The night before the Golden Mosque bombing: Two eyewitnesses

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Terrorists Buy American

Postby Iroquois » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:35 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>US car theft rings probed for ties to Iraq bombings</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | October 2, 2005<br><br>WASHINGTON -- The FBI's counterterrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials.<br><br>[snip]<br><br>The inquiry began after coalition troops raided a bomb-making factory in Fallujah last November and found a sport utility vehicle registered in Texas that was being prepared for a bombing mission.<br><br>Investigators said they are comparing several other cases where vehicles evidently stolen in the United States wound up in Syria or other Middle East countries and ultimately into the hands of Iraqi insurgent groups -- including Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Jordanian-born Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.<br><br>[snip]<br><br>Citing recent discussions with government investigators, Emerson said Al Qaeda terrorists suspected in suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia in recent years also apparently used cars stolen in the United States.<br><br>[snip]<br><br>Terrorism specialists think Iraqi insurgents prefer American stolen cars because they tend to be larger, blend in more easily with the convoys of US government and private contractors, and are harder to identify as stolen.<br><br>[snip]<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I was just thinking about this article last night and thought it may apply here. I can't myself make a better case that this just terrible spin trying to cover equally bad black-op procedures. But, I encourage making up ones own mind after reading the complete article linked here: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zeCrtfbQyLYJ:www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/10/02/us_car_theft_rings_probed_for_ties_to_iraq_bombings/++%22US+car+theft+rings+probed+for+ties+to+Iraq+bombings%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en">72.14.207.104/search?q=ca...lr=lang_en</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(I provided the google cache link to allow readers to avoid registration.)<br><br><br>Personally, I found a lot there. Like the four states that are the primary sources of the stolen vehicles used in terror attacks seemed to me to re-affirm my (to say the least) strongly held held suspicion.<br> <p></p><i></i>
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Terrorists Buy American

Postby heath7 » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:53 pm

It'd seem a major headache to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>ship</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> vehicles 10,000 miles for terrorist attacks. It'd leave more of an evidence trail (unless you're not worried about that kind of thing) and be considerably more difficult than boosting a car in the local, lawless country.<br><br>...Upon thinking about it, it makes absolutely no sense to ship a car 10,000 miles to use it in a terrorist attack.<br><br>Help. Does not compute.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Terrorists Buy American

Postby Iroquois » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:44 am

Actually, I had the same problem. The best I can come up with is that the resources, both skills and equipment, that are used to equip the cars with bombs, adjust and suspensions, etc. are located in the states. To limit the paper trail, they use stolen cars.<br><br>From a limited perspective it makes sense. If these attacks are the work of US intelligence, they may want to keep something this sensitive "in the family". And, I don't imagine there are a whole lot of US intelligence techs willing to relocate to hostile third world nations. <p></p><i></i>
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Honest Ab(izaid)

Postby Gouda » Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:05 am

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-15T050147Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-240616-1.xml&archived=False">in.today.reuters.com/news...ived=False</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq<br>Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:06 AM IST<br><br>By Vicki Allen<br><br>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.<br><br>While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.<br><br>Abizaid said that policy would be worked out with a unified, national Iraqi government if and when that is established, "and it would be premature for me to predict."<br><br>Many Democrats have pressed President George W. Bush to firmly state that the United States does not intend to seek permanent military bases in Iraq, a step they said would help stem the violence there.<br><br>Abizaid also told the Appropriations subcommittee on military quality of life that while an Iraqi civil war was possible, "I think it's a long way from where we are now to civil war."<br><br>Echoing Bush's statement on Monday on the outlook for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, Abizaid said if Iraqis can form a unified government, "I think there's every reason to believe ... that we'll be able to bring the size of the force down much more so by December of '06."<br><br>Abizaid cited the need to fight al Qaeda and other extremists groups and "the need to be able to deter ambitions of an expansionistic Iran" as potential reasons to keep some level of troops in the region in the long term.<br><br>But he said it would be far less than the 200,000 currently deployed in the region, including 132,000 in Iraq.<br><br>"Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability," Abizaid said. "No doubt there is a need for some presence in the region over time primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremists versus moderates."<br><br>Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.<br><br>"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.<br><br>Rep. David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned "what kind of signal that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region ... if somehow there is ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence in Iraq."<br><br>Rep. Jane Harman of California, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Bush last week said his "continuing failure to clarify U.S. intentions provides an excuse for certain Iraqis to avoid compromise and jeopardizes our ability to succeed in Iraq."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests