Article

2004-01-14 Iraq

Mansoor Ijaz sez terrorists are planning an attack in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-01-14 12:24:24 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ..Curses - beaten by three minutes!!!

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-1-14 12:33:25 PM|| 2004-1-14 12:33:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 So Iranians smuggled 30 chem warheads and rockets over the border to start a major attack in Iraq?

Excuse me,this sounds like total BS.

Posted by El Id 2004-1-14 12:44:00 PM|| 2004-1-14 12:44:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think Mansoor Ijaz said that soon there would be some proof that the Iranians were sheltering Bin Laden as well. He's been accurate in the past.

Still, this all seems to be a perfect excuse to go after Iran. Almost too perfect. It's hard to imagine the Iranians would be so obvious.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-1-14 12:45:15 PM|| 2004-1-14 12:45:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 ruprecht, what's he been accurate about? I usually here him making claims that so and so will happen immenently and then I never here anything else about it and it never happens. This sounds like another one of those...

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-1-14 12:54:14 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-1-14 12:54:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 This story smells for many reasons:
1. carrying a large warhead that had extremely sophisticated plastic -- C- 4 plastic explosives
C-4 is used for demolitions, I don't believe it's used in warheads. Of course, it's the only explosive reporters would be able to name off the top of their heads, so that could be the problem.
And what does he call large? 100 lbs? 500, 1000?

2. six and 12 of them may have, in fact, been laden with chemical explosives that would be then attached to a rocket of some sort inside Iraq that's already there in a separate convoy.
Again, size counts here. 122mm rocket? 155? Scud? If you only have 6 - 12, that's not a lot when you're talking about a chem attack. There's a reason Soviet tactics called for using massed banks of multiple rocket launchers for chem attacks. You need to deliver a lot to kill masses of troops.

3. the idea that is being put forward is to kill as many as 3,000 to 5,000 people at one shot
6 - 12 warheads ain't enough unless you're talking about civilians bunched together. Even then, you'd have to get lucky.

4.that there is a wintertime offensive being prepared with the help of the Iranian and Revolutionary Guard in Afghanistan
Anyone think the Iranians are this stupid? I mean they might give food, shelter and arms to al-Qaeda and some Taliban, but direct military action in Afghanistan? No way.

5. And remember, a chemical weapon, to have massive -- the most massive impact that it can have to have a midair burst
It goes off up in the air, wind blows it away and disperses it. Warhead needs to be down where the targets are, low level.

6. it needs to be launched from, let's say, 100 kilometers away or 50 kilometers away or 200 kilometers away.
Okay, this is in Scud class range. Think they're gonna be dragging 6 to 12 Scuds around without somebody noticing?

Posted by Steve 2004-1-14 2:14:53 PM|| 2004-1-14 2:14:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 ...been laden with chemical explosives...

Now there's a coded message for ya.

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-14 2:27:28 PM|| 2004-1-14 2:27:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 been laden with chemical explosives

This is the statement that jumps out at e the most.
While it is true high explosives are made-up of chemicals,chemical weapons are not explosive.

Posted by raptor 2004-1-14 4:10:27 PM|| 2004-1-14 4:10:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Anyone think the Iranians are this stupid?

Yes, actually. Never underestimate the stupidity of people who use human wave tactics.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-14 4:17:00 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-14 4:17:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Never underestimate the stupidity of people who use human wave tactics.

The waves are going to turn into nuclear slush if Iran goes through with this. If it's even true.

Posted by Charles 2004-1-14 4:40:59 PM|| 2004-1-14 4:40:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Well, THAT didn't breed confidence. McInerney (sp) was just on Brit - they had no idea. W/in 15 minutes info was in Baghdad.

McInerney had lunch w/a kurd last week, it would play into their goals well.

As to C-4 not being used in warheads - if true, we have to start thinking about known unknowns. I'm no chem expert, obviously, but just because it's never been done doesn't mean someone won't try.

My motto is after 9/11 - anything is possible.

This'll make or break Ijaz.

Posted by Anonymous2u 2004-1-14 6:23:33 PM|| 2004-1-14 6:23:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 A2U, I think Ijaz and his source are credible. The guy who I do not trust is the driver of the truck with the C-4 and or the Kurdish militia members who tried to sell the material to Iran.

I would expect a Kurd and/or an Iranian that was caught in illegal activity to create a the story on a detailed ficticious conspiracy out of whole cloth.

Culturals in that area of the world will tend to generate misinformation. I will continue to take what Ijaz says seriously in any case. There is always some truth at the heart of these stories. I found Monsoor's explanation of why he thought the first attempt on Perv's life was a fraud to be credible. He was able to describe the area of the bombing from a first hand perspective. An American that can speak about Pakistan from a first hand prespective is quite uncommon.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-14 10:13:57 PM|| 2004-1-14 10:13:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 John Loftus of john-loftus.com thinks the report is credible (he said the explosive was RDX), but thinks that it is part of a bigger Iranian scheme (i) by the Mullahs to threaten the US with wider war (to distract from the Mullahs internal problems) or (ii) by the reformers to try to get the US more involved in the overthrow of the mullahs. Either way, I think there is reason for concern.

Posted by Tibor 2004-1-14 11:25:38 PM|| 2004-1-14 11:25:38 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 ed
00:28 Lucky
23:33 .com
23:25 Tibor
22:35 Lu Baihu
22:18 Super Hose
22:13 Super Hose
21:51 Anonymous2U
21:46 Anonymous2U
21:42 Super Hose
21:35 Frank G
21:32 tu3031
21:28 Bomb-a-rama
21:27 Frank G
21:27 Anonymous2U
21:10 IceCold
21:10 tu3031
21:03 tu3031
21:02 Ralph
20:57 tu3031
20:55 Val
20:51 tu3031
20:43 tu3031
20:41 CrazyFool