(ABC) EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia ("smoking-gun evidence")

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501

EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi MilitiaHezbollah Training Also Linked to Iraq Violence

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

[aquart]

1. So?

It ain't like we have the strength to do a damn thing about it.

Thanks, George.

[itsmesgd]

2. So are we attacking Iran in one week or two?

What is the official DU over under line on the date of an attack on Iran?
I'm no odds maker, but if I had to bet I'd say around December 13, plus or minus two days.
Are there odds for a before Christmas attack?

[oblivious]

3. You know what ABC News? If these 'officials won't give their names, it ain't worth printing.

U.S. officials ... According to a senior defense official ... This suggests, say the sources ... says a senior official ... U.S. intelligence believes ... Two senior U.S. defense officials ... one of the senior officials said he believed ... U.S. intelligence officials believe ...

[madrchsod]

4. duhhhh

gee who would have thought that?

[bowens43]

5. They have allies, big deal.

I am always amazed by this kind of report. Why does the US get outraged when the insurgency gets military aid from other countries? There is no difference between Iran and Syria aiding the insurgency and the US and Britain aiding Maliki's puppet government.

[INDIA]

16. No difference?

Really? REALLY? Okaaaaay....:eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

19. no, really, no different than the U.S. aiding the Afghans against the USSR

and how did that end, I wonder?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Alright.

So what's the difference?

[INDIA]

32. Why should I even bother?

You'll just poke tiny holes in my rational and reasonable argument and declare victory.

Militias in Iraq are about a 1/2 step above terrorists in terms of despicably. Although some of their time is spent protecting Shiite neighborhoods from Sunni/ Al Qaeda attacks,(a good thing since they can't depend on the U.S.) they also attack and kill innocent Sunnis with their death squads, and sometimes U.S. troops. Supporting them is wrong, and destabilizes the country. If it's "not such a big deal" as the poster above implied, then why does Iran continuously deny supporting the militias with money and weapons? AND Hezbolla for that matter? The fucking cowards can't even own up to their own actions, which anyone with a brain can see are wrong.

The U.S. and Britain are supporting a democratically elected fledgling government that is trying to bring peace and order to the country. I'm pulling for this young government, and they are not in any significant way comparable to terrorists/militias. The U.S, Britain, and other countries openly support them with all the world, including the U.N to see.

The poster was comparing the lawful support of a lawfully elected, (somewhat secular) government to the illegal and underground support of right-wing religious fanatics. They aren't comparable, at least to a rational person.

And now... I'm sure everybody is going to pull out their favorite links about the Iraqi or US govt doing misdeeds in the past, which will somehow win them the entire argument, regardless of the proportionality of the actions committed by the separate parties. I once played little league baseball, you cannot compare me to Barry Bonds. Although I think the above poster would say "what's the difference? You both played baseball."

[Ms. Clio]

36. "The U.S. and Britain are supporting a democratically elected fledgling government

that is trying to bring peace and order to the country."

I thought you told me you didn't support this war, India3? Remember? Or do I need to find that oh-so-inconvenient link?

[INDIA]

38. So since you don't support the war...

You want this government to fail? I would hope that not to be true. I certainly do not support this war, but now that we are there, I hope that this government succeeds. Anybody with a heart would. It's the best chance Iraq has, otherwise it is split into threes and becomes a mini Iran theocracy in the south, and an Anti-American sunni 1/3 in the north and west, with a small friendly Kurd third farther north. (Hey, kurd third rhymes!)

Now me HOPING is not enough. I HOPE this government pulls it off, but I think that it is time for US troops to come home. (and yes, I admit that pulling the troops out hurts the young govts chance of survival, but I just think we've been there long enough. Time to leave and wish them good luck.)

[Ms. Clio]

40. Um, if you support "trying to make the government succeed" then you are supporting the war

because that is precisely the rationale used by the Bush administration to justify "the mission."

[INDIA]

42. BS.

Total BS. I know plenty of people who are against this war, including myself, because there never were the WMD's that we went in there for. That was the primary reason for war. Only after * realized his blunder did Rove spin this as "bringing democracy to the ME". Well now that we are there, yes, I hope a "secular"(Iraqi style anyway) western style democracy succeeds in the ME. Most rational people would. I also believe that it's time to come home, and limit our support to political and economic.

Now answer me this. So you believe that those against this war, which includes you and me, can't support this Iraqi government? That's what you seem to be saying above.

Do you want this government to fail? Since we shouldn't have been there in the first place?

[Ms. Clio]

43. The war was based on lies and oil and global strategery

It was never about "democracy" and it never will be. The "democratically elected" government is a farce that failed in Vietnam when the U.S. installed one there and will ultimately fail in Iraq.

[INDIA]

44. You dodged the question...

You should run for office. (lol) Once again... Do you want the Iraqi government to succeed? (and by succeed, I mean continue a "secular" democracy, become autonomous, bring peace, stability, and keep Iraq unified)

It's a yes or no question.

[Ms. Clio]

45. The "Iraqi government" is an exceedingly-fragile fabrication of the United States

that does not remotely resemble your fairy tale of peace and democracy. It's not going to "succeed." It doesn't matter what I "want."

[INDIA]

47. Still dodging...

It does "matter" what you "want" BECAUSE you painted me as some sort of chickenhawk war supporter because I "want" the government to succeed. So after that mischarachterization, I'm turning the tables back on you. I'm curious to what you "want" AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER.

for the third time...Do you want the Iraqi government to succeed? (Definition of "succeed" in my post above).

[Ms. Clio]

48. Oh, stop it -- you parrot the administration talking points on this war

which is that all the killing and dying is necessary to achieve "success"; ergo, that makes you a war supporter.

[INDIA]

52. Still dodging...

Funny. I completely predicted you would compare me to *. When all else fails, accuse them of being a troll.

I'm sure you'd be the first one to criticize Dem politicians for not having enough backbone to stand up and take on the tough issues, answer the tough questions, and take on BushCo. Yet, here on an anonymous blog, you can't answer a simple question after four tries, when you already used the same train of thought against me, to make me look like a jerk, look at post #40.

It's a VERY simple question. I'd be polite enough to answer any of your questions....

Fourth time, last chance to show some a little backbone and answer the question...

You said I support the war because I want the Iraqi government to succeed. Do you, or do you not want the Iraqi government to succeed???????????????????????????

[INDIA]

53. Helooooooooo?

I guess she left, couldn't answer one stinking question based on the same logic she used to smear me. Pretty sad, (and cowardly.) If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it.


I have one final word for the recently departed poster........


YOU JUST GOT PWN3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[endarkenment]

54. So how much longer should we continue killing Iraqis

so that this 'best chance for Iraq' can continue its sorry existence? Another 6 months? Another year? Another two years? As long as it takes? Is 650,000 dead Iraqis enough? How many dead Iraqis will it take to convince you that the mission is not going to succeed?

Why do something like 75% of Iraqis want us to just pack up and leave? Perhaps they know something you don't about our occupation forces and what their mission really is?

Just how is the Shia dominated regime in Baghdad the best chance that Sunni or Kurdish people in the region have? Perhaps they know better than you what is best for them?

[LynnTheDem]

61. Yer joking, right?

As a joke your post is :rofl:

[javelina]

18. The difference is

that their allies are helping to kill our soldiers. Our government obviously has an interest in stopping state support of our enemies.

[Ms. Clio]

20. the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place

[INDIA]

35. Zing!

Great comeback Clio! What a well thought out and logical argument you have there!:yourock:

[Ms. Clio]

37. I know

It's so simple, isn't it? The U.S. never should have invaded in the first place. Nor does it need to stay now. What could be easier to understand?

[endarkenment]

28. Why exactly are the Shia Militias our enemy? nt.

[INDIA]

29. Because they've killed

dozens, maybe hundreds of US troops. And thousands of innocent Sunnis AND Shiites. Is that a good enough reason?

This is making me sick.

[endarkenment]

30. Actually the Shia militia have only rarely taken the offensive

against our troops. For the most part it has been the Sunni militias that have been fighting our occupation forces. Conflict between Shia militia and occupation forces have been largely initiated by the occupation forces in attempts to reassert sovereignty over various sections of Iraq. Until quite recently (as in this week) we were in fact more or less aligned with the Shia factions in the Civil War, backing the Shia dominated government, and ignoring for the most part the operations of Shia militias while arming and training them via our attempts to build an Iraqi Army. But why actually try to comprehend just what a total disaster this thing is when instead you can fall into simplistic knee-jerk reactions to each bit of propaganda pumped into your brain?

Yes sure it is awful our troops our getting killed. Perhaps we should get out of their country and stop shooting at them? Do the Iraqis have no right to self defense?

[Ms. Clio]

34. oh, piffle, don't go interjecting any FACTS into some people's worldview

the cognitive dissonance makes them ill.

