TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

Not that anyone should be surprised because this has been under suspicion for a while now...

quote:

Document: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban June 06, 2007 6:00 PM Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report: Document_iran_c_mn 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."

Normally this would constitute an act of war so how do everyone believe NATO will react?

We're going to appease them, sanction them, or bomb the revolution out of revolutionary gaurds

Re: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Not that anyone should be surprised because this has been under suspicion for a while now... Normally this would constitute an act of war so how do everyone believe NATO will react?

Heh. Enemy of my enemy is my friend... So true in international politics

I don't think NATO can do anything. Iran has been supplying insurgents in Iraq for some time and US haven't done anything to slap Iran's penis.
I don't think NATO will do anything in this case either.

I guess you can get away with some things when you control a large supply of oil.

I heard they are arming Nk too,and china,India,Africa and South America too

Are you people so deluded that you don't think that this type of behaviour isn't happening?

Newsflash, the Soviets supplied the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, China was tacitly fighting the US during the Korean war, the US was supplying Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, the Soviets were supplying the Cubans, and the Americans were supplying the rest of South America.

Christ, the written record of first hand accounts in Iraq have been written as of 2 years ago ... start reading them.

Nothing CAN be done with this as nothing can be done with Iranian intervention in Iraq. It's simple fucking common sense. THe Iranians have been in both countries for DECADES, understand the tribes, politics, and culture far better than we have in our 3-4 years. Their influence stretches to legitimate political blocks that the US CANNOT oppose at risk of alienating all local parties. There are no significant moderate secularist parties with power in Iraq simply becuase extremeism has killed them off.

So cry all you want about Iranian intervention in the middle east. Only the most ill-informed will tell you that such a country is not so pro-actively involved with its neighbors. And only the more ill informed will tell us that we can actually do anything about it asides from resorting to diplomatic give and take.

There's a goddamned reason why the US, under the most undiplomatic administrations in history, is engaging in diplomatic negotiations with an "axis of evil" country.

If you were them you would do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Are you people so deluded that you don't think that this type of behaviour isn't happening? Newsflash, the Soviets supplied the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, China was tacitly fighting the US during the Korean war, the US was supplying Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, the Soviets were supplying the Cubans, and the Americans were supplying the rest of South America. Christ, the written record of first hand accounts in Iraq have been written as of 2 years ago ... start reading them. Nothing CAN be done with this as nothing can be done with Iranian intervention in Iraq. It's simple fucking common sense. THe Iranians have been in both countries for DECADES, understand the tribes, politics, and culture far better than we have in our 3-4 years. Their influence stretches to legitimate political blocks that the US CANNOT oppose at risk of alienating all local parties. There are no significant moderate secularist parties with power in Iraq simply becuase extremeism has killed them off. So cry all you want about Iranian intervention in the middle east. Only the most ill-informed will tell you that such a country is not so pro-actively involved with its neighbors. And only the more ill informed will tell us that we can actually do anything about it asides from resorting to diplomatic give and take. There's a goddamned reason why the US, under the most undiplomatic administrations in history, is engaging in diplomatic negotiations with an "axis of evil" country.

International diplomacy is a funny thing.

Some things get called on one day, but not on the other.

*shrug* We all know how US is. It'll call something when only it sees an advantage or a legit concern in 21st century diplomacy.

Yank soldiers are dying because of Iran. I think that's a legit concern for US.

Yeah, the precedent to turning blind eye to arms shipment is there, but that does not mean it's right. (And yes, I'm quite aware that US is top seller of weapons world wide)

My guess is that on this one we will do nothing. I don't believe there is anywhere near the popular support in the US needed for a war against Iran. George Bush has goatfucked the handling of the Iraq war to the point that most people are not interested in another conflict unless something major happens. And to your average Joe dumbass American its no big deal if Iran supplies arms to kill our soldiers. However, if Iran's government was ever linked to a terrorist attack on US soil they would be fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX My guess is that on this one we will do nothing. I don't believe there is anywhere near the popular support in the US needed for a war against Iran. George Bush has goatfucked the handling of the Iraq war to the point that most people are not interested in another conflict unless something major happens. And to your average Joe dumbass American its no big deal if Iran supplies arms to kill our soldiers. However, if Iran's government was ever linked to a terrorist attack on US soil they would be fucked.

Fuck us up over there, no one cares. Fuck us up on our SOIL, you better get ready for hellfire from the skies.

lol

So true...

Fackes

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r lol So true...

I don't even know what to say to that idiocy...

quote:

Originally posted by mcleod I don't even know what to say to that idiocy...

Yea, let's put flowers in the barrels of their guns.

quote:

Originally posted by mcleod I don't even know what to say to that idiocy...

Evidently, you're the one holding the flag on the right...

Or are you just one of those anti-Bush-demagogs that's too blinded-by-hate to see what's really going on over there?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Evidently, you're the one holding the flag on the right... Or are you just one of those anti-Bush-demagogs that's too blinded-by-hate to see what's really going on over there?

Because everything is black and white, right? Do you actually believe that people(all) opposed to the war are in agreement with terrorists? Must be quite the experience living in that reality of yours...

You act like it's such a shock that a country is fighting a proxy war, something that the US has done and been doing for many many years. And no, i don't agree with what Iran has been doing.

quote:

Originally posted by mcleod Because everything is black and white, right? Do you actually believe that people(all) opposed to the war are in agreement with terrorists?

I would be first to admit things aren't THAT black and white but where else would you suggest we stand?
Play pacifist and let the terrorists do their thing because I don't agree with 'the war'?
The terrorists have proven time and time again that they don't follow international rules of engagement, kill innocent civilians indiscriminatly and will do anything to forward their Jihad agenda.
Am I understanding you correctly that you want us to sit on our hands and ignore that because we don't agree with one aspect of what constitutes the single biggest threat of our generation?
I'm beginning to worder about your world

quote:

Must be quite the experience living in that reality of yours...

Actually it's quite awesome thanks

quote:

You act like it's such a shock that a country is fighting a proxy war, something that the US has done and been doing for many many years.

Sorry if I do, but you're right, it's hardly surprising.
I'm not saying OK USA here and that they're the apple of my eye but given the choice, I'd rather be flying my flag with theirs under the gun.

quote:

And no, i don't agree with what Iran has been doing.

Well, at least we agree on something

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I would be first to admit things aren't THAT black and white but where else would you suggest we stand? Play pacifist and let the terrorists do their thing because I don't agree with 'the war'? The terrorists have proven time and time again that they don't follow international rules of engagement, kill innocent civilians indiscriminatly and will do anything to forward their Jihad agenda. Am I understanding you correctly that you want us to sit on our hands and ignore that because we don't agree with one aspect of what constitutes the single biggest threat of our generation? I'm beginning to worder about your world

There are much bigger problems in this world and terrorism isnt one of them,so open you mind(I doubt you can) and you might just begin to think a little differently.Go live your fuckin life and stop calling everyone terrorists ffs.

quote:

I'd just like to offer this critisism Document_iran_c_mn NATO officials say ain't it nato that invaded afghanastan... usually evidence linking your enemies to assisting your other enemies isn't all too 'solid' as far as legitimacy of evidnece in fog of war and 'propaganda' no propaganda doesn't happen anymore.. of course not. plus evidence can be doctored just like court cases and the news.

America invaded, NATO took over later.

I wouldn't examine these accusations in the light of, "evidence can be doctored so I won't believe it."

quote:

There are much bigger problems in this world and terrorism isnt one of them

Terrorism is the biggest problem facing the world today. No other event is more dangerous than the worst-case senario terrorist attack, of which they have stated is there goal, evidenced by the numerous attacks, and plots foiled around the world; undeniable. One successful attack can change the world, as was evidenced by september 11. No other force has such potential to cause instability especially when it is by stateless, suicidal fanatics, and ironically many are educated. You cannot negociate with these people. Why we detracted from fighting al-qaida is not my question to answer, but because mistakes were made with Iraq doesn't mean the fight isn't worth or should be fought.

hardtrancer, I beg to differ on your opinion of terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer There are much bigger problems in this world and terrorism isnt one of them,so open you mind(I doubt you can) and you might just begin to think a little differently.

I'm supposed to open my mind to suicide bombers and beheadings because they 'think differently'?
Yea ok.

quote:

Go live your fuckin life and stop calling everyone terrorists ffs.

You know it's people like you who don't know what they're talking about that so frustrating.
You think I'm painting the whole Muslim religion with the Jihad brush when countless times I've made my position quite clear it's the extremists who are to blame.
Feel free to bleat on with that CAIR-like attitude however, worrying about how everyone else thinks though...

quote:

Originally posted by ******** ain't it nato that invaded afghanastan.

no.

the ISAF is a coalition of 37 countries asked to come in by the Afghan Transitional Authority and authorized unanimously by the UN.

Iran has nothing to do with, nor should it be allowed, to have ANYTHING to do with Afghanistan outside of it's border with her.

