Proof that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" were armed by the US? (VIDEO)

reply to post by Aggie Man


That is a possibility that they obtained these weapons through the black market but lets take a look at that further...

This scenario is unlikely for several reasons. The first being that it is much more difficult to obtain these weapons on the black market, then say Russian, Chinese or even Pakistani made weapons. The second reason being that these weapons are much more expensive than the Russian alternatives. When you add that to the fact that Russian made weapons are more reliable and thus much more suited to insurgency activities, the probability gets even smaller. The last reason and the big one for me, is the ammo. Why would an insurgent obtain hard to get weapons that require much more maintenance (thus not ideal for their missions) for a much higher price when the ammo and parts would be much, much harder to obtain?

It would be much easier and cheaper to obtain Russian or Chinese made weapons and these weapons are more suited to insurgent activities. You see, insurgents don't have the time, money, cleanliness, expertise, parts and ammo to keep up an American made arsenal or at least not like the American mission in Iraq. Why would they go so much out of their way? Their soldiers have used Russian made weapons their entire lives and so their expertise and experience is extremely valuable. It would just make so much more sense to use weapons that they are familiar with, weapons that suit their needs better, weapons that have better abundance of ammo and parts and weapons that are much, much cheaper.

The more probable answer is that we armed them, trained them and then continued to supply them in a manner appropriate for OUR needs.

--airspoon


[edit on 26-5-2010 by airspoon]

Good thread by the way. I can see where you are going with this,but I have one question. When you see a drug lord and the stash of weapons that get found you will see a lot of american made weapons. So am I to guess that the US supplied them with said weapons.Could there not be a weapons dealer that has sold them to al qaeda in Iraq. They always say that money can by anything.If you have the right money then I am sure there will be someone that can get you all the weapons you want and probably new weapons at that.

It is irrelevant.

Regardless of our funding of groups to further American interests, muslims have and will continue to engage in violent jihad to spread Islam. Jihad is generative of Islam and not anything non-muslims do.

This constant, ceaseless, endless, mind-numbing "investigation" into American culpability in the rise of "radical" islam is stupid and only serves to actually further the goals of jihad.

Fools. All of you.

I see you say that insurgents don't have the money or no how to purchase american made weapons. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that they have the nohow to do alotof things. Why do you think they send people to the states to learn so that they can come back and pass the knowledge. As for money how about the saudi royal family. They will finance all kinds of terrorists operations all the while telling the world they condem these acts.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


It's not that they don't have the money or even know-how, but rather it is unlikely that they would be willing to pay much more for weapons that don't suit their needs as much or that they don't have as much expertise with. Do you realize how much more expensive an M4 is compared to an AK47 or even an Ak74? In quantity, the former is around $1000 a piece on the black market while the latter is around $100 a piece on the black market. The price gap even furthers when comparing fire suppressing machine guns. While the Muslim jihadists have money, they don't have that much money to where they could basically throw it away on weapons that don't fit in with their tactical needs.

Also, in that part of the world, NATO 5.56mm ammo would be extremely hard to come by on the black market while Russian or Russian clone 7.62mm ammo is in abundance. This would require a steady and abundant supply of ammo, but from who? Why not just go with the more reliable Russian made weapons to where parts, expertise and ammo is in abundance? Then why spend so much for weaponry when you are almost certain to have a hard time finding parts and ammo?

As far as drug-cartels using American made weapons, it is because they are being supplied by corrupt government insiders. Also, in South and Central America, NATO ammo is in abundance since we supply the governments of that region with out weapons. We do not supply governments in the Middle East with American made weaponry, save for Israel, which just reinforces my point.

--airspoon

I see your point,but I do not think that money is a big problem whe you are backed by rich saudis or pakistani backers. The money they get from from those supposed charity collectors in the US just gives them money that they can spend on whatever. It is not like they have an accountant that tells them how to spend there money. I am not saying that we may have supplied them, but there are other ways to get american made weapons beside having the government supplying them. I mean hell they would love get ahold of nuclear material and that may be a bs story but if it is true that is not a cheap purchase. I don't put anything past our gov't and there shady dealings, I just can't see them being the only supplier of these weapons. But I could be wrong. I just don't know and nobody will probably know the true story.I also want to say Thank You for all the service you have done for this country and you deserve more respect than some people in this country give you. Again THANK YOU.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I'm not saying that there aren't ways to acquire American made small arms. I'm just talking about the probability. Could they afford it? Maybe but it would be stupid and tantamount to throwing away money while hampering your mission. Getting a supply of weapons is one thing but getting a supply of ammunition is entirely different. Why would anyone jump through such hoops to be a lot more inefficient. If you a break a part on your weapon, you might as well throw it away because unless you have a constant supply, you aren't going to get that part. On the other hand, there is an abundance of Russian made weapons, parts and ammunition that is much cheaper and much more suited to their mission to which they wouldn't have to jump through hoops and they can by 15 times as much, possibly more. This and there are still insurgents using WW1 and WWII rifles. If they were going to spending so much on small arms, wouldn't they want to get the best deal for the best efficiency to where they know they can get a constant supply of parts and ammunition for a fraction of the cost?

Again, I'm not saying that it would be impossible for them to acquire such weapons through alternative channels but I am saying that it is highly unlikely.

Lets say for instance that you want to drive across China and if you complete that drive in a timely manner, you win a million dollars. Are you going to use an American made automobile that only runs a particular kind of bio-fuel, to which they don't sell in China save for maybe one or two place if that or are you going to purchase an automobile in china that works on regular gasoline and to where there is an abundance of parts for that automobile as well as places to purchase the fuel that it needs? Then there will be times when you have to drive off-road but your thinking about bringing a bio-fuel Comaro. Would you not want the off-road China "jeep" type vehicle that takes fuel that is in abundance in China as well as parts?

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Motive

 

Well first off, it may be only silly to you or to anyone who isn't familiar with the subjects discussed because you obviously don't have the experience required to understand the situation. While it is true that other countries use our same weapons, no other country has the motive like the US. Also, no other countries have the right to sell those weapons, unlike the Kalashnikov. The problem is that those weapons were most likely supplied by the west or Israel but there is no doubt in my mind that this particular group was manufactured for the benefit of the US. This group only served to help the US and hurt the insurgency. Low and behold, the only videos that show this mysterious group are also showing them with only US made weapons.

Also, just to let you know, that wasn't an M4A1 and branches of the old Iraqi guard did not use them nor the Bosnians. You are just spreading propaganda now.


--airspoon

I didn't say it was an M4A1, I was giving examples of typical US Army weapons. You say I don't have the experience required? Wow, you have to be delusional to see those weapons in the hands of extremists and instantly come to the conclusion that the chances were they were supplied directly by the US.

You say "the only video" ? Really? Why do you assume this is the only one, there are hundreds of these videos out there.

Stop trying to be a smartass, YES the bosnians used US weapons, seeing as the US supplied the Army of the Republic of Bosnia with weapons during the 1991 arms embargo by smuggling them through Croatia. Even the new Iraqi army are now being issued with M16's (which before you cry about, was even covered by the BBC a while ago and seen during Ross Kemps documentary), and considering it's quite obvious that alot of the Iraqi police and army is infiltrated by extremists, and their poor discipline why is it so hard to believe the extremists in the video got them that way.

You obviously just dont have the experience required to understand the situation.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Motive]

Originally posted by Regighn02

I do not see how you think these weapons are brand new in this video. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and have encountered insurgents carrying our weapons but I seriously doubt we are supplying them.

Did you here (an Arab sounding) voice shout "that's good" (in English) after al-Zarqawi used the gun on automatic?
I think your main problem seems to be in not viewing the video, but rather in even entertaining the idea that one-two arms of the U.S military could be used to supply weapons to an unruly (yet fake) "enemy". Guess you've probably never heard of "Operation Northwoods"?en.wikipedia.org...

That was only stopped by Mr Kennedy, himself. Maybe when the U.S elected Bush, they simply elected a man possessing less "moral guidance"?

reply to post by Motive


I've worked with these weapons my entire life and I have been to that region multiple times and even dealt with that "enemy". Also, a very small portion of the Iraqi army has only been using the M16A4 for around 1 year, several years after this video surfaced and says nothing for the M16A2, M4 and SAW that is in that video. If you can't even tell the difference between these weapons, don't speak up and pretend you know what your talking about.

Moving along, I didn't watch this video and instantly come to any conclusion. My theory comes from many years in the military, my experience with that country, that enemy and those weapons along with my years of research into this subject.

You sign up on ATS a few days before trying to refute my claim and then twist my words around and throw information in an attempt to confuse other readers. I believe your "motive" is crystal clear.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Motive

 

I've worked with these weapons my entire life and I have been to that region multiple times and even dealt with that "enemy". Also, a very small portion of the Iraqi army has only been using the M16A4 for around 1 year, several years after this video surfaced and says nothing for the M16A2, M4 and SAW that is in that video. If you can't even tell the difference between these weapons, don't speak up and pretend you know what your talking about.

Moving along, I didn't watch this video and instantly come to any conclusion. My theory comes from many years in the military, my experience with that country, that enemy and those weapons along with my years of research into this subject.

You sign up on ATS a few days before trying to refute my claim and then twist my words around and throw information in an attempt to confuse other readers. I believe your "motive" is crystal clear.

--airspoon

It's beautiful how you avoid every other point in my post and focus on "I know what those weapons look like!" despite the fact I just blew major holes in your previous post.

Not only that, you completely disregard the fact I'm not disputing they COULD of been supplied by the US, extremely unlikely, and impossible to prove, but I'm always openminded. But you're more interested in the "I am obviously right because I've been in the military and those regions so anything you say is moot."

Dont bother getting into a discussion if you can't even build an argument higher than your knee let alone without pretty much throwing insults out too.

Adios.

reply to post by Motive

It's beautiful how you avoid every other point in my post and focus on "I know what those weapons look like!" despite the fact I just blew major holes in your previous post.

You didn't blow any holes in my theory. Most of your points are either irrelevant to my theory or illogical period. I am not going to argue points with you that have nothing to do with this thread. Not only would it distract from the OP, but it would also be huge waste of time.

Not only that, you completely disregard the fact I'm not disputing they COULD of been supplied by the US, extremely unlikely, and impossible to prove, but I'm always open-minded. But you're more interested in the "I am obviously right because I've been in the military and those regions so anything you say is moot."

If you would have read my OP and resulting posts, you would see that I am only calling the probability of this theory. At no other time have I said it's impossible to have happened any other way, only that it is highly improbable. I( then explain why it is highly improbable.

You seem to bring up irrelevant points, such as talking about completely different weapons, wrong facts and exaggerated claims that in no way pertain to my theory. I welcome people to blow holes in my theories. That is the only way to refine them, make them stronger and more importantly, make them more accurate. However, if your going to make a rebuttal, at least do so with logic and common sense. If you aren't familiar with the subject at hand, don't make illogical claims and pretend you know what your talking about... or right.

Dont bother getting into a discussion if you can't even build an argument higher than your knee let alone without pretty much throwing insults out too.

There were no insults thrown at all. If you took something as an insult, that is on you. I was merely calling your name-sake into question, sense you register an account and almost immediately go into an illogical rebuttal of my post when it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. You twist my words around and then try to throw in information that has nothing to do with the post at hand, some of which are extremely exaggerated and I can only assume in an effort to distract and confuse other readers.

With the recent government policies of sending "people" out to crawl message boards and sway popular opinion, it makes you look extremely suspect. Regardless though, it wouldn't be anything if you were to use valid arguments. Use valid arguments, relevant points and logical rebuttals and I would have no problem arguing forward.

*******************************************************

To clear this up:

Fact #1. During 2005 - 2006 when this video was recorded, at no time were Iraqi troops being issued American made weapons. In fact, at no time ever, have Iraqi troops been issued the weapons pictured in this video. Some countries such as Saudi Arabia have been issued a few of those weapons types but the sale of those small-arms wasn't completed until several years after this video was shot.

