Rumor on new Iraq strategy: Sacrifice

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Funny that he was calling for us to bomb anyone who supplies weapons when one of those suppliers is us.

So nice of you to inform the world that it is America suppling the IEDS
that are killing so many of our troops.
Last info I had on that was that the manufacture of those IEDS had been traced back to Iran.
Silly to state we are currently suppling weapons to the enemy.
You stated -one of those suppliers "is" us. You did not state "was" us.
However previously lost or stolen weapons does not account for the IEDS!!
Our weapons did not include any Improvised Exsplosive Devices that I am aware of.
Your statement was false and misleading.
Furthermore wasn't a damn thing about it "funny"as you stated.
I made the truthful assertion that Iran is known to be currently providing weapons(IEDS) to the enemy.
I then stated we should bomb that supplier as well as any others.
Your attempt at false misleading info is quite silly.
Do try to do better next time.
I grow weary of having to correct such misinformation.-TZS

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

So nice of you to inform the world that it is America suppling the IEDS
that are killing so many of our troops.
Last info I had on that was that the manufacture of those IEDS had been traced back to Iran.
Silly to state we are currently suppling weapons to the enemy.
You stated -one of those suppliers "is" us. You did not state "was" us.
However previously lost or stolen weapons does not account for the IEDS!!
Our weapons did not include any Improvised Exsplosive Devices that I am aware of.
Your statement was false and misleading.
Furthermore wasn't a damn thing about it "funny"as you stated.
I made the truthful assertion that Iran is known to be currently providing weapons(IEDS) to the enemy.
I then stated we should bomb that supplier as well as any others.
Your attempt at false misleading info is quite silly.
Do try to do better next time.
I grow weary of having to correct such misinformation.-TZS

IEDs aren't manufactured.
They are made from other munitions.
Through our mismanagement we have given them munitions.
This is not misleading.
This form of typing is very annoying.-LOL

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

IEDs aren't manufactured.
They are made from other munitions.
Through our mismanagement we have given them munitions.
This is not misleading.
This form of typing is very annoying.-LOL

IEDS are being made using newly designed Iranian bombs with motion detectors that can not be jammed. American military have captured several shipments coming into Iraq from Iran.
The strongest most lethal IEDS are those created from the new Iranian bombs/munitions being sent into Iraq from Iran.
To attempt to put the blame on stolen or lost American military muntions
is misleading.
IRAN IS SUPPLYING THE ENEMY IN IRAQ, THAT'S A FACT.
This form of typing annoys you?
Too bad , it's my favorite way to post.-TZS

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

IEDS are being made using newly designed Iranian bombs with motion detectors that can not be jammed. American military have captured several shipments coming into Iraq from Iran.
The strongest most lethal IEDS are those created from the new Iranian bombs/munitions being sent into Iraq from Iran.
To attempt to put the blame on stolen or lost American military muntions
is misleading.
IRAN IS SUPPLYING THE ENEMY IN IRAQ, THAT'S A FACT.
This form of typing annoys you?
Too bad , it's my favorite way to post.-TZS

Someone should look up the meaning of IED.

They are not manufactured. That's called a mine or a grenade.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Someone should look up the meaning of IED.

They are not manufactured. That's called a mine or a grenade.

I dont have to look up the meaning I already know it.
IED is short for -Improvised Exsplosive Device.
One can take two anti-tankmines improvise them to be exploded by several means , pressure , wireless signal, motion ,etc.
Iran may or may not be sending the IED already completed but they are sending the components to make the IEDS.
Currently I believe the new bombs being sent from Iran are more exsplosive than two anti-tank mines put together.
Iran is still supplying the enemy in Iraq with ways and means to make Improvised Exsplosive Devices. Those IEDS are being used to kill many American soldiers.-TZS

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Iran may or may not be sending the IED already completed but they are sending the components to make the IEDS.

You have any evidence to back that up? or just speculation?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Kytro

You have any evidence to back that up? or just speculation?

No speculation . Easy to find out .
Just google search IEDS. You will see more than one source for the info
that I relayed here.
Of course whether you CHOOSE to accept the sources is entirely up to you.
-TZS

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

No speculation . Easy to find out .
Just google search IEDS. You will see more than one source for the info
that I relayed here.
Of course whether you CHOOSE to accept the sources is entirely up to you.
-TZS

ieds - Google Search

I see nothing.

