Iran caught red-handed shipping weapons to the Taliban

[Nemesis6]

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

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."

 

[Sulkdodds]

As it's all from a US source it's difficult to be sure of authenticity. Howeveer, I'm sure it's not out of character for Mahmoud Alamajizzyface and the fact that nobody is yet actively pushing for a war on Iran is reassuring - it would appear to be evidence before decision, rather than decision before evidence as it was with Iraq.

 

[CptStern]

please explain the difference

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, the difference as I see it is that Iran is messing a lot of places itself where it shouldn't: Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, so in my eyes, Iran is the worst.

 

[repiV]

The Taliban are trying to kill us and the US are not. I'd say that's a pretty important difference.

 

[Kadayi]

The Taliban are trying to kill us and the US are not. I'd say that's a pretty important difference.

I'm pretty sure we invaded Afghanistan, not the other way round. Still I doubt good Hebrew boys such as yourself and Nemesis are able to understand the concept of occupation given your collective lack of understanding when it comes to events in Palestine. :dozey:

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, better a Hebrew boy than a terror sympathizer, I guess. You're actually trying to downplay this by saying that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan and just let the nice Taliban continue to cut off the hands of people in their nice UN-funded stadium in Kabul? You really hit the bottom this time.

 

[repiV]

I'm pretty sure we invaded Afghanistan, not the other way round. Still I doubt good Hebrew boys such as yourself and Nemesis are able to understand the concept of occupation given your collective lack of understanding when it comes to events in Palestine. :dozey:

I don't have the time or patience for your ignorant stupidity and Jihad-sympathising today.
Suffice to say, if you think we shouldn't defend ourselves against those who commit acts of war against us and draw moral equivalence between fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and the West, you quite simply need to GTFO.
You have about as much insight as a five year old and the credibility to match, so do yourself a favour and just be quiet.

 

[NeptuneUK]

^ tbh.

:\

 

[Kadayi]

Well, better a Hebrew boy than a terror sympathizer, I guess. You're actually trying to downplay this by saying that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan and just let the nice Taliban continue to cut off the hands of people in their nice UN-funded stadium in Kabul? You really hit the bottom this time.

We went into Afghanistan in search of OBL if I recall, which seemed justified at the time after 9/11. The Taliban were overthrown and OBL decamped to Pakistan (based on the intellgence reports) as the mission is over and democracy is in place why are we still there....let the Afgan government deal with any remaining insurgents :dozey:

 

[Xune]

I blame Hitler personally. Lazy ****er should have finished the job.

 

[CptStern]

Well, the difference as I see it is that Iran is messing a lot of places itself where it shouldn't: Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, so in my eyes, Iran is the worst.

The Taliban are trying to kill us and the US are not. I'd say that's a pretty important difference

so supporting terrorism is justified then?

 

[Jintor]

What can we do peacefully?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

nuke'm

 

[clarky003]

What's with the history block here? some people who we don't need to name seem to have a 1 year memory. Ultimately it's America and western countries meddling in the middle east for the last 30 years that's created all this hate, not because they just 'hate western freedoms'. The very reason is because western countries are taking a strangle on land and resources that has always belonged to the Muslim world.

So end of arguement really it's plain and simple, we started it!. We created all this, none of this BS that we are morally superior here. Ideally we should trade for the resources the middle east has as it is technically theirs, and not invade divide and conquer, which is just insighting hatred.

 

[PvtRyan]

What's with the history block here? some people who we don't need to name seem to have a 1 year memory. Ultimately it's America and western countries meddling in the middle east for the last 30 years that's created all this hate, not because they just 'hate western freedoms'. The very reason is because western countries are taking a strangle on land and resources that has always belonged to the Muslim world.

So end of arguement really it's plain and simple, we started it!. We created all this, none of this BS that we are morally superior here. Ideally we should trade for the resources the middle east has as it is technically theirs, and not invade divide and conquer, which is just insighting hatred.

Poor saps in the Middle-East, being exploited by the big mean white man ;(

As if the oil trade isn't HUGELY profitable there. Are you honestly trying to convince me the big bad West is stealing their oils? As far as I know, we still buy the oil and the oil sheiks buy a hundred cars off that money. Not our problem they suck at dividing the wealth.

 

[Planetary]

Well, i no one bought their oil, the whole thing would be moot, huh?

Compare it to solar panels. You don't need a hot sandy country for solar panels at all! I say, let the oil stay in the ground, where it's supposed to be anyway! If no one had started sucking it up in the 1st place, there wouldn't be a big problem with climate change, eh?

Live and let live!
Peace on Earth!

 

[repiV]

so supporting terrorism is justified then?

It's not a case of whether it's justified or not, it's whether it's necessary that's important.
Would you rather the government plays a bit dirty (as governments always do), or face the threat of nuclear holocaust?

 

[repiV]

Poor saps in the Middle-East, being exploited by the big mean white man ;(

As if the oil trade isn't HUGELY profitable there. Are you honestly trying to convince me the big bad West is stealing their oils? As far as I know, we still buy the oil and the oil sheiks buy a hundred cars off that money. Not our problem they suck at dividing the wealth.

Quite.
It speaks volumes that these countries can profit so enormously from our desperate need for oil and still be shitholes. The only country that seems to actually be accomplishing something with the oil money is Kuwait, but still not to the level you'd expect.

 

[Absinthe]

Poor saps in the Middle-East, being exploited by the big mean white man ;(

As if the oil trade isn't HUGELY profitable there. Are you honestly trying to convince me the big bad West is stealing their oils? As far as I know, we still buy the oil and the oil sheiks buy a hundred cars off that money. Not our problem they suck at dividing the wealth.

QFT

The West may be pillaging the Middle East of its black, shiny resources. But I think people here forget that many residents of that region are all too happy to do business.

I agree that US meddling has indeed been a contribution to the levels of volatile hatred and violence. However, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Muslim world has been an unsuspecting victim this whole time.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Aye.

At the same time, what's the practical difference between Iran aiding Afghani insurgents and America aiding Iranian insurgents? Sod-all. Nemesis: "They're in places they should be". Yeah, like the American government is, and has been for a long time? This reminds me of Numbers and his crazyness: apparently it's justifiable to overthrow the government in a military coup to avert political upheaval.

At least repiV has the courage to admit that there is no moral way to justify what both Iran and America are doing; it's a matter of realpolitik (if I understand him correctly).

To condemn one and not the other, however, makes no sense. Condemn both or neither.

 

[Kadayi]

It's not a case of whether it's justified or not, it's whether it's necessary that's important.
Would you rather the government plays a bit dirty (as governments always do), or face the threat of nuclear holocaust?

You're worried about Iran having nuclear weapons, but are happy with a volatile and unpredictable regime like Israel having them? Next you'll be saying that's because the Israelis are world renowned for their common sense and humanitarianism when it comes to carrying out military actions. :dozey:

 

[repiV]

At least repiV has the courage to admit that there is no moral way to justify what both Iran and America are doing; it's a matter of realpolitik (if I understand him correctly).

Exactly. Our survival and continued prosperity is far too important for issues of "right" and "wrong" to be the most important concerns. International politics is a shady business - play with fire and expect to get burned.

You're worried about Iran having nuclear weapons, but are happy with a volatile and unpredictable regime like Israel having them? Next you'll be saying that's because the Israelis are world renowned for their common sense and humanitarianism when it comes to carrying out military actions. :dozey:

Israel are neither volatile nor unpredictable, and forgive me for stating the obvious but having well-armed allies is not generally something to be concerned about. I can't say I've ever envisaged a scenario in which Israel decide to nuke London to watch all the pretty colours. So, why exactly would I be concerned?
Everything you post is just total biased bollocks, especially considering that you actually defend these ****ed up "states" in the Middle East...particularly as there is actually no concrete evidence to suggest that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons. Anti-semite anyone?

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, Sulkdodds, I haven't said that it isn't wrong. The debate on terrorism being justified or not is a real minefield, but in my opinion, destabilising the Iranian regime is in everyone's best interest. The problem, however, is that people will die in the process.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Exactly. Our survival and continued prosperity is far too important for issues of "right" and "wrong" to be the most important concerns. International politics is a shady business - play with fire and expect to get burned.

I can't agree, because I think such an attitude is a dreadful abstention from moral duty (plus I doubt Iran's ability to kill us all just yet), but at least you didn't claim it was morally tickety-boo. It would be nice if more politicians were that honest.

On a sidenote, 'play with fire and expect to get burned' perfectly describes the course of US foreign policy after the last fifty years.

I remember reading an interview from 1998 with an ex-US-government person who had conducted an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and who had helped supply weapons to the insurgents at that time. "Who cares about a bunch of riled-up Moslems?" he said. "Bringing down the Soviets was more important." Noble as his cause was or wasn't, I'm sure he was kicking himself over that a good few years later.

Also: Israel are a state and a varied on at that, not a race. Don't just use the knee-jerk defence of "anti-semite". That's rubbish and unfounded.

Well, Sulkdodds, I haven't said that it isn't wrong. The debate on terrorism being justified or not is a real minefield, but in my opinion, destabilising the Iranian regime is in everyone's best interest. The problem, however, is that people will die in the process.

You didn't say "it isn't wrong at all" but you did defend it against a direct comparison, which essentially has the effect of casting you as a defender of the actions themselves. Clear up your meaning, or else, though you may not state it in clear black-and-white, you are appearing to condone American arms smuggling.

Not to mention that you cite foreign intervention as Iran's cardinal crime, in a century where we have seen US intervention in latin america and the middle east have generally undesirable effects. The things you put forward as justification for US-into-Iran smuggling could just as easily serve as justifications for Iran-into-Afghanistan smuggling.

This is not a statement of support for Iran's behaviour. This is me telling you to come up with something better.

I am also compelled to ask whose interest it is most in to destabilise the Iranian regime, whether those chif interests will care about any of the others, and in whose interests whatever regime replaces it will be.

 

[repiV]

I can't agree, because I think such an attitude is a dreadful abstention from moral duty (plus I doubt Iran's ability to kill us all just yet), but at least you didn't claim it was morally tickety-boo. It would be nice if more politicians were that honest.

Moral duty is a luxury in a dangerous world. Agreed, we have it, but it cannot take priority over our survival.

On a sidenote, 'play with fire and expect to get burned' perfectly describes the course of US foreign policy after the last fifty years.

I remember reading an interview from 1998 with an ex-US-government person who had conducted an operation to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, and who had helped supply weapons to the insurgents at that time. "Who cares about a bunch of riled-up Moslems?" he said. "Bringing down the Soviets was more important." Noble as his cause was or wasn't, I'm sure he was kicking himself over that a good few years later.

Also true. But maybe bringing down the Soviets was more important? It's certainly conceivable that the USSR winning the Cold War would equal a grim fate for all of us.
The question is whether the price was worth paying, and not being an expert on the Cold War I can't answer that. The Soviet Union probably would have collapsed anyway, but what if it didn't?

Also: Israel are a state and a varied on at that, not a race. Don't just use the knee-jerk defence of "anti-semite". That's rubbish and unfounded.

What's rubbish and unfounded is everything that Kadayi Polokov says. There's no logic whatsoever behind his viewpoints, so the only conclusion I can draw is that he hates the Jews.

 

[Kadayi]

Israel are neither volatile nor unpredictable, and forgive me for stating the obvious but having well-armed allies is not generally something to be concerned about. I can't say I've ever envisaged a scenario in which Israel decide to nuke London to watch all the pretty colours. So, why exactly would I be concerned?
Everything you post is just total biased bollocks, especially considering that you actually defend these ****ed up "states" in the Middle East...particularly as there is actually no concrete evidence to suggest that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons. Anti-semite anyone?

Oh noes..I've been called an anti-semite (seriously grow up and learn to debate) I'm anti-Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and against the US governments continued blanket support of it despite universal condemnation by the rest of the world. Americans wonder why 9/11 happened, they only have to look at the irrationality of supporting a country that makes South Africas human rights record look good to realise why men like OBL have been so successful in making them targets.

 

[repiV]

Oh noes..I've been called an anti-semite (seriously grow up and learn to debate) I'm anti-Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and against the US governments continued blanket support of it despite universal condemnation by the rest of the world. Americans wonder why 9/11 happened, they only have to look at the irrationality of supporting a country that makes South Africas human rights record look good to realise why men like OBL have been so successful in making them targets.

I don't need to learn to debate, I can do that just fine. I also have another skill - to recognise when someone is too ignorant to be worth debating with.
You can't make patently ridiculous comments such as claiming that Israel's human rights record is worse (let alone far worse) than South Africa's and then expect me to take you seriously.
You want a debate, be worthy of one. At the moment, you sound like a less intelligent and more prejudiced and closed-minded version of Solaris.

 

[Kadayi]

I don't need to learn to debate

The best you can do is a hollow retort? In all seriousness in all the time both you and Nemesis have plied your crusade of misinformation on the site regarding the illegal occupation by Israel of Palestine I can't recall you ever having put forth one intelligent rational and measured remark on the subject, or even converted one single person to your viewpoint. Your debating skills are non-existent.

No one is condoning the actions of terrorists on this site, but it is abundantly clear to the majority of people that the continued occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people by the IDF under the instruction of the Israeli government is doing no one any favours in the Middle East. Perhaps it's time you stopped deceiving yourselves that anyone but the tragically ill-informed thinks otherwise.

 

[Tagaziel]

~I find it funny that people tend to call Iran bad for supplying the Taliban with weapons to fight the American/NATO occupants and America good for supplying the Mujahadeen with weapons to fight the Soviet occupants.

If you're going to condemn, condemn both or neither as some wise man said.

 

[Solaris]

Our survival and continued prosperity is far too important for issues of "right" and "wrong" to be the most important concerns.

This strikes me as worryingly amoral.

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

Those 7mm rockets probably won't help them all that much...

 

[bbson john]

There is other diplomatic approach we can use in stead of this nasty means.

Also true. But maybe bringing down the Soviets was more important? It's certainly conceivable that the USSR winning the Cold War would equal a grim fate for all of us.
The question is whether the price was worth paying, and not being an expert on the Cold War I can't answer that. The Soviet Union probably would have collapsed anyway, but what if it didn't?

Perhaps you may think the USSR is a greater threat to the USA. But that certainly does not apply to Iran.

At least you should understand, terrorists can bomb the shit out of you at your home or your working place while Iran won't. Iran has nuke but the people in her Government are not completely insane. They won't do it. Which one poses greater threat to you? I bet it is terrorist who might be beside you at anytime, any place. Also, which one is easier to deal with, a stationed country which relies on international trade and aid, or a shiftable terrorist organisation which has no diplomatic contact with the western world? I bet you have your answer.

Supporting local terrorists or ethnics organizations can achieve nothing but erect more enemies aganist the US Government. It both turns Countries in Middle-East and erects hostile groups against America. So the policy of The US Government is erecting more enemies and turning America into a place unsafe, a place that is the prime target for terrorist attack.

Israel are neither volatile nor unpredictable.

What? It invades contiguous countries without a cause.

 

[kirovman]

I thought the Iranian regime and the Taliban were enemies (conficting ideologies)?

 

[CptStern]

It's not a case of whether it's justified or not, it's whether it's necessary that's important.

9/11 was justified, as was 7/11 by that line of logic. In their eyes it was necessary

Would you rather the government plays a bit dirty (as governments always do), or face the threat of nuclear holocaust?

nonsense ..utter hogwash ..they dont it because it's neccessary for survival ..the coup in 53 wasnt necessary for survival nor was the arming of the mujhidheen terrorists during the 80's

 

[repiV]

The best you can do is a hollow retort? In all seriousness in all the time both you and Nemesis have plied your crusade of misinformation on the site regarding the illegal occupation by Israel of Palestine I can't recall you ever having put forth one intelligent rational and measured remark on the subject, or even converted one single person to your viewpoint. Your debating skills are non-existent.

No one is condoning the actions of terrorists on this site, but it is abundantly clear to the majority of people that the continued occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people by the IDF under the instruction of the Israeli government is doing no one any favours in the Middle East. Perhaps it's time you stopped deceiving yourselves that anyone but the tragically ill-informed thinks otherwise.

I think you missed the point when I said you aren't worthy of debate. It's not a retort, hollow or otherwise - I'm simply not going to waste my time on somebody so stupid they actually believe that Israel has a worse human rights record than South Africa. You want something more than that, stop being a prejudiced, illogical dumbass. You might serve well as a mouthpiece for Al Jazeera, but beyond that you bring absolutely nothing to the table.

I'll follow up on the rest tomorrow...bedtime.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm simply not going to waste my time on somebody so stupid they actually believe that Israel has a worse human rights record than South Africa. You want something more than that, stop being a prejudiced, illogical dumbass. You might serve well as a mouthpiece for Al Jazeera, but beyond that you bring absolutely nothing to the table.

It's certainly heading that way based on Amnesty internationals reports, not of course that you pay attention to such things because they are no doubt a 'hotbed' for Arab sympathisers, and so shouldn't be trusted. In fact I suspect you'll be wanting them all rounded up into happy camps for daring to spread such lies. :dozey:

I'm pretty sure I brought forward the notion of Israel making peace with their surrounding neighbours and the Palestinians by withdrawing from the occupied territories, abandoning the settlements build on those lands and staying out of Palestinians affairs some time back. IIRC, neither you or the other one had much of a counter argument to that suggestion beyond the usual. In all seriousness the approach so far of occupation hasn't gotten Israel anywhere in terms of a lasting peace. In 40 years Israel have allowed 2 generations of Palestinians to be brought up who know nothing of freedom and everything of tyranny. Perhaps whilst there exists a generation who still remember a time before the troubles it might be worthwhile making that move, in another 40 years there will be no turning back.

 

[Tagaziel]

stop being a prejudiced, illogical dumbass.

Does anyone beside me find this amusing?

 

[Ridge]

Sounds alot to me like the BS news about Iraq just prior to the war to gain public approval...I dont think Bush is stupid enough to try to start shit with Iran in his last year, though...

 

[Sidewinder]

please explain the difference

it's ok for us so it must be ok for them,right?


typical stern BS:upstare: