Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Taliban's bombs came from US, not Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:31 PM
Original message
Taliban's bombs came from US, not Iran
Source: Asia Times

Taliban's bombs came from US, not Iran
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - In support of the official United States assertion that Iran is arming its sworn enemy, the Taliban, the head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Dennis Blair, has cited a statement by a Taliban commander last year attributing military success against North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces to Iranian military assistance.

But the Taliban commander's claim is contradicted by evidence from the US Defense Department, Canadian forces in Afghanistan and the Taliban themselves that the increased damage to NATO tanks by Taliban forces has come from anti-tank mines provided by the United States to the jihadi movement against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The Taliban claim was cited by the ODNI in written responses to questions for the record from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence following testimony by Blair before the committee on February 12, 2009. The responses were released to the Federation of American Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act on July 30.

ODNI wrote that Iran was "covertly supplying arms to Afghan insurgents while publicly posing as supportive of the Afghan government". As evidence of such covert Iranian arms supply, the ODNI said, "Taliban commanders have publicly credited Iranian support for their successful operations against coalition forces."

That statement was taken almost word-for-word from the subtitle of an article published on the website of London's Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph on September 14 last year. "A Taliban commander has credited Iranian-supplied weapons with successful operations against coalition forces in Afghanistan," read the sub-heading of the article "Taliban claim weapons supplied by Iran".

The single Taliban commander quoted became plural in the ODNI version.

In the article, British journalist Kate Clark quoted an unnamed Taliban commander as saying, "There's a kind of landmine called a Dragon. Iran's sending it. It's directional and it causes heavy casualties." The commander said the new mine would "destroy" large tanks "completely", whereas "ordinary" anti-tank mines had only caused "minor damage".

If true, the revelation that an improved Iranian anti-tank weapon had been killing US and NATO troops in larger numbers would have been a major development in the war in Afghanistan. Roadside bomb attacks are acknowledged by US and NATO officials to be the cause of most of the casualties and deaths of foreign troops in the country.

The rapid rise in casualties over the past two years is attributed in part to the increased lethality of the Taliban mines.

But according to the Pentagon agency responsible for combating roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increased Taliban threat to US and NATO vehicles comes not from any new technology from Iran but from Italian-made mines left over from the US Central Intelligence Agency's military assistance to the anti-Soviet jihadists in the 1980s.

(more)

Read more: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI05Ak02.html



Echoes of the bright and shining lies of Iraq, Vietnam and many other "interventions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. What goes around comes around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Blowback of a different kind nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frustratedlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Is this the Iran-Contra Affair biting us in the butt? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Not directly
The mines were supplied well before Iran Contra but many of the players are connected to both ops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. What a surprise . . .!!! We're also arming the warmongering of Israel -- !!!
How many Americans still don't understand that US/CIA created and financed Taliban/Al Qaeda????

How many Americans still don't understand that US/CIA created the Islamic crazies????

How many Americans still don't understand that US/CIA baited Russia into Afghanistan, using

the these fanatics ... "in hopes of giving Russia a Vietnam-type experience" !!!

How many Americans still don't understand that US/CIA financed the Taliban with hundreds of

millions of dollars right up to 9/11???????

Wake up, folks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. How many Americans still don't understand that President
Carter was the man in the White House at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. No, it was Poppy and CIA Director Casey who upped the ante.
It wasn't until late in '81 that projects came on-line. Before that it low-level support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. True . . . and I found that shocking . . . especially re the whole thing about
the Olympics and taking the US out in protest of Russians invasion of Afghanistan!

And, as far as I'm aware, no journalist has ever questioned Carter on this.

Disgusting -- !!!

But it is a well-used and long-used pattern of patriarchy to send in the "religion"

first -- and of course there is no fanatic like a religious fanatic!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wonder why this got moved?
Edited on Sat Sep-05-09 02:56 PM by tekisui
It is not common for stories to get moved because they are an editorial or "other article".