[phreak]

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

So nice of you to inform the world that it is America suppling the IEDS
that are killing so many of our troops.
Last info I had on that was that the manufacture of those IEDS had been traced back to Iran.
Silly to state we are currently suppling weapons to the enemy.
You stated -one of those suppliers "is" us. You did not state "was" us.
However previously lost or stolen weapons does not account for the IEDS!!
Our weapons did not include any Improvised Exsplosive Devices that I am aware of.
Your statement was false and misleading.
Furthermore wasn't a damn thing about it "funny"as you stated.
I made the truthful assertion that Iran is known to be currently providing weapons(IEDS) to the enemy.
I then stated we should bomb that supplier as well as any others.
Your attempt at false misleading info is quite silly.
Do try to do better next time.
I grow weary of having to correct such misinformation.-TZS

I grow weary of people who try to change the definition of what they said when what they said turns out to be wrong. Now you're claiming that when you said "weapons, bombs and munitions" you meant to say IED's only? Funny, your first post doesn't mention IED's at all. To now claim that you meant IED's all along and others are now trying to twist your words is false and misleading, and everyone here can see that for themselves.

Let's look at your previous post:

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

No troop increase until/unless our military is allowed to stop the supply of weapons
and bombs being sent into Iraq for use by the terrorist scum. Until then we will suffer greater deaths .
We should do immediate decisive air strikes on the suppliers of the bombs/munitions to Iraq.

Nope. You said weapons, bombs, and munitions, and now you act as if pistols, assault rifles, and rocket launchers didn't count or aren't a threat to our troops, our allies, or innocent civilians. Not a word about IED's.

You said you want us to bomb the suppliers of weapons in Iraq. We are one of those suppliers. You may think it's silly, but that's the truth. If you don't like it, tough. If you don't want to hear it, tough. Trying to retroactively change the definition of what you said and doing some Clintonesque word parsing ("is" and "was?" ) doesn't change the fact that you were arguing from false assumptions and you got called on it.

Some American posters on this board feel a freedom to question and outright deny the patriotism of other Americans that they don't know simply because of their position on the war. Some of these same posters would do well to learn the facts and consider their arguments more carefully, or, in their rush to make a case for war against another country, they might just inadvertently end up calling for air strikes upon their own.

I'm glad no one has questioned these particular posters patriotism, even when it would be extraordinarily easy to do so. They're not unpatriotic, they're just silly!

[avsp]

Its no surprise that Iran would be supplying arms to factions in Iraq

What did we think was going to happen?

The invasion was supposed to strengthen pressure for democracy in opposition to the regions various autocratic regimes.

The failure to effectively secure the boarders is just another in the long list of c*ck-ups

Including failing to secure the huge arms dump at Al Qaqaa

Iran only really needs to export the know-how for ever more effective IEDS. The sophisticated trigger mechanisms etc are just a little bonus as there is lots of ammo /explosives already in place

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

ieds - Google Search

I see nothing.

Really? You see nothing?
I suggest you get an eye examination then.
Or perhaps you were not really looking too hard?
My statements were true.-TZS

[mididoctors]

Well lets say Iran is sending arms to iraq... what exactly is the US going to do about it?

Boris
London

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I grow weary of people who try to change the definition of what they said when what they said turns out to be wrong. Now you're claiming that when you said "weapons, bombs and munitions" you meant to say IED's only? Funny, your first post doesn't mention IED's at all. To now claim that you meant IED's all along and others are now trying to twist your words is false and misleading, and everyone here can see that for themselves.

Let's look at your previous post:



Nope. You said weapons, bombs, and munitions, and now you act as if pistols, assault rifles, and rocket launchers didn't count or aren't a threat to our troops, our allies, or innocent civilians. Not a word about IED's.

You said you want us to bomb the suppliers of weapons in Iraq. We are one of those suppliers. You may think it's silly, but that's the truth. If you don't like it, tough. If you don't want to hear it, tough. Trying to retroactively change the definition of what you said and doing some Clintonesque word parsing ("is" and "was?" ) doesn't change the fact that you were arguing from false assumptions and you got called on it.

Some American posters on this board feel a freedom to question and outright deny the patriotism of other Americans that they don't know simply because of their position on the war. Some of these same posters would do well to learn the facts and consider their arguments more carefully, or, in their rush to make a case for war against another country, they might just inadvertently end up calling for air strikes upon their own.

I'm glad no one has questioned these particular posters patriotism, even when it would be extraordinarily easy to do so. They're not unpatriotic, they're just silly!