[INDIA]

39. Hence the "dozens, maybe hundreds"

instead of thousands. I acknowledged that Shiites aren't the US's biggest problem in Iraq, maybe I should have been clearer.

[endarkenment]

51. Maybe I wasn't clear: we should get out.

And again, with some exceptions, the Shiite militias have mostly not initiated attacks against our forces. Our troops have been shot at and killed by Shiite militias mostly by our initiating actions against them.

You've made the claim that they are our enemies and I claim that is just a simplistic knee jerk reaction to a complicated situation. If the Shia and the Sunni communities are all our enemies, who exactly, other than the Kurds (with their huge well armed militias) are our friends? If we have no friends in Iraq, why are we there? If the major ethnic groups are all our enemies, who is supplying them with guns is a bit beside the point.

Ah this is bullshit on so many levels. In 2003-4 when we knocked off the regime we left unguarded huge weapons caches all over Iraq. There has never been any shortage of weapons at all. If you want to be outraged about something, try being outraged at the actions taken by your government in that period of time. And that is just one example. What happened that first year was either criminal negligence or a deliberate effort to make sure that Iraq was not going to become a sovereign nation any time soon, which as it put our troops in harms way would be treason.

[creeksneakers2]

57. The Iraqis are mostly killing each other

I don't think it has anything to do with defense. If the killing stopped and the Iraqi government demanded that the US leave, we would have to do that.

I believe the guys who detonate car bombs in the middle of crowded markets, or kidnap people and leave them in the street blindfolded,handcuffed and dead are the bad guys.

The way I look at it, if we stopped fighing the war would go on. If they stopped fighting it would stop.

[LynnTheDem]

63. And how many Iraqis have the illegal invaders killed?

Does that make you sick, too?

[maxrandb]

31. And that's exactly why I just heard that Jenna and Barbara

Bush are enlisting to join the fight. At least they will after they're done doing their Britney and Paris impersonations in South America.

Please don't come in here and pretend that we haven't backed some pretty shady people over the years. Look no further than the photo of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands AFTER WE KNEW HE HAD USED POISON GAS ON THE IRANIANS.

And before you pull out that tired argument about how someone like me "doesn't support the troops", or is a "blame 'Murika First" socialist...let me point out to you that I am a troop. 23 years in the Navy and still going.

It's not unpatriotic for me to point out that if we had used a little bit of intelligent, well thought out, cohesive, mature foreign policy, Iran would not be in a position to provide arms to an insurgency...an insurgency, by the way, that did not exist in 2002.

to quote Jack Nicholson: "Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here".

[LynnTheDem]

62. "our soldiers" are illegal invaders.

Or did ya miss out on that wee fact?

[acmavm]

6. Do they mean george's boy Maliki's new bestest friends?

Well, these ain't a whole lot that we can do about any of this. Unless the plans to nuke Iran are back on the table.

bush** is desperate. You never know.

[Dhalgren]

7. So, are we saying now that the Shiite militias are "terrorists"?

"U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq".

I didn't know that the militias had been designated "terrorist organizations". I'll bet Al-Sadr doesn't know that (or care). And since many of the police and army units in Iraq are almost totally filled with militia members, don't we, too, "arm" the militias? We have dumped so many weapons into Iraq that I find it ludicrous that any American would have the temerity to claim "smoking gun" evidence about anything. This is just more "let's get those Iranians!" bullshit. Hope to god no one is buying this crap...

[Paulie]

8. I call BS

Look at this line:

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons.

How in hell do you have an advanced IED. The "I" stands for Improvised. If this is a designed anti-vehicle munition, then it's not improvised, it's a landmine. Whomever is the source is a dumbass.

[Dhalgren]

9. Good catch! I completely missed that. What morans...

[itsmesgd]

10. I agree BS, but

think that this might be another case of the admin "floating" a story on Friday (or Thursday in this case) to see how it flies over the weekend before adopting it as policy. If enough people "bite on it" the admin will begin to push harder. If the story flops, they seek another excuse.

[sabra]

13. This is the fourth time I have seen this report of the last year

I think you are right, that they throw it out periodically to test the waters...

[Kagemusha]

14. Right. No one improvises a factory-made munition.

Also, I saw nothing in the article about who EXACTLY is being caught with these things.... which would make a difference. Specific accusations would get noticed.

Oh, it's not that I think Iran *isn't* providing support to various factions but, if it's say, SCIRI, then the support is an absolute no-brainer and might not even be intended against US forces so, specifics matter.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Could also be that the reporter is a dumbass.

And thinks any kind of planted bomb = IED.

[jpgray]

46. Doesn't speak well for the integrity of the piece, in any case.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. From first-hand experience...

Any time I've dealt with the media, it's been my experience that they get it right about 80% of the time, and the other 20% of the time they're abhorrently wrong. Using the current example, any of the following could have happened:

Reporter misinterperets source.
Source is actually wrong.
Source has misunderstood information given to him by someone else.
Source is fundamentally right, but confuses reporter.
Reporter simply fucks up the description.
Reporter is lying.
Source is lying.
Etc...

This is why getting your news from any one outlet (can you hear me Cheney?) is wrong. There are factual inaccuracies in every journalistic endeavour. "He said this" pieces, such as this one, are particularly prone to this kind of mistake.

Is the gubmint of Iran directly supplying Shiite militias? I have no idea. It stands to reason that they might. Right now there's really no way to tell.

[Bandit]

11. I have it on good authority that US made weapons are being used

against Americans....We should bomb America immediately...

[Jacobin]

12. Hell, the US is arming the pro-Iranian Shiia faster than Iran is

This is meaningless claptrap, except to the extent that the Saudis are about to start arming the Sunnis to fight the Shiias we just gave the country to.

What a bunch of hooey and third grade 'journalism'

[xultar]

15. And the march to war with Iran goes on.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. So? Who's the largest arms dealer in the world? If they were bought and paid for, so what?

[Proletariatprincess]

21. War Pimp Alert.

I don't buy any of it...it fits too well into thier plans to be at war for the 2008 election cycle.

[originalpckelly]

23. Well of course, Iran wants us to stay and die in Iraq...

how else do they plan to take our Army and Marines apart piece by piece?

That's why Ahmadinejad put out that letter asking for us to withdraw, he knows of his bad reputation and when people in America hear him say the same things we do, they feel negatively towards them.

It's reverse psychology, and it's working fairly well.

[sniffa]

24. um, who cares?

[daleo]

25. Even if true (which I don't necessarily grant), big deal

U.S./U.K. attacks and occupies Iraq, then has the nerve to complain about some rifles and small arms entering from a neighboring country? They are hardly in a position to complain.

[frylock]

26. 45 minutes till a mushroom cloud..

yeah, I believe this. Yesiree. Excuse me a sec (sips kool-aid... ahhhhhhhh), yep -- this is for realz.

[MGKrebs]

33. Uh oh. What's worse than being in the Axis of Evil?

Are they now the Acme of Evil?
The Pinnacle of Perversion?
The Height of Heinousness?
The Vanguard of Villainy?

I expect N. Korea to make some noise. Wouldn't want to be left behind in the Enemies of George Bush club.

By the way, does the Axis actually still exist? Is Iraq in or out?

Oh, The Google answered my question. We have added Cuba, Libya, and Syria to the list, although I imagine we have removed Libya since then.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1971852.stm

So the current lineup would be:
North Korea
Syria
Iran
Cuba
Iraq* (provisional status)

But Iran may be more evil than the rest right now. The Most Evil.

[roamer65]

41. So are the weapons "East, West, South and North...

of Baghdad?" This sounds an awful lot like the yellow journalism of 2002-03.

[TexasLawyer]

49. How many "terrorists" are using

US and British arms? Is that "smoking gun" proof that the US and Britain are supporting the terrorists?

[Megahurtz]

50. It figures that some unknown "U.S. Officials"

would throw this out to the MSN on the heels of Iran's letter to the U.S. :eyes:

What a crock of shit.

[SOS]

56. Setting the stage

From the Iraq War Resolution:

"Sec. 3 (b) (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations"

From the article:

"U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists"

Bushco is setting the stage to circumvent the Democratic Congress for their next colossal failure.

[TroglodyteScholar]

58. ABC who?

Never heard of them.

[anotherdrew]

59. well, a lot of the exploding cars are American, so we must be helping them too!

there's no way cars stolen from American streets could be ending up in the hands of the insurgency without US government help. :sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

60. Well DAMN them "FOREIGN FIGHTERS".

Oh wait...never mind.

[LynnTheDem]

64. British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

Amazing how the US keeps finding that thar "smoking gun". :eyes:

[pinniped]

65. I'm sooooo sure the Iranians don't know how to produce 'sterile' weapons.

.