ETA: I guess it failed the criteria for LBN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I guess because it's more like analysis of news than breaking news.
The bad part is that it doesn't get as much exposure but the good part is that it stays on the front page here a lot longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. I'm not thrilled about it
It's recent and new. Placing it here gives it less exposure but is no big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. You're singing the song of the dungeon . . .why should any topic be taboo here?
Information that people need to know is moved into the dungeon all the time --

And, IMO, your article should have been in general.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Italian TC 6
http://www.one-step-beyond.de/en/countries/afghanistan/mines/afghanistan_mine_tc36.html

TC/3.6 is a minimum-metal Anti-Tank (AT) blast mine. The mine is composed of a main charge and central booster in the plastic casing of the mine body, with a fuze assembly which screws onto the top. A larger version, TC/6, uses the same system with a heavier charge (see following entry). In both designations, the figures denote the mine's explosive content in kilograms. The fuze has a pressure plate which encloses an air filled cavity; beneath this is a strong plastic bulkhead which protects the fuze mechanism. There is no mechanical link between the pressure plate and the fuze mechanism, but the bulkhead has a very small bleed-hole in it. The mechanism consists of a spring-loaded striker retained against an outer collar by a single steel retaining ball. Above this collar and below the bleed-hole, is a flexible diaphragm. The mechanism cavity is vented into two round recesses in the base of the fuze; these are lined with a membrane and fitted with a protective grill. The detonator assembly screws into the base of the fuze, replaced by an inert plastic version during transit. The heavily ribbed mine body, which is fitted with either a plastic carrying handle or rope, is produced in olive green and sand colours, with other options available.





I know these are the mines that are discussed in the article from first-hand experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Two different kinds of mines are being discussed in the article.
Edited on Sat Sep-05-09 03:46 PM by formercia
--snip--

"In the article, British journalist Kate Clark quoted an unnamed Taliban commander as saying, "There's a kind of landmine called a Dragon. Iran's sending it. It's directional and it causes heavy casualties." The commander said the new mine would "destroy" large tanks "completely", whereas "ordinary" anti-tank mines had only caused "minor damage".

If true, the revelation that an improved Iranian anti-tank weapon had been killing US and NATO troops in larger numbers would have been a major development in the war in Afghanistan. Roadside bomb attacks are acknowledged by US and NATO officials to be the cause of most of the casualties and deaths of foreign troops in the country.

The rapid rise in casualties over the past two years is attributed in part to the increased lethality of the Taliban mines."

--snip--




My comment:

Besides the TC6 blast mines, the insurgents were provided with 'improvised' self-forging AT mines. These mines will completely destroy a MBT by setting off the internal ordnance. I viewed a photograph of a Soviet T55 that 'detonated' after running over one. Even the gun tube was blown in two when the chambered round detonated. There wasn't a fragment left that two men couldn't pick up. The crew had vaporized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. Beware of the military/industrial complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Weapons are "fungible", just ask Donald Rumsfeld.
Of course Rumsfeld proved to be "fungible" too ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The problem is that supplying them with more than they needed
allowed the Anti-Soviet insurgents to stash ordnance for use at a later date. We are now paying the price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. The question is,
Why, 8 years after the initial invasion, they're just now using them.

They misplaced them? They couldn't figure out how to use them? They weren't serious before? They wanted to try other things first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. They were probably stored in an ISI warehouse.
or they could have been stored in an area that was inaccessible to them at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Payback is a bitch!
We made a mistake in supporting the religious wackos in the 1980s. It is karma that the weapons we gave them to kill Soviet troops are now being used against our own troops.

Bring the troops home now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. We had almost no input as to who received the weapons
that was decided by the Pakistani ISI, and they supported the most radical factions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
17. Blowback ~ there will lots more
9/11 was another example, as well as all the other 'terror' attacks we like to pretend came out of the blue when these people woke up one day and said 'let's go kill some Americans for the hell of it'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
23. Islamic radicals have been
manipulated by western powers for a long time. The Germans had a very active program during WWI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC