The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Defense minister Peter MacKay says "Afghan insurgents are getting weapons from Iran" :
"weapons are flowing from Iran into the hands of Afghan insurgents"... "Improvised explosive devices from Iran have been a particular concern for Canadians."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Afghan Insurgency:
McKay's comments on anything usually point away from the facts. The Iranians helped the US invade Afghanistan in 2001. They are enemies of AQ and the Taliban. None of the modern anti-tank missiles (which were made in Russia)that Iran gave Hezbollah (thankfully) have been found in Afghanistan. The explosively formed projectile IEDs everyone talks about are at least a mid 1960s technology and low tech at that. Is it likely Iranian smugglers make a buck trading guns for drugs. Yes. Is it possible some corrupt Iranian officals are dealing with Afghans but not the Taliban. Yes. Is there proof that the Iranian government is assisting the Taliban. No and in fact they are a major aid donar to the Afghan central government. So it appears that McKay is parroting the current US administration line with about as much evidence.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-12-25 7:45:13 PM
And just where do you get your intel from Fred T? Or is that classified? Sorry, pal, I'll take my chances with McKay and his intel from our Cdn. forces rather than some anti-American chump on the internet...
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-12-25 8:19:57 PM
Thanks for the tired leftist Christmas carol:
"Good King Bush is dictating the policy of Stephen".
Posted by: bocanut | 2007-12-25 8:41:00 PM
I have a lot of respect for Mr.McKay, since I remember the time that he almost escaped a rocket attack and had to be evacuated. He is guessing that the arms came from Iran. But Fred T is guessing as well. I think people are too eager to point fingers without knowing for sure
Posted by: Allan Hopkins | 2007-12-25 9:35:33 PM
I imagine that Fred T. Ward also wants the government of Canada to establish official contacts with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the other groups included in the US terror list because these groups are simply engaged in legitimate resistance against American imperialism in the Middle East. Am I wrong to conclude: Here is a typical NDP supporter...
Posted by: andré | 2007-12-26 5:47:48 AM
By George, I think you've got it!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-26 6:12:43 AM
Andre et al: Of course you're wrong. Try original Reform Party. Why would you jump to the conclusion that someone who doubts McKay must automatically be left wing?
I didn't say anything about talking with anyone (although it appears the Brits regularly negotiate with the Taliban and JAM). I simply said I wouldn't put much store what Peter McKay said about Iran.
The Taliban killed a bunch of Iranian diplomats before 9/11 and Iran was on the verge of invading. Quite apart from being lumped in with their mortal enemy Sadaam, why do you think the Iranians were so upset after the "Axis of Evil" speech: they had just helped the US invade Afghanistan by providing bases for search & rescue. AQ and their friends believe the Shia are apostates. Tying the Iranian government and Taliban together makes no sense.
I don't have to prove a negative. If McKay wants to prove Iranian government is supplying the Taliban he has to show proof. So far there has been none.
If you want to read the Afghan's view of the Iranians check any Karzai speech on the subject. Publicly he's quite happy with their aid as Iran is one of the biggest donors.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-12-26 10:06:16 AM
It's called sucking up...islamic to islamic. Of course karzai wants to appear friendly to one of the regions strongest islamic states. And Iran wants to destabilize anything the Americans are involved in, shia or not. Get it?
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-12-26 10:32:52 AM
It doesn't matter in the least who's giving weapons to the "insurgents". We are ultimately enabling our enemies by supporting anyone in the region. They will all eventually turn their weapons on us. Even the weapons we've given to our "allies".
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-26 11:00:56 AM
The problem as I see it, is that we need a surge in Afghanistan like they did in Iraq. There aren't enough boots on the ground. The Euro-wimps for the most part are drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes while the Canadians, Australians and Yanks do the heavy lifting. Ain't it the way.
It a crazy maker, where our troops out and kill a bunch of rags to take area hold if a few days, they move on. Then come back and do the same think again.
If there is any reason to pull out of there it's because the war is being run by a bunch of arsehole policians who don't want it to look too much like a real war so the criticism from the Left is held down a bit.
We are plebes here mouthing off based on the latest hearsay. We don't have any real facts and the ones we get are massaged by who knows who and for whom.
We simply need to do a lot more killing and lot faster and have a lot more troops there to do it. We need big air support that we presently have none of. That would be unfair to the other side who doesn't have and air force. Good god we are idiots.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-26 11:15:38 AM
Any one remember when Allawi spoke to the US Congress in '04? He was cheered as a hero, given a standing ovation. Members were falling over each other to shake his hand. His right hand was in a cast so he held out his LEFT hand for his American sponsors to grasp. There were several theories on what happened to his hand, but I have one of my own.
I'm no expert on Middle East or Arab traditions, but most people have heard of the left hand vs right hand custom. Extending the left hand to someone is pretty much like sticking your bare ass in his face. When I watched that spectacle on TV, I had a very strong feeling that the cast on his right hand was a prop. He was showing his total disrespect for his American sponsors in front of the whole world.