Fact #2. Weapons are usually deployed with each division or battalion deployed so the weapons that are being used by American soldiers are usually the soldier's assigned weapons. For this reason, there aren't large shipments of new weapons being sent to the Middle East.

Fact #3. Those are brand new weapons. When you have worked with those weapons your entire life, you get to know the insides and outsides. Pretty soon, you can tell the type of ammunition (such as brass, load, etc..) just by the sound. You can also tell the the rifle by its sound, between the same rifle types. In other words, "Jim's" rifle, which is brand new, sounds different than "Joe's" rifle, which has been a trusty companion for years. You can tell that the SAW in the video is new not only because of the looks (brand new paint, no scratches, etc...) but also how it fires. The other rifles that are shown, the 203, M16A2 and M4 are also brand new looking.

Fact #4. It is highly unlikely though not imposable that they picked these weapons off of GIs because of the apparent newness of the weapons. Most weapons being used over there, have gone through rigorous training leading up to deployment.

Fact #5. The cost of these weapons are much, much more than the cost of the Russian equivalents, making it unlikely that they would choose these weapons over their Russian alternatives.

Fact #6. The effectiveness of these weapons for the conditions that the insurgents have are not as good, again making it unlikely that they would want to pay more for these rifles. Unlike the American Armies that have home bases to resupply, lay low and clean their weapons, the insurgents would be on the move allot, not having the time to constantly clean their weapons. Why pay more for rifles that won't fit your tactics as well?

Fact #7. There is not an abundance of NATO ammo or even parts as there is with Russian small arms, making it extremely unlikely that they would pay top dollar for weapons that are harder to get, cost more and are less effective with the tactics employed. Remember, there is no Wal-Mart yet in Kirkuk where they can just go to buy a bunch of NATO ammo. They would have to have a steady, reliable and constant supply of ammo and parts. Who in the world could that possibly be? Hmmmmm.

Fact #8. This alleged group only served to help the Bush admin and hurt both the jihadists and the insurgent movement. Both of these groups new that. There is no way in hell that either of them would have made this huge strategic blunder. That was about the worst strategic thing they could have done. On the other hand, this was extremely helpful to the Bush admin, giving him a little credence to his claims that lead us into the war in the first place. Without this group popping its head up, public opinion would have been so strong that Bush would not have been able to follow through with his plans. In other words, this group alone made Bush and his friends trillions of dollars (with a "T") and saved him politically.

Of course there is many more facts but I've run out of space.


--airspoon

Or they could have just picked them up off the ground? Or bought them on the black market, If i have the connects to buy it(would never buy full auto no use for that trash) I'm sure Al Qaeda does as well

Or yet maybe it's a status symbol? why have a crusty old AK when you can have a brand new American made weapon.

reply to post by FrancoUn-American


Have you been reading the posts? It has been posted numerous times about why it is unlikely that they picked these weapons off the ground (the apparent condition of the weapons) and why it is unlikely that they would want to purchase these weapons on the black-market. Status symbol? Sure, it could be but would a status symbol be more important than operational effectiveness?

Also the difference between you buying these on the black-market and them buying these on the black-market, is the fact that you can walk into Wally-World and buy a box of ammo or even a new sling, barrel, etc... Also, you don't need a daily supply of ammo as they would. Which ever weapon they choose, they would have to have a steady supply of parts and ammo and I mean constant. You see, unlike the Americans/coalition, the insurgency can't really store large amounts of ammo. While you can walk into almost any market in Iraq and get 7.62x39mm ammo, you can't do the same for NATO 5.56. In fact, the only places in Iraq with NATO 5.56mm, would be the American and NATO bases. Are the NATO forces giving them a daily supply of ammo?

When you add all of these reasons together, it becomes highly unlikely that they would pay 10-15 times for weaponry that is less suitable and less effective for their tactical needs. Why would they go so much out of their way for more expense and less effective for their purposes weapons? Why not just go with the Russian made weapons that suit their mission perfectly, are way cheaper, their soldiers are more familiar and have an over abundance of cheap ammo and parts? Unless of course they are being issued these weapons and the supplies to use them. In that case, we have to wonder who that supplier would be and how the US wouldn't know about it.

