Missing Weapons in Iraq - Have They Turned Up?

Most folks here will remember that not too long ago there was a story about 190k missing AK rifles and pistols, which were purchased by America, ostensibly for the Iraqi security forces.

I think I may know where they went.

www.guardian.co.uk...

So, the Kurdish terrorists (oops, sorry, when they're on our side we call them Freedom Fighters, right?) have US support - does that include a clandestine shipment of weapons?

The reporter in that story made this comment...

On a recent visit to PJAK camps in the Qandil mountains the Guardian saw no evidence of American weaponry.

Don't be fooled. Of course you didn't see American weaponry - when we arm a rebel group against our enemies, we most often rely on the weapons of the enemies, the cheap, reliable, and guilt-free AK-47.

There's something about taxpayer-furnished M-16 rifles in the hands of terrorists that sticks in our craw. Load them up with AKs though, and nobody complains.

Anyone else think this might be a clue as to the whereabouts of the missing weapons? Have they found their way into the hands of terrorists? (One way or another, certainly, but the question is, which terrorists?)

[edit on 19-8-2007 by WyrdeOne]

Wow. Very interesting theory. This is very likely, I believe. Btw, those weapons were transported by Viktor Bout. Have you seen "Lord of War"?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Of course you didn't see American weaponry - when we arm a rebel group against our enemies, we most often rely on the weapons of the enemies, the cheap, reliable, and guilt-free AK-47

Not just AK47s, but enough helmets and body armour for a large army!

Also from the Guardian 06/08/2007

The 20-page report is entitled Stabilising Iraq: department of defence cannot ensure that US-funded equipment has reached Iraqi security forces. It says that the Pentagon and the multinational force in Iraq responsible for training "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005."

too true citizen smith

lose, or accidently arm a faction resistent of our foes.

either way, all we succesfully did was pour another truck load of gunpowder into a fireworks display.

We're going to bring safety, peace and security to Iraq, I have no doubt about that.
If you go to the centre of Australia, where not one single soul lives.. its pretty peaceful, secure and safe.

Hellmutt
Oh yeah, I know who you're talking about..now there's a fella with a lot to account for.

Agit8Chop
It's hardly anything new, we've done this so many times it's ridiculous. Providing firearms and bullets in the name of peace, is there anything more ludicrous?

The best part is when we piss off our rebel allies and they turn the weapons back on us.

It doesn't make any sense, unless of course you're in a position to profit from conflict. Then it makes all the sense in the world.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by WyrdeOne]

I dont know how much the real life "lords of war" charge for a single M16 but I'd bet you could get 5 AK's for the same price, so I say arm them well and let them be a bigger pain in Tehrans side

[edit on 8/19/2007 by Kr0n0s]

reply to post by Kr0n0s


I don't think that would be the angle here,

I know that Turkey has an issue with the Kurds, could these arms be used to fight the Turks?

Just pondering......

reply to post by JacKatMtn


I posted before reading the entire article, so now im wondering that the OP meant that the arms were for the Kurds in Iran, the so called PJAK?
And yes, Turkey has huge issues with the Kurds and vice versa, to the point where there were rumors of a Turkish military buildup on the border and they had their sites on launching a campaign against the Kurds in Iraq.

I also heard rumors saying that one of the reasons the US 3rd ID had to abandon their plans for their attack from Turkey was because the US wouldnt give Turkey rights to the land in Iraq that was held by the Kurds.

[edit on 8/19/2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I dont know how much the real life "lords of war" charge for a single M16 but I'd bet you could get 5 AK's for the same price, so I say arm them well and let them be a bigger pain in Tehrans side

[edit on 8/19/2007 by Kr0n0s]

So funding militia groups is OK, so long as its against our enemies.
But when our enemies fund militia groups against us, that deserves a cruise missile?

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Whether it is ok or not is moot because it is and has already been done in Iraq.
Their are reports that were helping to arm "former terrorists" that used to shoot at US and Iraqi Police because they are now tired of Al Queda and are wanting to fight against them.
Agitated, I really like some of your posts, I may not agree with them all but thats ok..
So what would you like me to say in answer to that last question? That is how things work, sure well arm a militia to fight say, Iran if they have a problem with it they can attack us, theres nothing stopping them, except the US military
And if they arm terrorists and those terrorists use those arms to fight us then of course we should and I hope would retaliate.

[edit on 8/19/2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Wow. Very interesting theory. This is very likely, I believe. Btw, those weapons were transported by Viktor Bout. Have you seen "Lord of War"?

yes that was 1 intresting movie that sadly tells it how it most likely in reality is

now arming the kurds with turkey next door is not that good of an idea but the US wont realise that until its too late

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Agit8dChop]

I agree dont get me wrong.
If the enemy of my enemy is considered my friend you'd help.
If someone was trying to kill me, and I knew someone trying to kill him, id help them..

BUT

I then have no right to go around saying such and such is evil because he helps others.
You need to choose the lesser of two evils, fair enough.
But you then cannot preach about being a saint.

The US has no legs to stand on when we attack iran about helping insurgents in Iraq, because we are doing the exact same thing.

We've just declared the Revolutionary forces as a terrorist regime, because they help out Iraqi insurgents.
Yet, we're doing the same damn thing....

The whole iranian revolutionary guard situation SCARES ME to death.
When those british sailors were captured, we the west could now declare it a terrorist attack.

We know the iranians are content with capturing foreign navy personell should they venture across borders... now there we've labeled them appropriately it seems to me, straying across the border is all to convenient if we 'need' a terrorist attack.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

We've just declared the Revolutionary forces as a terrorist regime.
Now there we've labeled them appropriately it seems to me, straying across the border is all to convenient if we 'need' a terrorist attack.

Yea that was a pretty convenient thing for us to do wasnt it? I am not to sure that I am very comfortable with this thing about being able to justify anything that we want to do by just merely labeling them a terrorist.
First of all, who determines what the criteria is for naming a person, group, army or an entire Nation as a terrorist?
Im willing to be that we (The US) is in charge of that decision making process.

So if the US were to say.. get peed off at a Nation, like France for example
then we could dig up some false evidence from somewhere that "proves" that the French Govt knowingly armed or just funded a group that is already labeled a terrorist, then we could slap the label of terrorist on the Nation and Military of France and invade them

Yes, I know this is an extreme example but am I about right on with that little story? hehe

peace



[edit on 8/20/2007 by Kr0n0s]

Well the Kurds have been the big winners out of the Iraq mess and they will gain there own independent state after the coalition leaves Iraq. As for the missing arms they could have been diverted to the Kurds but it is just as likely or more likely that the arms fell into the giant sink hole of corruption. Either that or members of the insurgency infiltrated the local security forces and funnelled the arms into there respective groups.

reply to post by xpert11

As for the missing arms they could have been diverted to the Kurds but it is just as likely or more likely that the arms fell into the giant sink hole of corruption. Either that or members of the insurgency infiltrated the local security forces and funnelled the arms into there respective groups.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Those are all very real possibilities.

My thinking on this, though, is that the media often seems to mislead by misdirection, that is to say they point and scream in one direction, and reveal the truth by absence of coverage.

That said, there hasn't been NEARLY enough coverage about the rampant corruption at home and abroad, so I considered that as well.

For all I know, the Kurds are scapegoats to allow more thievery, not to mention that angle has two-birds-for-one-stone-appeal.

Thanks for raising those points - they definitely have to be considered.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My thinking on this, though, is that the media often seems to mislead by misdirection, that is to say they point and scream in one direction, and reveal the truth by absence of coverage.

I think you have hit on something there in the larger context of the topic. IMO the American media in particular coverage of the war in Iraq is the Pentagon line which has been dumb down to suit there agenda. In general the media doesn't like to investigate or deal with complex issues that why in part we hear Fox News telling people that Al-Qaeda is responsible for every suicide bombing in Iraq.

For all I know, the Kurds are scapegoats to allow more thievery, not to mention that angle has two-birds-for-one-stone-appeal.

It is possible that insurgent groups want people to think that the US knowingly or unknowingly supplied arms to the Kurds however if that was the case wouldn't there be more "evidence " around ?
I wouldn't out the Kurds obtaining the arms without US approval . The Kurds are the smartest people in Iraq and they know what is going and they have been making preparations for a while now. The Kurds are probably planning on a 1948 style war.

While I cant say what happened to the arms for certain if I had to pick to pick an option I would say that the arms ended up in the hands of the insurgents via corruption and infiltration. In terms of corruption the arms could have changed hands via a under paid member of the security forces selling his AK47 or via an office selling an entire warehouse full of arms.

As for infiltration the various insurgent groups would look to infiltration the Iraqi security forces at al levels but the main target would be Non commissioned officers who man check points , any rank who has access to weapons and intel and of course any government departments in general.

Well that's just my 10 cents.

Update
WyrdeOne initial ascertain as gained a shot in the arm in terms of being one of the likely answers where the missing arms went. Blackwater is being investigated for weapons smuggling in Iraq. See this thread for more. I am going to watch the situation with great interest Watergate could pale in comparison depending on how this plays out.