Sure they'll take our help. They'll sit back and let our soldiers die. Do you think they'll ever stop hating us? I doubt it.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-26 11:26:42 AM
Why is it that some find it so hard to believe that Iran will do everything in its power to gain influence with the insurgents in Afghanistan in order to force allied forces to leave that country? After all, it is no secret that Iran’s religious leaders do not believe that a strong and stable Afghanistan with a large U.S. and allied troops presence is in their own interests. Iranian activities inside Afghanistan have been going on since 9/11 and these activities have been reported in the medias. In March 2006 for example, the Afghan official news agency, Bakhtar, published a report on the secret activities of members of the Iranian military in border towns inside Afghanistan. The Bakhtar report quoted an Afghan General, Mohammad Ayub Safi, who said that “in only the first quarter of 2006, more than 10 Iranian officials have been arrested in Herat who were involved in illegal activities”. Then September 2006, the Afghan newspaper Weesa reported the claim of Afghan officials in Nimruz province that Tehran was financing and providing weapons to Afghanistan’s militant groups. A month later, in October 2006, The Guardian published an article in which intelligence experts reported that Iranians agents were meeting tribal leaders to offer them military and financial support in their fight against foreign forces.
In an article published in The Telegraph on December 22, 2006, Con Coughlin quoted an Western official based in Kabul who told him: “On the surface, they (the Iranians) give the impression they have no interest in what is going on, but behind the scenes they are working hard to influence groups such as the Taliban who are causing Nato the most problems."
On the basis of such reports and other like them, I firmly support Defence Minister Peter Mackay claim about Iranian's involvement in Afghanistan.
Posted by: andré | 2007-12-26 1:06:18 PM
Fred,you're off the mark and out to lunch on this one, bet you were/are a friend of David of Orchard.
It's a pretty safe bet Iran is a key supplier to the Taliban and not a regime we should trust in any event.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-26 2:45:29 PM
Liz J: Why are you incapable of debating without throwing out insults?
What does key supplier mean? Since the Taliban originated in Pakistan and the Pashtun areas along the Pakistani border and the arms dumps the US and Pakistan provided the Mujahideen were in Pakistan and the area along the Iranian/ Afghan border have been fairly quiet. All of FATA & most of NWFP have been taken over by the Taliban or their allies and ISI heavily aided the Taliban since it's inception. How do figure that Iran is a "key" supplier of arms to the Taliban? Doesn't "key" mean essential or at least vitally important? Any help from Iran is hardly essential when compared to the arms & bases in Pakistan and the cash from Saudi Arabia.
Don't you find it a bit curious that McKay comes out with his "worries" soon after the US NIE down played the Iranian nuclear threat and Bush's position is it doesn't matter? Is it not possible that McKay is repeating what a US official told him without actually seeing concrete evidence?
Do I trust the Iranians? No. Do I trust US administrations & intelligence services to be competent and truthful? No. Would I prefer McKay to put more thought into his public comments? Yes.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-12-26 8:59:16 PM
But we're supposed to trust Layton? RIGHT:
"Layton expects breakthrough"
He says Canadians, tired of the Conservatives and Liberals, are starting to turn to the NDP.
OTTAWA -- Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton is expecting a banner breakthrough for his party in 2008, hoping to scoop seats in Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland.
Layton said his party is on a high after a fall byelection win in Quebec, and plans to build on that momentum by wooing voters who are sick of scandal, want an end to the war in Afghanistan and demand strong action on the climate change crisis.
RIGHT! ALBERTA IS going to elect Dippers. Layton is living in some sort of fantasy land that demonstrates that he is truly unstable.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-27 5:13:47 AM
Fred ward ~ It is insulting to some when people disagree with them.
NATO officials have in the past blamed Iran for supplying the Taliban with explosives and advanced roadside bombs.
We can't go blaming the Bush Administration for making that accusation when their Secretary of Defense said they did not have evidence to support it. However that doesn't stop those who obsessively hate Bush.
In the end, who really knows for sure who is collaborating with who in the arms supply network?
In such a network each one is key.
No one should trust the Theocracy that is calling the shots in Iran.
It's sad some elements in this country constantly rail against the US including the juvenile insults we saw under the Liberals.
We are so fortunate to have such a great and powerful ally as a neighbor.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-27 7:17:46 AM
"It's sad some elements in this country constantly rail against the US including the juvenile insults we saw under the Liberals."
CBC brainwashing produces this type of "Canadian".
Abolish that corporation immediately!!!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-27 7:21:42 AM
Whitewashing the crimes of the Islamic regime of Iran is now a fashionable trend among the lefties.
Posted by: winston | 2007-12-27 10:14:00 AM
Leftoids & Islamists work hand in hand. Witness their partnership in trying to take down this very site.
But they refuse to acknowledge that they too will be slaughtered if & when the Islamofascists ever attain power anywhere in the West.
Just ask Theo Van Gogh. Oh, never mind. He is already dead at their hands.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-27 10:22:24 AM
Yes, obc, Theo Van Gogh was an outrageous killing of a fine and talented human being who dared to use his freedom of expression we in modern Western Democracies are allowed.
Much more should have been made of that atrocity and much more should have been done about it. If we do not fight vigorously such brutality in the name of a religion blindly engulfed with religious zealotry we will have more of the same.
It's becoming more clear with each atrocity that ultimate power may eventually be used to rid the world of inhuman wretches once and for all.
How the Israelis have endured is nothing short of a miracle.
Today, the Bhutto assassination is another example of the impossible situation among that element of this world.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-27 3:34:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.