Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Maybe Iran never did furnish IED's for use in Iraq ... American propaganda?

+3
othershoe1030
ZVUGKTUBM
Wordslinger
7 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

The following article claims all the accusations that Iran furnished the bombs that blew up hundreds of American troops in Iraq, were nothing but American propaganda.

I mean, just what proof is there that any of those bombs were produced in Iran?

Who in hell are we supposed to believe?

Remember, it was our government who claimed Saddam had nuclear weapons almost ready to use.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42664.htm

Guest


Guest

I will go on record that the article you are quoting is complete balderdash. I won't go into the who what where when and why, but Iran masterminded the use of explosive formed penetrators (hot molten metal) shot in the form of a jet which could, if it hit the right spot, melt even the uparmored Hummer armor. On the other hand though, it was found that the armored glass from the windows was impenetrable from these explosives. Too bad we couldn't have made the entire vehicle out of a material similar in nature to the glass components.

Sorry, your left wing website of FOS and is talking out the side of its neck.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Obamasucks wrote:I will go on record that the article you are quoting is complete balderdash. I won't go into the who what where when and why, but Iran masterminded the use of explosive formed penetrators (hot molten metal) shot in the form of a jet which could, if it hit the right spot, melt even the uparmored Hummer armor.  On the other hand though, it was found that the armored glass from the windows was impenetrable from these explosives. Too bad we couldn't have made the entire vehicle out of a material similar in nature to the glass components.

Sorry, your left wing website of FOS and is talking out the side of its neck.

You talk out of the side of your neck on a lot of things......

Iran did not mastermind the use of EFPs. They were first conceived during WWII. During the 1970s, the U.S. developed a whole series of anti-armor weapons that incorporated individual munitions with EFPs. These include the CBU-97 and BLU-108 air-dropped cluster munitions and the SADARM artillery round.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

That was a good article, Wordslinger.

Bibi must be pulling up every trick he has to try and scuttle the Iran deal. Even using U.S. veterans as AIPAC useful idiots.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

This is hardly the first time the government has rigged information surrounding some event or imagined event in a region in order to create propaganda designed to rally public sentiment in support of the latest war.

"Remember the Maine" ginned up report about a ship that exploded in Cuba to get the Spanish American War going...and of course the Gulf of Tonkin incident for Viet Nam to mention a couple that come to mind. Oh, and who could forget the lies about aluminum tubes?

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:article claims all the accusations that Iran furnished the bombs that blew up hundreds of  American troops in Iraq, were nothing but American propaganda.

I mean, just what proof is there that any of those bombs were produced in Iran?  

Who in hell are we supposed to believe?

Remember, it was our government who claimed Saddam had nuclear weapons almost ready to use.

http://www. informationclearinghouse.info /article42664.htm


NOT true...again.

Also, LIES from your site...ones they keep up their daily for the uneducated to swallow.

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"

Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan  $1,634,012,791,643

Markle

Markle

Here are a few comments where nuclear weapons were referred to by the speaker. Can you show us one where Saddam Hussein is said to HAVE nuclear weapons?

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:Here are a few comments where nuclear weapons were referred to by the speaker.  Can you show us one where Saddam Hussein is said to HAVE nuclear weapons?

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Semi-sane "I know NOSSING!" Markle prides himself in being one of the last adult Americans who still believes the war in Iraq was absolutely justified. Of course, he also believes, and can prove, that up is down, wet is dry, warm is cold, etc. Strangely, when you think about it, Markle's absolute justification for the costly, wasteful, and totally unnecessary American invasion of Iraq and all the subsequent chaos, didn't apply to Pakistan or North Korea. It was Saddam's weaponry that had to be stopped. And up is down, and . . .

Death to Amerika Inc. Put an end to corporate control of our government through campaign financing!

Note to Markle: Show us your favorite photo of Hitler's train again ... loser.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Obamasucks wrote:I will go on record that the article you are quoting is complete balderdash. I won't go into the who what where when and why, but Iran masterminded the use of explosive formed penetrators (hot molten metal) shot in the form of a jet which could, if it hit the right spot, melt even the uparmored Hummer armor.  On the other hand though, it was found that the armored glass from the windows was impenetrable from these explosives. Too bad we couldn't have made the entire vehicle out of a material similar in nature to the glass components.

Sorry, your left wing website of FOS and is talking out the side of its neck.


There is no proof whatever for any of your claims about Iran's alleged involvement with bombs used against American invader-occupiers in Iraq. Why in hell should we believe that Iraqis who were fighting to eject foreign, Jesus lovin' occupation troops from their country, couldn't make all the bombs that were used against U.S. troops? Or buy them from Russian, Chinese, Pakistani or North Korean stocks? Since you claim to know everything about the Iraq war, tell us just how many millions in cash our CIA handed out to Iraqis we were trying to woo. And tell us how much of that monkey money ended up as bombs that blew your up-armored Humvies. The Iraq war was a full blown Amerikan Inc. fuckup from the start, and it's still going on. I want to know exactly who and where all these claims that "the Iranians are providing the new bombs that are so effective against our armored vehicles," began. Blaming Iran has been number one with our dysfunctional State Department for decades.

Reality.

Sal

Sal

Obamasucks wrote:I will go on record that the article you are quoting is complete balderdash. I won't go into the who what where when and why,

You sound just like Trump, but more effeminate.

gatorfan



It's widely accepted that Iran provided advisers and material support to belligerent militias in Iraq. Still are.....and in Syria etc.

The facts of life are hard to ignore but there is always someone who can do it with alacrity.

Guest


Guest

Word, they perfected the use of them in Iraq using common ordnance to a devastating result. I know you think Iran is a friend, but they are not and will never be.

Guest


Guest

by Salinsky Today at 2:21 pm
Obamasucks wrote:

I will go on record that the article you are quoting is complete balderdash. I won't go into the who what where when and why,

You sound just like Trump, but more effeminate.
---
Your mom doesn't think so.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Obamasucks wrote:Word, they perfected the use of them in Iraq using common ordnance to a devastating result. I know you think Iran is a friend, but they are not and will never be.


Never said they were our friend, and you know that. What I did say is the way our government lies to us -- particularly when trying to direct public support for a war, I don't find any reason to believe this one-sided story.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, penetrator explosives have been around a long time, and were not invented by Iran. The idea Iran invented and perfected the technology is ludicrous.

The point is, if you view it from the standpoint of a patriotic, non-thinking American dude, then any technology that was used to kill our boys over there is terribly evil and wrong.

But if you start from the standpoint that our troops had no legal right whatever under international law to have invaded and occupied the foreign country named Iraq, and you see the "insurgents" as patriotic Iraqis trying to dislodge a foreign invader (us), it's more than difficult to see our troops as heroes.

It's also clear that Iran -- a Shiaa Islamic State which is certainly working to influence and control the Shiaa government we installed in Iraq -- doesn't want American influence in the entire region.

Who can blame them after we murdered their first elected president and installed the Shah who served as a merciless tyrant dictator for more than three decades.


In simple terms, we supported and paid the Shaw, who, in turn, mistreated the Iranian people for decades. Obama appears to be attempting to break through the years of hatred which have done nothing positive for the people of Iran or ourselves.

His effort is clearly opposed by people like you who are only capable of seeing the dirt in front of their noses.

Fact: we couldn't win a war and control Iraq, we fucked up in Libya, Syria is pure chaos, and we've lost another war in Afghanistan.

Why folks like you want to start a war with Iran makes no sense at all. None. Zip. Nada.

Guest


Guest

No sensible person is talking war. That's no reason to give away the farm. It's the worst deal I've ever seen.

Toothless and they got everything they wanted.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Wordslinger wrote:As was pointed out earlier in this thread, penetrator explosives have been around a long time, and were not invented by Iran.  The idea Iran invented and perfected the technology is ludicrous.

Your whole post was excellent and truthful, Wordslinger. You have won the argument. Markle and Sucks win the kewpie doll on this one.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:No sensible person is talking war. That's no reason to give away the farm. It's the worst deal I've ever seen.

Toothless and they got everything they wanted.

Wise up.

"Toothless" would describe our sanctions if we walk away from this deal.

Our partners in the P5+1 framework will not be willing to continue with them.

The options are make the deal (which experts across the spectrum agree is a good one), walk away and allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities in short order, or war.

That's all there is to it.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:No sensible person is talking war. That's no reason to give away the farm. It's the worst deal I've ever seen.

Toothless and they got everything they wanted.


According to Obama and Kerry, so did we.

The thing is, I figure if you hate Obama you hate the deal.

The alternative, I believe, is we make war on Iran.

Let's face the truth: Israel and the U.S. -- both of who have been Iran's enemies for the last 30 years, both have nuclear weapons. The only thing Iran wanted more than nuclear weapons, was lots of money to heal their very weak economy, and assurance from the U.S. that we wouldn't attack them if they complied with the treaty.

A good deal, they say, is when both parties walk away satisfied. Obama says it's a good deal , and so does the Ayatollah.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Wordslinger wrote:Let's face the truth:  Israel and the U.S. -- both of who have been Iran's enemies for the last 30 years, both have nuclear weapons.

The Iran deal would be capped if during Obama's last year, he started pushing Israel to declare its nuclear arsenal. Hey, if Bibi is going to keep trying to stab Obama in the back over the Iran deal, turnabout is fair play.

The world deserves to officially know about Israel's nuclear weapons. It also needs to be able to reflect on the path Israel took to become a rogue nuclear power, since that is the same path that India, Pakistan, North Korea, and allegedly, Iran took.

South Africa also built a small rogue nuclear arsenal way before majority-rule was established there (with Israeli help). Not only was Israel allegedly helping the apartheid government of South Africa develop atomic bombs, but there may have been some collaboration on nuclear-testing between the two. One of our spy satellites picked up the explosion in 1979.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

The alternative would be that which was basically negotiated off the table... the sanctions.

This was either the act of a naive, an incompetent... or an ideologically driven purposeful capitulation.

Markle

Markle

My Socialist/Communist good friend Wordslinger has pretty much gone off the deep end as did another poster here.

He uses blind sources, ones that refuse to say who they are and who post blatant, inconceivable lies and supports what they say. Leaving what he says, worthless.

His desperation is demonstrated further by his demand that there is either this unconscionable "agreement" or all out war, when no one has said anything of the sort.

2seaoat



Let me ask this simple question.......are there fifty countries in this world who could build a 1940 car or plane.  Why is a nuclear bomb which is soon going to be a century old technology going to not proliferate?   Does anybody really believe that Iran will never have the bomb?  They made great progress despite all the nations sanctioning them.......they are there now.   So if a monitoring program which limits the material is not perfect, it certainly is good for America.  It may not be good for Israel because just one bomb is one bomb too many.  However, last time I checked I was an American citizen.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:My Socialist/Communist good friend Wordslinger has pretty much gone off the deep end as did another poster here.

He uses blind sources, ones that refuse to say who they are and who post blatant, inconceivable lies and supports what they say.  Leaving what he says, worthless.

His desperation is demonstrated further by his demand that there is either this unconscionable "agreement" or all out war, when no one has said anything of the sort.

Want to see how many here believe you or me? On any subject? LOL

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum