How are Iraqi rebels obtaining illegal arms?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter devil-fire
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
77 replies · 8K views
Adam said:
Are you now saying the US Library Of Congress is wrong, and the FOIA releases lies?

You know very well what I'm asking for Adam. Just simply post a link to the actual page with this proof. Show me where we gave Russian small arms to Iraq. More specifically, just show me where we gave them AK-47's.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Smurf said:
"American technology, Russian Technology, All made in Taiwan!"

Where I come from 'Golden' is a slang word used to express great interest or amusment.
Still waiting on those links.

Sorry, I find nothing amusing about many of the covert operations launched during the cold war.
 
You and Johnny both, obsessed with links

http://www.spongobongo.com/no9979.htm

"Shortly afterwards President Reagan ordered the CIA to airlift in every AK-47 that we could get our hands on to the rebellion. Obviously if we supplied the rifles that we had, the M16s would have been too obvious. So we turned to the stores in Pakistan and the huge stockpiles of AK-47s in Israel"

The internet has everything, If I can find a site that says Bush's mother was a space alien, I can find a sight that says Pigs were brought to North America by Flying Horses.
 
Last edited:
Smurf said:
You and Johnny both, obsessed with links

http://www.spongobongo.com/no9979.htm

"Shortly afterwards President Reagan ordered the CIA to airlift in every AK-47 that we could get our hands on to the rebellion. Obviously if we supplied the rifles that we had, the M16s would have been too obvious. So we turned to the stores in Pakistan and the huge stockpiles of AK-47s in Israel"

The internet has everything, If I can find a site that says Bush's mother was a space alien, I can find a sight that says Pigs were brought to America by Flying Horses.

I'm obsessed with the links because of the constant about of bull**** that is running rampant on these forums.
But the point of that mission was to keep the US's fingerprints off of it, but still support the revolt. You have made your point that we have provided them, but I still don't see how this is common sense, or likely, in the case of Iraq (I still don't see a link to this one, as Adam is saying exists ).
The last time we would have provided Iraq weapons would have been the same time they were getting weapons from the Soviets. Why the soviets would give them no small arms, with their tanks, migs, and other supplies is beyond me. But to make this even more crazy, you assert that we then wanted to covertly give Saddam small arms and keep our prints off that, while we held a public relationship with him and supplied him chemical weapons to deter Iran.

As for your idea that M-16's are too expensive. You are Canadian,so you may not be aware that our government does not work on an intelligent expense platform (no matter how much I wish they did). Iran is the only other country in the world that has the F-14. They are currently buried in the dirt to make use of their long range Radar. If planes, and one of our most expensive at the time, aren't too expensive, I don't see why small arms would be - not to mention the other contradictory reasons I stated above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah. I forgot what we were arguing about, give me a minute.

>>Oh right. weather the USA gave Iraq AK-47s and RPGs. I got carried away and forgot what my point was. another minute.
 
http://www.curi.us/domain/archives/2004/04/20/weap-caches

I don't understand it myself, this guy is going on about weapon caches and whatnot, very interesting.

He basically states (I think) that there's more burried munitions in Iraq than anywhere else in the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-29-cover-small-arms_x.htm

a more comprehensible article about it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So far, we have been provided a short blurb from an unnamed rug dealer, an admittedly error-prone, incomprehensible guestimation from "curi," and a news article from CNN that states that the Iraqis had (gasp) a lot of small arms. (I don't even bother with Adam's links anymore.)

Why not find the evidence to support your claims, THEN post?
 
Ah, refusal to view the information presented. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? :)
 
Adam said:
Ah, refusal to view the information presented. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? :)

The information isn't refused, its just been proven false. This piece of information is what youve been refusing.
 
Smurf, studenx has a habit of saying things totally unrelated to... well, anything, really. The information was never "proven false" by anyone, least of all studentx.
 
Which piece of information are you referring to? The piece that doesn't prove that the US gave iraq AK's and RPG's? You don't understand it do you?
The burden of proof lies with you.
 
I don't know, your the one that said it what were YOU referring to?
 
Smurf said:
Try the USA.

This was the piece of information i was referring to. Its been proven false by lack of any evidence of this assumption and when asked to post evidence, it is said the evidence is already posted. When Adam is asked to point to the evidence , he points to something which is not evidence and accuses others of refusing it as evidence. This is also a piece of information which has been proven false : Adams claim that what he posted is evidence to the assumption that the US gave Ak's and RPG's to Iraq.
 
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan1.php

second paragraph

"At every turn of the war against Iraq, U.S. and British forces will face weapons systems largely developed and supplied to Iraq by American, European, Russian and Chinese companies."

America may not have been the only nation. But my suggestion still stands.
 
No mention of the CIA. No mention of AK-47's.

Just another wild goose chase.
 
Why are you so offended by the idea the CIA gave Ak-47s to Iraq, we know tehy gave them to afghanistan.
 
studentx said:
This was the piece of information i was referring to. Its been proven false by lack of any evidence of this assumption and when asked to post evidence, it is said the evidence is already posted. When Adam is asked to point to the evidence , he points to something which is not evidence and accuses others of refusing it as evidence. This is also a piece of information which has been proven false : Adams claim that what he posted is evidence to the assumption that the US gave Ak's and RPG's to Iraq.

Remember what I told you ages ago? Read first, then post.

Here are the links I provided for you earlier:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/jf99/jf99lumpe.html
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck
 
Ok now, could someone just post the proof that the US supplied Iraq with its Ak47's and RPG's ?
Adam? Smurf? ANYONE?
 
Ok now, could someone just post the proof that the US supplied Iraq with its Ak47's and RPG's ?

Proof? Hell, I would almost settle for "scant evidence" at this point.
 
Adam posted a link, and damned if I didn't bother reading it again. Why do I waste my time? I should have known it would have no mention of sales of AK-47s to Iraq anywhere in the text, but I looked anyway. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on Candid Camera.
 
Nearly everybody in Iraq has a gun of some sort and that was true even under Saddam Hussein. Arms have never been difficult to get hold of in the region and I imagie many of the tribal militas may of had rpgs.
 
jcsd said:
Nearly everybody in Iraq has a gun of some sort and that was true even under Saddam Hussein. Arms have never been difficult to get hold of in the region and I imagie many of the tribal militas may of had rpgs.

Link to something explaining this? Sure would like to know why the Iraqis weren't handling Saddam themselves then.
 
This is the first one I found:

According to media reports, Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. It is believed that there are enough guns in Iraq for at last every person in Iraq to possesses one, a level similar to gun ownership in clans in Yemen and Somalia, as well as in the United States. With a population of approximately 24 million, that means there could be millions of small arms in the hands of civilians. The gun culture is pervasive in Iraq. There is even an Iraqi saying, "Give everything to your friend, except your car, your wife, and your gun."

http://www.cdi.org/iraq/small-arms.cfm


Armed civilians are no match for an army.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jcsd said:
This is the first one I found:



http://www.cdi.org/iraq/small-arms.cfm


Armed civilians are no match for an army.

So why didn't they handle Saddam? I don't get it :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
phatmonky said:
So why didn't they handle Saddam? I don't get it :confused:
It's a myth that an armed citizenry is any real protection against a dictatorship, indeed there was a popular uprising in some areas of Iraq just after the Gulf War, but when it failed to receive any support from coalition forces as the rebels had expected it is was easily and brutally crushed by Saddam. As I said before armed civilians are never any match for an army, any internal uprising woul dof needed the support of the Iraqi army which was entirely controlled by Saddam and his henchmen.
 
It's a myth that an armed citizenry is any real protection against a dictatorship,

It depends on how much support the dictator has from the Army. An armed, popular uprising could very well pose a serious threat to a dictator if the Army decides that engaging in firefights with its own people is unpalatable.