The article is so lame ... reminiscent of the famous WMD's we-are-so-sure-we-know-they-have-them attitude. Last time I checked, for a proven fact, Pakistan is the hotbed and the infiltrating point for many guerillas into Afghanistan. No wonder why there's regular clashes on the border with islamists that are trying to get inside Afghanistan, and even talks about how Osama is in Pakistan. Oh, but we dont need to know that, ignore that. Ignore the massive anti-US and pro-Osama rallies in Islamabad and all over Pakistan. Lets blame Iran (WTF?) for supporting Al Qaeda, the terrorists and Taliban. Let's blame someone we dont like, and provide little if no evidence for the loud mouth ... as usual, eh?

Iran is just asking for more economic/diplomatic disaster and I can't wait to see their asses handed to them.

New development...

quote:

U.S.: NATO has intercepted Iranian arms By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago PARIS - NATO has intercepted Iranian weapons shipments to Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents, providing evidence Iran is violating international law to aid a group it once considered a bitter enemy, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday. "There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. "It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government." Speaking separately to The Associated Press, Burns said NATO must act to stop the shipments. The Iran-Afghanistan frontier is "a very long border. But the Iranians need to know that we are there and that we're going to oppose this." "It's a very serious question," he said, adding that Iran is in "outright violation" of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Burns did not give details on the scope of the alleged Iranian shipments, although he appeared to indicate that they were limited. "I don't think it's made a substantial difference in the greater theater of the war," he said. "It is not going to turn the tide against us, but it is very troublesome, it is illegal under international law ... and the Iranians need to stop it," Burns told the AP. Burns, who was holding talks in Paris, first accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan � the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official. In Afghanistan last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of anti-government Taliban fighters, but he stopped short of blaming Tehran. Iran's possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments alleged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters. In an AP interview Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to "an advanced Western military" in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers. "In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime," British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in the May 31 edition of the Economist. Iran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies the Taliban accusation, calling it part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban. Burns acknowledged that it was "curious" that Iran would aid the Taliban. "It's quite surprising," he told CNN. "The Iranians had said that they were the mortal enemies of the Taliban in 2001 and '02." On the nuclear issue, Burns claimed that sanctions already leveled against Iran were being felt and reiterated the threat of more if the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment � which the West fears could be meant for the production of nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday dismissed the possibility that a third set of Security Council sanctions would harm Iran. Burns disagreed. "I think most people would say that the Iranians are experiencing considerable economic difficulties because of the financial sanctions that have been taken outside the Council and because of Security Council sanctions," he told CNN. While diplomatic solutions are preferable, "they will get sanctions if they choose confrontation," Burns said. "All of us want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. That's the policy of the entire world."

LOL ... Taliban actually has a mailbox of some sort or an organized arms pick-up and trade agency set up? LOL ... Last time I checked, most gun battles are going on BESIDE PAKISTAN'S BORDER, so do the math from where the guns, militants and support is flowing. Secondly, we all know for a fact and from previous history that Iran HAS CLASHED before and is a bitter rival and enemy of Taliban. Different faith, different goals, different pretty much everything. Taliban was formed by US and its allies to fight anti-US forces and Iran and Taliban NEVER even established embassies because they hated each other so much. Plus the border clashes. Plus all the excursions by anti-Iranian Afghanistan-based and Pakistan-based militants that are somewhat funded by USA and Pakistan to undermine Iran from within. So its a bullshit story, just like a we-know-WMDs-were-there thing. US is just looking for an excuse to attack Iran, to take over its oil and gas fields, thats all.

US has done that before, and will never stop to try to seize Iranian resources (remember Operation Ajax?).

So do the math. Think of common sense. Drop the bullshit. Accusations against Iran with NO evidence but mere speculation are only making the situation in the region more tense and dangerous. Iran is clearly labeled as an enemy, some terrorist and such when we all know that actually all the real terrorists and militants are in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan right now. No more bullshit, please ;-) AND MOST OF THEM, THE CONFIRMED ONES ARE ACTUALLY COMING FROM PAKISTAN, SAUDI ARABIA, SYRIA ... NOT IRAN, I REPEAT NOT IRAN. Only very few if any are from Iran, and Iranian government just cant handcuff all its citizens.

Excellent post Magnetonium,It is funny how people realize that Iran is actually against the Taliban and they have been for years.WHy the fuck would they start supporting them now?

According to the logic of some people here this all make sense,Iran is a terrorist nation (Bush says so) so therfore they must support every fuckin terrorists in this world.

The case that the U.S is trying to build agaisnt Iran is a fuckin joke and it will never work. Why arent they going after the real people that are giving arms to Taliban?where is the rage agaisnt Pakistan? whats even worst is seeing how some people are just blindly falling for their bullshit so called proofs.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Evidently, you're the one holding the flag on the right... Or are you just one of those anti-Bush-demagogs that's too blinded-by-hate to see what's really going on over there?

LOL, I can't believe you said something that ridiculous . Thanks for the laugh man .

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.