PDA

View Full Version : Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban


BlackZodiac
June 7th, 2007, 09:05 PM
"NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling."

Iran and the Taliban had been fierce enemies when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and their apparent collaboration came as a surprise to some in the intelligence community.

"I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute, "even if they have to do some business with a group that has historically been their enemy."

The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."

The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

"These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones.

The coalition diplomatic message says the demolition charges "contained the same fake U.S. markings found on explosives recovered from insurgents operating in the Baghdad area."

"We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban," the message says.

The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant.

"It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html

BlackZodiac
June 7th, 2007, 09:06 PM
So now it looks like the Allied forces are going to be very concentrated on Iran, hopefully Nato moves in to Iran.

superflysuperwhite
June 13th, 2007, 11:38 PM
uhg, here comes world war 3 but at least its not just the u.s. going in for the kill this time

puppetmaster
June 13th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Fuck lets just pray the next pres. of the U.S. isnt a warmongering redneck.

superflysuperwhite
June 13th, 2007, 11:48 PM
lets pray it not hillary too actually i have no idea if shes a warmongerer i havent payed attention

witch i really should be doing cus i get to vote next year and i plan on doing so

puppetmaster
June 13th, 2007, 11:52 PM
Well vote Edwards hes got terrific policies and is diplomatic go check out his website i think you'll see he should be the next president

superflysuperwhite
June 13th, 2007, 11:57 PM
i was thinking that iv always liked the guy and have heard that hes got good policies and such so hell probably be mychoice

puppetmaster
June 14th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Hey im for anybody whos got a one year plan to get out of Iraq, not to mention oil, stem cell, ending poverty, and the guy believes in evolution which means we will become a scientific powerhouse (hopefully). Hes got my vote.

Legalize-It
June 14th, 2007, 07:30 AM
I'm for whoever has the straightest teeth, best looking wife, and isn't a douche like hillary... Superflysuperwhite do you have a reason for hating Hiliary? Why the hell do you say stupid things if you have no clue what your talking about? What the hell is the point in voting if you have no fucking idea why you're voting for something aside from "I hear hes good". I don't know shit about politic, so I do everyone a favor and stfu about them, maybe you should do the same... or educate yourself (read a book).

puppetmaster
June 14th, 2007, 11:23 AM
I don't know about superfly but i despise Hilary because she flips her stands every time shes confronted on them.
Another is she wants America to apologize for slavery, i've got no prob with black people but i'm not saying sorry for someone else's mistakes.
Finally, all she wants to do is point out problems but doesn't have concrete solutions for them.
Vote for Edwards but not because i said so, go and check out his site and judge for yourself.

Cuddles
June 14th, 2007, 02:43 PM
I don't know about superfly but i despise Hilary because she flips her stands every time shes confronted on them.
Another is she wants America to apologize for slavery, i've got no prob with black people but i'm not saying sorry for someone else's mistakes.
Finally, all she wants to do is point out problems but doesn't have concrete solutions for them.
Vote for Edwards but not because i said so, go and check out his site and judge for yourself.

really? nothing about her being a totalitarian dictator? nothing about her politics being very right wing but she's still running as a democrat? all you have is her "wishy-washyness"? cuz i do recall, edwards ran with someone else who lost because people played on the fact that he didnt stay with his opinions....which, really, think about it, do you want a president who makes a decision and refuses to ever accept that he was wrong and pull out? the majority of america, before the election, said they wanted bush to pull out of iraq, and after the election they did as well, kerry thought going into iraq was a good thing at first, then decided that we should be pulling out, bush just said we're going to iraq and refuses to accept that we should pull out.....

and hillary really shouldnt be president, EVER, neither should rudolph giuliani, both of them want too much control, the only reason giuliani has any chance is because he did such a great job just after 9/11, took control, but noone remembers what he did before that any more.....meh, fuck it, i probably wont even vote, there's noone who's really worth it.....

oh god i hate this song...meh...fuck you all, get over your stupid opinions and die....

BlackZodiac
June 14th, 2007, 02:45 PM
uhg, here comes world war 3 but at least its not just the u.s. going in for the kill this time

Neither World War One or two the United States went in "For the kill' always joined in late when the enemy was finished. But the next "World war" I can guarantee will be in the Middle East.

puppetmaster
June 14th, 2007, 05:02 PM
The next "World war" will most likely end the world.
I'm guessing it will be a nuclear war.

superflysuperwhite
June 14th, 2007, 09:11 PM
Neither World War One or two the United States went in "For the kill' always joined in late when the enemy was finished. But the next "World war" I can guarantee will be in the Middle East.

wasnt talking about the other world wars, i was refering to the problems in the middle east like iraq, at least this time the u.s. isnt the one spearhedding the possible offence.

and to legalize it, befor you continue to make stupid responses, befor i left i was one of the people who like you yelled at people about saying stuff they had nothing to back up with. Yes i havent kept up with all the latest political debats iv had better things to do then sit and watch tv.

but i guess no matter what i say know someone will just say that im ripping off puppetmaster or cuddles so im not going to explain myself now

BlackZodiac
June 15th, 2007, 04:43 PM
The next "World war" will most likely end the world.
I'm guessing it will be a nuclear war.

That will not happen.

puppetmaster
June 15th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Well it may be a far stretch and a bit apocalyptic but it is at least possible.

BlackZodiac
June 15th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Well it may be a far stretch and a bit apocalyptic but it is at least possible.

Oh, it is very possible... But the thing is, there is a reason why only a few countries that are allowed to produce them... Another thing is if it dosn't happen soon, someone would have already invented a way to stop nuclear missiles (100%).

puppetmaster
June 15th, 2007, 05:19 PM
Yes i agree with Russia's advanced missile defense system its only a matter of time before their defense overrules the offense of any other country as well as America soon to follow suit. The country that worries me is Iran providing that they can develop nuclear energy quick enough.

BlackZodiac
June 15th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Yes i agree with Russia's advanced missile defense system its only a matter of time before their defense overrules the offense of any other country as well as America soon to follow suit. The country that worries me is Iran providing that they can develop nuclear energy quick enough.

Russia has the best defence system against missiles, nuclear missiles, scud missiles, ICBM's, etc. The United States has put more money into their defence programs, but the patriot missile systems are not that reliable... And you may ask why hasn't the Russians attacked?
1. They don't care.
2. The United States offence is their defence.
3. There is no need for the attack on the United States.

puppetmaster
June 15th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Yea but Bush may want to keep his nose out of Russia's business, I'm not quite sure what transpired last week between the U.S. and Russia but i know Putin wasn't happy about it.

BlackZodiac
June 15th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Yea but Bush may want to keep his nose out of Russia's business, I'm not quite sure what transpired last week between the U.S. and Russia but i know Putin wasn't happy about it.

The United States want's a missile shield in Czech Republic, which pissed Putin off.

puppetmaster
June 15th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Ahhh well i cant say i fully understand why but ok. Maybe it would be diff if we had nukes pointing at Russia but defense.

BlackZodiac
June 15th, 2007, 05:38 PM
Ahhh well i cant say i fully understand why but ok. Maybe it would be diff if we had nukes pointing at Russia but defense.

No the Russians offered the United States to put the missile shield closer to the Middle East (The intention to stop Iran from launching missiles into Europe) but refused and built in the middle of Europe. It's just about the "Arms race" and other things.