but we don't hear how he went underground with millions in cash and is now most likely funding the sunni insurgency. They are playing dumb when the admin officials say they didn't know of the 3 different sect of muslims that exists there and that such a civil war would break out. Many saw that coming and many new the 3 existed except bush admin officials which I have personally heard being questioned and denied they knew of the 2 different sects.
    http://www.debianhelp.org/node/1226

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    245
    Iranian tactics here seem to mirror the americans in pushing the soviets out of Afghanistan..?


    maybe its that they saw what worked and are taking pointers.

  17. #17
    When the republicans like bush say they want to get out of Iraq, they mean just to lower the troop level in Iraq to about 20,000-with Iraqi militias keeping the order under them; and then continue to have all sorts of security contractors and other contractors there, and a massive US embassey that actually serves as a shadow government-thats why the insurgents(freedom fighters) must force a US withdrawel. The insurgents in Iraq have freqently said that if the US aggrees to a swift withdrawel (a few months) then they will not shoot the Americans in the back as they are leaving and will pretty much observe a cease fire.

    Also notice how Iraq's puppet regime-4 years into the occupation has no real army, they almost have no tanks, they have a few armoured vehicles (all under the direct control and close scrutiny of the American military. They have no air-force except for a few transport planes but no combat aircraft or helicopters. The Iraqi military is broken up into many defacto militias, mostly riding around in pickup trucks. With the american occupation ended they can't even hold a single block of baghdad...

    so singurns notion that "If the terrorists would lay down there weapons, Iraq would be at peace....the Iraqi population is overwhelmingly against the terrorists." is totally false, you cannot have security with no real chain of command + most shiite AND Sunni Iraqis support attacks on US troops, as high as 90% in some areas, so when they say they are against "terrorists", that doesn't mean their militia, it just means the other militia.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce
    When the republicans like bush say they want to get out of Iraq, they mean just to lower the troop level in Iraq to about 20,000-with Iraqi militias keeping the order under them; and then continue to have all sorts of security contractors and other contractors there, and a massive US embassey that actually serves as a shadow government-thats why the insurgents(freedom fighters) must force a US withdrawel. The insurgents in Iraq have freqently said that if the US aggrees to a swift withdrawel (a few months) then they will not shoot the Americans in the back as they are leaving and will pretty much observe a cease fire.
    .
    I dont know if you are wrong or right, but Im curious if this is your opinion, or if you are privy to government intel that the world at large isnt.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by singern
    I dont know if you are wrong or right, but Im curious if this is your opinion, or if you are privy to government intel that the world at large isnt.
    Or you could read a study by the British Ministry of Defense, and reported in the Sunday Telegraph, a conservative newspaper that strongly supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    From the Washington Post
    "Four out of five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. and British troops in their country, and two out of five believe insurgent attacks on those troops are justified, according to a "secret" poll conducted by the British Ministry of Defense."

    The poll's findings as reported by the Sunday Telegraph:

    45 percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 percent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

    • 82 percent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

    • 67 percent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

    • 43 percent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

    • 72 percent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

    less than one percent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

    It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation," according to the Telegraph. A spokesman for the British Conservative Party was quoted as saying, "The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution."
    Source

  20. #20
    and really, that 45% number includes the Kurds, so it's skewed downward, in al anbar province it's in the 90s, and it's pretty high in places like sadr city. Considering that Iraqis know that attacks on US troops leads to violence in their neighborhoods as the Americans try to subdue the guerilla resistence with house-to-house searches, or that when the insurgents attack US patrols, the patrols shoot back all over the place causing civilian death and property damage, yet many of them still approve of attacks on coalition troops; it's pretty high.

  21. #21
    i agree kind of with eliteforce's post. by reducing the numbers of troops and keeping them in bases. troops casualties would be low to zero and allow Iraq to fall of minds of most of the media and American public. this would allow the administration and the next to stay as long as they want.

  22. #22
    Of cource in reality Bush is a fool & it doesn't work:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7bRf...elated&search=

    now thats what you call a mortar! see, if the US troops stay in isolated bases they get those babies comin down on them until they are forced back out to patrol-so they can get hit with a roadside bomb, they will never be able to prevent casualties or reduce the costs of the occupation. if you search more on youtube you will see video of US bases coming under mortar or rocket fire, katushas etc.

    i love it when the 2 guys bump into each other trying to drop the bomb into the tube, me first!

  23. #23
    this one is really good, i wish i could get aljazeera english on my tv, cnn,fox, even bbc world is such a useless peice of shit compards to the real journalism they do at aljazeera:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIYHt...elated&search=

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    245
    I don't get it, this post should be void. We did the same thing in Afghanistan to keep the soviets out, same tactics. If our government wants to lable this as they do then they must not be hypocrites, and by this I mean we did the same thing to keep the soviets out, only we used the muslim extremists, well made them extremists by training them with the cia. This is why they are who they are today, they just have turned on us now.

    "How does this all fit together? During the Reagan-Bush administrations, the National Security Council wanted to throw the Soviets out of Afghanistan using Arab soldiers instead of American. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but no one thought about the long-term consequences. In imitation of the Soviet strategy of hiring terrorists, we asked the Saudis to recruit a proxy army of Islamic terrorists whom we would supply with guns and pay indirectly, according to intelligence sources. By having the Saudis hire the "freedom fighters," we could avoid embarrassing questions in Congress about giving the taxpayers money to known Arab terrorists. "

    http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2003/060003.htm

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    292
    Heres a sad video of the effectivness of the insurgency in Iraq...

    6 mins of IEDs, and carbombs

  26. #26
    it's funny how the white house is acting like Iraqis don't have the know how to produce IEDs when back in 2002 and 2003 they were talking about how Iraqis were producing nukes, biological & chemical weapons, long range weapons, and UAVs.

    passing the blame as usual

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    it's funny how the white house is acting like Iraqis don't have the know how to produce IEDs when back in 2002 and 2003 they were talking about how Iraqis were producing nukes, biological & chemical weapons, long range weapons, and UAVs.

    passing the blame as usual
    The Iraqi government under Sadam had indeed advanced technology and the ability to produce these things, but the average Joe Muhammad who lives in a box, breaths the Koran by day, and kills by night certainly does not.

    This isnt passing blame, this is trying to solve a crisis, which is fueled by extremists and now it seems the blessing of foreign governments.....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    245
    No elite I agree its not that simple, however it is simple when it comes to that specific incident. Us using "freedom fighters" (sunnis)(TRAINING THEM)to keep the soviets out. Iran is now using the same tactics in Iraq, thats all I meant when I said its simple. It should be simple to see the similarities.


    I totally agree that real extremists and not ones for "higher" are being created because of situations in Palestine and Iraq, not to mention many others. You can't just give people two hours a week of running water and run their homes over with tanks and think its going to make the situation any worst. Thats what happens when people no longer have anything to lose.
    Last edited by DTBusta; 02-15-2007 at 06:00 PM.

  29. #29
    Considering what dbusta said: This is a popular notion in the western media: that the US supported 'terrorists' fighting the soviets and then the 'terrorists' turned on them.. but I don't think it's that simple, militancy has always increased as US/Israeli policies became more intrusive.

    example: Israel invades lebanon in 1982 with enthusiastic US support, 20,000 lebanese and palestinian are killed, wide-spread destuction, quagmire result: US marines are bombed, TWA hijackings in mid 80's, kidnapings of westerners, 1st palestinian intefada.

    Iraq invades Kuwait, US ejects them US decides to keep permanent bases in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain (when prior to 1991 there were no US bases in that region.) also excessive sanctions 'blocade' of Iraq leads to widespread suffereing of Iraqs civilian population. meanwhile the US sponsored "peace process" fails miserably-no closure of settlements, no Palestinian state, no end to occupation, aphartied.
    result:2nd intefada, 'alqueda' bombs embasseys and buildings in an attempt to force US military out of gulf region.
    Last edited by eliteforce; 02-14-2007 at 07:47 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •