| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| ABCNews sez: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban |
| 2007-06-07 |
| 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. 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. 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." |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #28 The softer we are with these guys the less they respect us. I don't give a crap whether they like us or not. 911 was the result of weakness. Future 911s will be the result of weakness. We are going to have to take it to them. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-06-07 17:24 |
| #27 We've seen this one before. The Death Star nears the Rebel base and begins to fire up its laser weapon just as the Rebel fighters begin their attack. Luke's Force-assisted bullseye begins the chain reaction leading to the Death Star's destruction. Aquavelvajad's Nukes are the latter day Death Star ... and his end approaches. |
| Posted by: doc 2007-06-07 14:42 |
| #26 But I think it would be kinder to use conventional weapons on them now than to have to nuke them later. This applies to the entire Muslim world, Ebbang Uluque6305. We are literally killing them with kindness. In our reluctance to apply corrective measures that would shepherd Islamic reform of some sort, we have taken a hands-off approach that guarantees them enough breathing space to conjure up a terrorist atrocity of such stupendous proportions that our only response will be nuclear annihilation. Better that hundreds of thousands of Muslims die now in disproportionate retaliation that brings about actual change, than untold MILLIONS of them in a few year when we have undergone horrific attacks. The horrific attacks are a certainty if we do nothing, Islam's doctrine assures that. Only we have the option of changing things. Islam will not change, we can count on it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-07 13:37 |
| #25 We would do well if we could just get FOX news to go all War On Islam, 24/7 That won't happen, I'm afraid, wxjames. A few years ago (post-9/11) one of the key Saudi princes bought a chunk of FOX stock. He boasted not long after that they were terribly responsive to his concerns -- they'd aired a story he didn't like, and it was first toned down, then quickly pulled. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-06-07 12:05 |
| #24 Zenster says: Agreed, RD. We must all persevere in hoping that this administration will finally get off of its all too ample ass and finally take Iran to task. As Bush's numbers continue to slip, he can only realize that the chances of a succeeding democratic administration increase with each passing day. This has to serve as some sort of goad to ensure that Iran is mopped up before he leaves office. I will tell you why Bush cannot act. Because he has public opinion aganist him an,d he faces a hostile chamber. I will tell you why congresmen/senators dare to for his impeachment/stepping on exeutive realm/defunding the WOT. Because this doesn't put their reelection at risk. And I will tell you why there is hostile public opinion Mr Zenster. It si because of you. Everytime you failed to counter the MSM propaganda. Everytime you took the attitude of ignoring the moonbats instead of exposing their mlies. In this war who like Vietnam will be lost or won on the propaganda field you have asked what your country could do for you instead of what you could do for your country. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-06-07 11:58 |
| #23 Omaha might be a good idea, Jack. Now, what I'm wondering about are those missile defense systems in eastern Europe that have Pootie's panties in a bunch. Supposedly, from what I've heard, their purpose is to defend against Iranian missles which is why Pootie shouldn't be concerned. But I'm wondering if those Iranian missiles are already in place in sufficient numbers to be a concern or if the missile defense is merely a precaution. I guess what I'm really wondering is if Bush is waiting until the missile defense system is in place before he bombs Iran. But then, if the Iranian missles are not yet in place, why is he waiting? It obviously needs to be done and I say that with sadness and despair because I don't like it. But I think it would be kinder to use conventional weapons on them now than to have to nuke them later. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-06-07 11:56 |
| #22 Jeez, is it that friggin hard in Washington to get something done? Do we have a bunch of eunuchs running the show? Gee, JohnQC, you think that pols and b'crats and beltway insiders, are intelligent, concerned, patriots with a primary mission of defending this country? The pols only priority is to raise money to get reelected so he/she can continue to raise money to get reelected because he/she has brought home the bacon and has an excuse for every time they have exercised piss poor judgement. The B'crats prime priority is to make it more and more impossible to fire his/her ass by making themselves more and more irreplaceable in the msm/media's eye by showing that their job is saving the children, finding jobs for the poor, taking care of our elderly, etc. The inside the beltway talking heads get to witness all this and make money and fame highlighting it as fascinating entertainment. This is the circle of depression everyone in DC is caught in. I say move the damn capital to Omaha or Indianapolis - as far away as possible to the eastern establishment elite. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-06-07 11:24 |
| #21 Lets see. First ABC [Brian Ross] reveals our secret mission inside Iran to destabalize the government (as if, we were sitting in DC fiddling with Condi's bra strap) and no one raises an eyebrow. Now, the same site is being fed more precursor-to-action type material (that any reader of R'burg has known about for years). Do any old spooks out there recognize this pattern or have I just been reading too much Ledeen and Miniter? |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-06-07 11:16 |
#20  US "Intelligence?" was shocked to find out Iran is supplying arms to their former enemies. They have never heard the Middle East phrase "My enemy's enemy is my ally". Of course you remember that Saddam was a secularist and would never have helped AQ.This is the kind of logic you get from liberals and other so called intellectuals. God help us if this is the best we can expect from our “intelligence?” agencies. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2007-06-07 11:14 |
| #19 They have to clean up Washington first. Now that Scooter Libby is gone perhaps they can focus on other less important issues like WAR. But, don't hold your breath. We would do well if we could just get FOX news to go all War On Islam, 24/7, and make public a constant stream of bad behavior by muzzies everywhere, punctuated by discussion panels about what to do to Islam and how. This is what we have at the burg, and we are lightyears ahead of the common man on this issue. Factual information is a good thing. Even the fools who still vote for the rodents would begin to come around. Come on, FOX, join us. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-06-07 11:07 |
| #18 Neither party is listening to the voters. They have basically said we don't count--except at election time. It is obvious that some of the issues that do matter are: 1. Get control of our borders. This is a security issue. 2. Enforce laws. 3. No amnesty for illegals. 4. Get the mideast under control ASAP--this means Syria and Iran. 5. Don't let these tin horn dictators screw around with us any more (Chavez, ASSad, and Adejminihat, throw Castro and Ortega in the mix too) Jeez, is it that friggin hard in Washington to get something done? Do we have a bunch of eunuchs running the show? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-06-07 10:02 |
| #17 Enjoyed the debate. The fact the trunks can't/won't secure the US borders tells you everything you need to know about our response to Iran. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-06-07 10:00 |
| #16 Dave D, I think both. I think at this point Iran could get away with launching a nuke at our base in Iraq and we wouldn't do a damn thing. Our government is completely corrupt and has sold us out. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-06-07 09:13 |
| #15 "The left side of the Republican psrty is in control too." I dunno. I can't make up my mind: are they "left", as in the old Rockefeller Republicans years ago? Or are they just fucking idiots? I kinda tend toward the latter... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-06-07 08:24 |
| #14 The left side of the Republican psrty is in control too. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-06-07 08:21 |
| #13 "Someday, a Democratic presidential candidate will step out and call W a wimp for not doing anything about Iran. Then something will start to happen." Don't hold your breath. If you had told me four years ago, after we crushed Saddam Hussein's regime, that in mid-2007 BOTH the Iranian mullahs and Krazy Kimmie would still be in power, I would have laughed in your face and called you a fool. But I'm not laughing anymore. And I don't expect any Democrat-- least of all any of the Democrat presidential candidates-- to come forward and urge Bush to take decisive action against Iran. The Democrats' moonbat base is now firmly in control of the Party, and they simply will not tolerate any Democrat who counsels action against Iran. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-06-07 06:55 |
| #12 Someday, a Democratic presidential candidate will step out and call W a wimp for not doing anything about Iran. Then something will start to happen. ABC News is just prodding them for fun and profit. Pretty soon, it'll be a question at the debates - What do you think we should do about Iran, Senator? A follow-up to that, Senator - What makes you think dialogue will work any better than the UN's endless dialogue? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-06-07 06:24 |
| #11 "It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force." See? I told you we should cut and run. |
| Posted by: John Murtha 2007-06-07 06:12 |
| #10 How many reasons do we need before we attack Iran????!!!! They openly tell us they hate/attack US/UK and we do nothing!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-06-07 04:53 |
| #9 Two words: casus belli |
| Posted by: Vortigern Snolutch7163 2007-06-07 04:20 |
| #8 Here's something to make you feel better, Zenster. Report: Fatah man killed by Hamas in Gaza A Fatah man was killed by Hamas militants early Thursday in a gunbattle in southern Gaza, officials said, becoming the first casualty on internal fighting in more than two weeks. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-06-07 02:43 |
| #7 Agreed, RD. We must all persevere in hoping that this administration will finally get off of its all too ample ass and finally take Iran to task. As Bush's numbers continue to slip, he can only realize that the chances of a succeeding democratic administration increase with each passing day. This has to serve as some sort of goad to ensure that Iran is mopped up before he leaves office. I thought that the President did not need congress' permission to conduct war when there is a clear and present danger to our nation's security. Iran's actions certainly constitute that and merit immediate attacks. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-07 02:17 |
| #6 We have lost at home already. thats an MSM site Sock Puppet of Doom, just like BBC.. same old shit. many things can happen... lets keep pulling! "We will all hang together, or surely we will hang separately." Now is as good a time as any for us to hang together.. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-06-07 01:47 |
| #5 I was reading reading the comments as ABC on this earlier. We have lost at home already. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2007-06-07 01:38 |
| #4 Danking; as much as I agree, it just isn't gonna happen. The Trunks have a terminal case of testicular atrophy and the Donks wanna run away, so all that we will see escalate, I am sad to say, is the body count of ours and our allies fighting forces. And you know that no career military person is gonna put his or her neck on the line and do something decisive; he / she would be pilloried in the press before the bodies quit falling. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-06-07 01:22 |
| #3 I'd better see a whole lot of stories about Iranian UFO sightings and reports about Iranian military planes that carry high level military officials developing severe engine trouble. |
| Posted by: Danking70 2007-06-07 01:09 |
| #2 Red handed? DOH! try DOOMED. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-06-07 00:31 |
| #1 Anymouse sez: The US ain't going to do anything about it. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-06-07 00:28 |