Then we look at the circumstantial evidence of the groups very existence. The group only served to hurt the insurgency for giving America and her allies a valid reason for being their and giving credence to Bush's initial claims. The insurgency knew from day one, even before then, that the way to win the war with America, was through popular support from the Americans. Get Americans against the war and they will pull out. Having a group such as this operating in Iraq would be the biggest strategic blunder they could make and I really don't think they would be that stupid. However, this group served to give the pro-war powers and the Bush and Blair admin the perfect excuse and credence to be there. It was just far too convenient. The first time I heard the name "Al Qaeda in Iraq", I was extremely suspicious because it flew in the face of the strategy that the insurgency had been very effective at using thus far.

Could there be other explanations? Sure, but the probability goes to this group being western trained and western supplied. The video just reinforces this claim by displaying the group with brand new weapons. The video appears to be one showing off their newly acquired firepower.

--airspoon

p.s. - People keep saying, "well, they could have gotten them off the ground from dead GIs" and they sure could have. They could also have gotten them from aliens or they could even be holograms but al three of those choices are unlikely. It may not seem so on the surface but when you understand protocols of the American military, it becomes obvious why it is so unlikely. Weapons accountability is huge with the American military though I have not cited it here for the simple reason that there is no need to. Those weapons appear to be brand new and you aren't going to find brand new weapons on the ground, especially not after a battle. Also, this is not the only video showing this mysterious group with American made weapons though this was the only one in a demonstration type setting that focuses on the weapons.

reply to post by airspoon


Finally you make a post with decent points, to which I respect.

Though saying my points were irrelevant doesn't stand well for some of your previous posts, because every point I made was VERY relevant to the discussion and most importantly, were replies to theories you had.

For example, you jump on the "I know best" train, bluntly refusing that Bosnia ever had US made weapons, yet as soon as I tell you about the arms embargo which was countered by the CIA and numerous militia bringing arms through Croatia, it becomes apparent you want to steer clear of ever being wrong, so any discussion with you is pointless because you're always right apparently.

I'm done here, this thread has nowhere else to go.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Motive]

reply to post by Motive


I am not steering clear of anything. I certainly don't mind admitting when I'm wrong and if I didn't answer something it is only because I either thought it irrelevant or even over-looked it. In fact, in a lot of my posts, I'm hoping to get proven wrong, which is one of the reasons for posting in the first place. I certainly am not on a high horse, I just hate it when people claim to have the answer, yet use flawed logic. It's not so much the flawed logic as it is the flawed logic with an insistence of being right based upon that flawed logic. Now, we shipped many weapons to to Bosnia, mostly Russian weapons though if a few weapons happened to be American, it still would be irrelevant.

As far as the points I made, those are the same points being made in almost every post by me in this thread. Same thing, just broken down and numbered.

Have a nice day.

--airspoon



[edit on 28-5-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
It is irrelevant.

Regardless of our funding of groups to further American interests, muslims have and will continue to engage in violent jihad to spread Islam. Jihad is generative of Islam and not anything non-muslims do.

This constant, ceaseless, endless, mind-numbing "investigation" into American culpability in the rise of "radical" islam is stupid and only serves to actually further the goals of jihad.

Fools. All of you.

On the contrary. In fact, unlike Christians, Muslims don't try to "spread" their religion. They don't feel the need to convert others to their religion and their policies reflect this. I suggest you actually research Islam before hating them so much.

--airspoon

Sorry to go off subject a little, the weapons do look new but i was just wondering .. and i mean this a way out of control thought .. the masked men in the video .. could they be special forces from Western Governments ? Showing how to use the western weapons ? Just a thought dont crucify me ..

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


Good observation and I don't think it would be way off base, however I don't believe that to be the case because if it were, better instruction would have been given to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on the proper way to fire the SAW. He was not firing it correctly, not even remotely and I think that any western cammandos teaching him how to fire the weapon would have stepped in to correct the error.

--airspoon