View Full Version : Sniper rifles from iran
Gaffer
02-17-2007, 10:46 PM
Need proof iran is supplying arms to insurgents?
http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/category/iran-watch/
Sniper rifles made in Austria and sold to Iran have ended up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents. The Telegraph reports more than 100 of these sniper rifles that are capable of firing armor piercing rounds were found by the United States military during raids on insurgent compounds.
The Austrian company Steyr-Mannlicher legally sold Iran 800 of these rifles, meaning the very existence of these rifles in insurgent hands is rock-solid proof Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq no matter how many times Iran wishes to deny this.
Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.
The exportation of the rifles by Iran is a deliberate act to not just kill Coalition soldiers in Iraq, but the mere fact the original Steyr-Mannlicher sale to Iran was condemned by the United States demonstrates Iran knew full well when these rifles were found in the hands of insurgents there would be an immediate and deliberate link to Iran. The American objection to the sale was the concern the rifles would end up in the hands of insurgents, which is exactly what has happened.
Meanwhile, Con Coughlin of the Telegraph reports “ever since the US-led military coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Islamic hard-liners who govern Iran have been determined to ensure the mission ends in failure.”
This while ABC News’ Diane Sawyer interviews Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who denies anything and everything that has been alleged. Sawyer also missed out on several other important questions and either refused to follow up Ahmadinejad’s answers with facts or simply didn’t know enough to question the Iranian leader, according to Iranian ex-pat Kash.
jillian
02-17-2007, 11:09 PM
Need proof iran is supplying arms to insurgents?
http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/category/iran-watch/
Sniper rifles made in Austria and sold to Iran have ended up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents. The Telegraph reports more than 100 of these sniper rifles that are capable of firing armor piercing rounds were found by the United States military during raids on insurgent compounds.
The Austrian company Steyr-Mannlicher legally sold Iran 800 of these rifles, meaning the very existence of these rifles in insurgent hands is rock-solid proof Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq no matter how many times Iran wishes to deny this.
Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.
The exportation of the rifles by Iran is a deliberate act to not just kill Coalition soldiers in Iraq, but the mere fact the original Steyr-Mannlicher sale to Iran was condemned by the United States demonstrates Iran knew full well when these rifles were found in the hands of insurgents there would be an immediate and deliberate link to Iran. The American objection to the sale was the concern the rifles would end up in the hands of insurgents, which is exactly what has happened.
Meanwhile, Con Coughlin of the Telegraph reports “ever since the US-led military coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Islamic hard-liners who govern Iran have been determined to ensure the mission ends in failure.”
This while ABC News’ Diane Sawyer interviews Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who denies anything and everything that has been alleged. Sawyer also missed out on several other important questions and either refused to follow up Ahmadinejad’s answers with facts or simply didn’t know enough to question the Iranian leader, according to Iranian ex-pat Kash.
Funny, General Peter Pace just said on Tuesday that there was absolutely no proof that the Irani government was behind arming the insurgency. Clearly that directly contradicts the "unnamed sources" relied on by the admin and its spokespople, but we know how good the intel was on Iraq.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's not happening, just that there's no proof at this time. I figure I'll go with Gen. Pace on this one for now.
Dilloduck
02-17-2007, 11:13 PM
Funny, General Peter Pace just said on Tuesday that there was absolutely no proof that the Irani government was behind arming the insurgency. Clearly that directly contradicts the "unnamed sources" relied on by the admin and its spokespople, but we know how good the intel was on Iraq.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's not happening, just that there's no proof at this time. I figure I'll go with Gen. Pace on this one for now.
Whether or not it was sanctioned officially by the goverment of Iran or not is of no consequence. The guns were sent to Iran and are killing US soldiers.
stephanie
02-17-2007, 11:14 PM
Man....You have to live on another Planet to not know that Iran is giving arms to the insurgents....
I swear...
Just like trying to deny, that Saddam didn't have WMD...
It's Pathetic
jillian
02-17-2007, 11:27 PM
Man....You have to live on another Planet to not know that Iran is giving arms to the insurgents....
I swear...
Just like trying to deny, that Saddam didn't have WMD...
It's Pathetic
Are weapons coming from Iran? Yup. Can we prove the government is doing it?
Nope. And more importantly, should we get into another war on another front with our troops and our resources being stretched so far?
Like I said, I'll stick with General Pace instead of people who are trying to get us embroiled in another nightmare.
jillian
02-17-2007, 11:29 PM
Whether or not it was sanctioned officially by the goverment of Iran or not is of no consequence. The guns were sent to Iran and are killing US soldiers.
So if some nutter in Texas is funding the insurgents and smuggling weapons to them, we should bomb Texas???
Of course it's of consequence whether it's sanctioned or not.
darin
02-17-2007, 11:45 PM
I can imagine Pelosi and other Libs CHEERING ON the Iranians in hopes of 'ending the war'.
Gaffer
02-17-2007, 11:59 PM
Are weapons coming from Iran? Yup. Can we prove the government is doing it?
Nope. And more importantly, should we get into another war on another front with our troops and our resources being stretched so far?
Like I said, I'll stick with General Pace instead of people who are trying to get us embroiled in another nightmare.
100 sniper rifles have been found in iraq being used by insurgents. These weapons were bought by iran from Austria. Which means they were under the control of the iranian government. These aren't just weapons made in iran and shipped out without government approval.
Pace is not making any public accusation about iran at this point because there is still an investigation going on. He wants to be sure he has irrefutable evidence before speaking in front of the media about their involvement. Most of what he said has been spun by the media as a denial that iran is involved in anything. Pace said he “would not say that the Iranian government, per se, knows”. He's saying there's still a bit of doubt. They want to be 100% sure cause it could mean a real shooting war. I give more creedence to the generals on the ground in iraq than I do to Pace.
EVERYONE knows iran is behind it all. The politicians are just afraid to move on it because someone might get offended.
Did you know that Pace also said we could continue the iraq operations and Afganhistan and still fight a major war with a country like iran?
Gaffer
02-18-2007, 12:48 AM
Want know what Pace really had to say.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/02/rogue_iranian_u.html#more
Defense Department Media Roundtable With Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates And Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff General Peter Pace
(excerpt)
SEC. GATES: Pam?
Q Mr. Secretary, General Pace, there's been a lot of back- and-forth about the extent of the Iranian involvement in weapons that have made their way into Iraq. Can you tell us how high up in the government you think that this involvement goes? And can you both please address the question and what it is you think the United States needs to do about this?
SEC. GATES: Well, we know that the Qods Force is involved. We know the Qods Force is a paramilitary arm of the IRGC. So we assume that the leadership of the IRGC knows about this.
Whether or not more senior political leaders in Iran know about it, we don't know. And frankly, for me, either way, it's a worry. Either they do know and have approved it, or they don't know and the IRGC may be acting on their own in Iraq.
So the honest answer is basically the same answer I gave you a couple of weeks ago. We don't know how high it is. That, I think, is consistent with all the facts that we know.
Q General, you expressed --
GEN. PACE: Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity, because a lot of folks have been reporting what they think I said. So let me tell you what I did say.
I think it's very important to be extremely precise when we're talking about what we know are facts and then what conclusions or assessments we make based on those facts. So the facts are what the secretary says. We know that there are explosives and weapons being used inside of Iraq that were manufactured in Iran.
We know that on two occasions in aggressively attacking the IED network that we had policed up Iranians. We know that those Iranians are Qods Force members. Those are facts. Another fact is that the Qods Force is a subordinate to the IRGC. What I tried to say when I said I didn't know about the Iranian government, I'm talking about the top two or three people in the government.
I cannot -- we do not have proof that the senior leadership in Iran is directing these activities in Iraq, but as the secretary just pointed out, either way, either they are -- and that's not good -- or they don't know -- and that's not good. And I was trying to be very precise about what facts are and what conclusions are.
Q General, if I could follow up. If it's so important to be precise about such a(n) important subject, why was this handled with a briefing -- an anonymous briefing in Baghdad on a Sunday by low-level officials who then ended up leveling a fairly serious charge which you both now are backing away from, that this official assessed that the Qods Force was operating on direct orders from the highest level of the government? That was a very explosive charge. You've tried to put it back in context. But why is something that -- if it's that important to be precise, why was that handled in the way it was handled?
SEC. GATES: Go ahead.
GEN. PACE: First of all, you used the key word, which is "that official assessed," and that's what I tried to clarify when I was asked the question in Australia.
The facts are the facts that I laid out. The assessment was based on those facts, the assessment by that individual was what he said. We worked -- all of us -- on the information that was going to be discussed in Baghdad, because it is an issue of security in Baghdad. And the right people who will be talking about what's impacting the lives of our soldiers and Marines on the battlefield are the commanders and the staff that is out there. We worked on that briefing back here, and we worked very hard to ensure that the data that was going to be put out was in fact accurate, and the data that was put out was accurate.
I think what happened, though, was that those who -- and I wasn't there, so I don't know -- but either those who were speaking didn't make a clear enough break between fact and assessment or those listening didn't hear the break between fact and assessment, and that's all I was trying to do in my -- when I was talking in Australia, which is to make sure that everybody understood that there are things you know for sure and then things that you then use your experience to assess.
(Cross talk.)
Q General, if we had indications top leaders in Iran knew about these activities in Iraq, would that change our response, which to date has been limited to going after the networks inside Iraq?
SEC. GATES: No, I don't think so. I think our goal is to stop -- is to bring about an end to the use of these IEDs and these explosively formed projectiles that are killing our troops. It was in the process of trying to disrupt those networks that we picked up the Qods Force officers. We will continue those efforts. Our goal is to stop these people from killing our troops, period.
Q If we knew the top leadership were ordering this, that would amount to an act of war by the Iranians against the U.S.
SEC. GATES: That's a hypothetical, because we don't know that.
Q Mr. Secretary, as a career intelligence professional, how do you feel the evidence against Iran was presented on Sunday? And do you feel the way in which it was presented has harmed the case you were trying to make?
SEC. GATES: Well, all I can say in the latter case is, I hope not. I think that it was, as the chairman described, it was very important to present the facts as we know them. And to the degree I had any involvement it was to say, I want factual statements; I don't want adjectives; I don't want adverbs; I want declarative sentences; and make it exactly clear what we know and what we don't know. And I think in the factual part of the briefing that was achieved, in terms of the evidence of the weapons that are being brought into Iraq.
Q But if credibility is an issue, why use anonymous officials? If you said you want factual statements that can stand the scrutiny, why use anonymous officials and then not allow a taped transcript to be made so that everyone knows exactly what was said?
SEC. GATES: I don't know what the circumstances were for the arrangements for the briefing in Baghdad and how that came about. But as the chairman suggested, I think all of us here thought that because the threat is in the theater, and that the theater is the one that has -- it's MNF-I that has been involved in taking these people into custody and tracking these networks, that it was better for the briefing to be in Baghdad by MNF-I.
Why it was anonymous, why it wasn't allowed to be taped, I don't know.
Q Mr. Secretary, on -- (inaudible) -- there are reports that not only Iranian IEDs but also sniper rifles that have been delivered from Austria, sold to the Iranian police in huge quantities, showed up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents. Are these reports correct?
SEC. GATES: I don't know.
GEN. PACE: I have heard those reports. I do not know whether or not we have the factual data to claim that as a fact. We can find out. I just don't know.
Q Are you worried that weapons that are on a legitimate base (sic) delivered to Iranian organizations from Europe end up in Iraq, in the hands of insurgents?
GEN. PACE: I'm worried that any weapons end up in Iraq to be used against coalition forces, regardless of their home of origin.
Q Mr. Secretary --
SEC. GATES: Yeah.
Q Mr. Secretary, last week the inspector general released a critical report on the prewar intelligence provided by this department linking al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. Given the increasing national skepticism over intelligence claims made by the administration, why should the American public now believe the link's strong between Iran and terror groups in Iraq?
SEC. GATES: Well, that was the reason -- I mean, we're sensitive to that skepticism. And it's one of the reasons why we were so concerned that the briefing on these materials be factual and be able to be substantiated by evidence, so it wasn't hypothesis, it wasn't assumption, it wasn't assessment; these are hard facts based on the technologies and the actual weapons themselves.
I think that that evidence speaks for itself, and I hope that the people will see that evidence in that respect. We are not, you know -- for the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran. What we are trying to do is inside Iraq disrupt the networks that put these weapons in the hands of those who kill our troops. That's it.
==================end excerpt=======
jillian
02-18-2007, 01:23 AM
Thank you. I always prefer going direct to the source.
Pace said:
I cannot -- we do not have proof that the senior leadership in Iran is directing these activities in Iraq, but as the secretary just pointed out, either way, either they are -- and that's not good -- or they don't know -- and that's not good. And I was trying to be very precise about what facts are and what conclusions are.
and
The facts are the facts that I laid out. The assessment was based on those facts, the assessment by that individual was what he said. We worked -- all of us -- on the information that was going to be discussed in Baghdad, because it is an issue of security in Baghdad. And the right people who will be talking about what's impacting the lives of our soldiers and Marines on the battlefield are the commanders and the staff that is out there. We worked on that briefing back here, and we worked very hard to ensure that the data that was going to be put out was in fact accurate, and the data that was put out was accurate.
and
Q Mr. Secretary, on -- (inaudible) -- there are reports that not only Iranian IEDs but also sniper rifles that have been delivered from Austria, sold to the Iranian police in huge quantities, showed up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents. Are these reports correct?
SEC. GATES: I don't know.
GEN. PACE: I have heard those reports. I do not know whether or not we have the factual data to claim that as a fact. We can find out. I just don't know.
The article seems to have accurately set forth his statements (which I separated from Secretary Gates' statements. We know theres' weapons coming in from Iran, but not the intel to back it up. Pace was very clear that there has to be a distinction between assessment and knowledge.
Gaffer
02-18-2007, 01:43 AM
Yes he was clear about it. They are not 100% sure. 98% but not 100. Qods work directly for khemini (sp) They are the ones used to stir up trouble in other countries and spread the islamic revolution. At least 8 Qods force members have been captured in iraq. Unknown number killed.
My guess is the government and military are playing a cat and mouse game at the moment and depending on what the iranians do will determine what we do. If the Qods were acting on their own the iranian government knows about it now, if they didn't before. So if more weapons and Qods show up in iraq there is reason for us to strike iran. A few well placed cruise missiles and smart bombs will let em know we mean business. Escalation from there is up to them.
As for Bush's approval for action it is covered under the resolution passed by congress in 2001.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
Since iran harbors al queda, they are subject to be attacked based on this resolution.
Dilloduck
02-18-2007, 08:06 AM
So if some nutter in Texas is funding the insurgents and smuggling weapons to them, we should bomb Texas???
Of course it's of consequence whether it's sanctioned or not.
Not to the dead soldier it's not. The only question left is what should America do about it. Continue surveillance and just watch them kill our troops and create havoc for any Iraqi intersted in pursuing peace in the region ?
KarlMarx
02-18-2007, 08:59 AM
So if some nutter in Texas is funding the insurgents and smuggling weapons to them, we should bomb Texas???
Of course it's of consequence whether it's sanctioned or not.
Actually, isn't that what Janet Reno did at Waco? Hmm????
KarlMarx
02-18-2007, 09:04 AM
Are weapons coming from Iran? Yup. Can we prove the government is doing it?
Nope. And more importantly, should we get into another war on another front with our troops and our resources being stretched so far?
Like I said, I'll stick with General Pace instead of people who are trying to get us embroiled in another nightmare.
No one said anything about invading Iran. However, this does broaden the scope of the conflict. You have to increase troop strength in Iraq to stanch the flow of these arms.
BTW... when there are as many people involved in a war as there are now, I'm sure you will find people who don't agree with how the war is being handled. The same situation existed during World War II, the Civil War and every war we've ever been involved in.
Guess what, generals disagreed with Clinton's decision to deploy troops to the Balkans, too. That didn't necessarily make it a bad decision.
LiberalNation
02-18-2007, 10:35 AM
The whole ME and parts of Africa are giving arms to insurgents. You gona attack all those countries. Isn't possible.
So if some nutter in Texas is funding the insurgents and smuggling weapons to them, we should bomb Texas???
Of course it's of consequence whether it's sanctioned or not.
So if some whack job nutter on Debatepolicy.com is saying that a General is denying Iranian involvement in the face of overwhelming evidence that we should believe the general and the whack job nutter?
Actually, isn't that what Janet Reno did at Waco? Hmm????
ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2: :laugh2:
Gadget (fmr Marine)
02-18-2007, 09:32 PM
From 2/14.....
Weapons cache found in Iraq (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=14924&postcount=1)
Seems like I was a little early to the party, huh?
Gaffer
02-18-2007, 11:09 PM
From 2/14.....
Weapons cache found in Iraq (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=14924&postcount=1)
Seems like I was a little early to the party, huh?
Yes you were gadget. I never saw that post or I would have added mine to it instead.
The funny part is that iran ordered those weapons for their police force to combat drug smuggling. Seems like a bit of overkill for going after drug smugglers. And 800 rifles?
Gadget (fmr Marine)
02-19-2007, 10:43 PM
Maybe they would be applicable if they were sniping off the poppy growers and cultivators in Afghanistan.....I am not so sure there is even a drug problem in Iran, is there?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.