TRUE I SAID WEAPONS , BOMBS AND MUNITIONS!
BY GOLLY THAT WOULD COVER IEDS as they are made from bombs/munitions.
Improvised Exsplosive Devices=IEDS, SO TELL ME JUST HOW DID I LEAVE THEM OUT?
IEDS are made from munitions!!!
Do you mean to say that my word "weapons " doesnt cover -"pistols,assault rifles and rocket launchers'? Surely you jest!
MY ORIGINAL POST DID INCLUDE IEDS.
MY ORIGINAL POST DID SAY WEAPONS!
Even further when did I say IEDS ONLY?
WEAPONS,BOMBS,MUNITIONS COVERS ALL OF THEM IN A GENERAL WAY.
Of course if you are stating that I somehow left out IEDS as the main weapon now being used on our troops then you have a reading/comprehension problem.

Don't try to piss in my pocket then tell me its raining!
You entire post to me was inaccurate and in general quite silly.-TZS

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Really? You see nothing?
I suggest you get an eye examination then.
Or perhaps you were not really looking too hard?
My statements were true.-TZS

no, I just don't count opinions as fact

[Kytro]

From Wiki:

IEDs have accounted for (as of October 2005) about one-third of all American deaths in Iraq [4]. Despite the increased armor, IEDs have been killing soldiers with greater frequency; in a ten month period in 2005, 302 U.S. soldiers were killed by such devices.[5] December 2006 was the deadliest month for IED attacks thus far with a reported 75 of the 118 coalition casualties coming from an IED attack.[6] According to the Pentagon, 250,000 tons (of 650,000 tons total) of Iraqi ordnance were looted, providing a nigh-endless source of ammunition for the insurgents.[7]

In October 2005, Britain charged that Iran was supplying insurgents with the technological know-how to make shaped charges, which focus the blast in a specific direction, and can pierce greater thicknesses of armor with less explosive. Iran has denied this. [8] [9] [10]

Recently, IEDs have been deployed in the form of Explosively Formed Penetrators, a special type of shaped charge that is effective at long standoffs from the target (50 meters or more). These are especially problematic to counter because they can be emplaced so far from their intended targets.[11]

Another possibility is platter charges. Platter charges are rectangular or circular pieces of flat metal (usually steel) with plastic explosives pressed onto one side of the platter. The amount of explosive used is usually equal, by weight, to the weight of the platter. The explosives propel the platter into the target. The effective range can be as far as 50 meters.

The British also accused Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters to use infrared light beams to trigger IEDs. As the occupation forces become more sophisticated in interrupting radio signals around their convoys, the Iraqis adapt their triggering methods. Thus far the British have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their charges.

Insurgents now use the bombs to target not only American and Coalition vehicles, but Iraqi police and civilian transportation as well.

I still see no proof, just accusations.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

no, I just don't count opinions as fact

HA, what hypocrisy. Any opinion that agrees with your opinion you count as fact.
If your opinion is that Bush is a lousy President would that be true?
Or would it be false only because it is your opinion?
Your quoted statement implies that you believe your opinions are not facts.
An opinion may be factual if it is based upon truth.
For example, my opinion is that ex-president Clinton was a liar.
Proof, -I did not have sex with that woman he stated.
Time and testimony later revealed he did have sex with that woman. Oral sex, which by its very definition is SEX!
Of course one can play the game with the old -my definitions of words are different than those displayed by a dictionary.

If you really believe opinions are never factual why would you care to read anybody's opinion?
Why would you care to form opinions yourself?

Could be you really meant that you only accept agreeing opinions as factual?
Works well for those that consider themselves infallible does it not?-TZS




.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

TRUE I SAID WEAPONS , BOMBS AND MUNITIONS!
BY GOLLY THAT WOULD COVER IEDS as they are made from bombs/munitions.
Improvised Exsplosive Devices=IEDS, SO TELL ME JUST HOW DID I LEAVE THEM OUT?
IEDS are made from munitions!!!
Do you mean to say that my word "weapons " doesnt cover -"pistols,assault rifles and rocket launchers'? Surely you jest!
MY ORIGINAL POST DID INCLUDE IEDS.
MY ORIGINAL POST DID SAY WEAPONS!
Even further when did I say IEDS ONLY?
WEAPONS,BOMBS,MUNITIONS COVERS ALL OF THEM IN A GENERAL WAY.
Of course if you are stating that I somehow left out IEDS as the main weapon now being used on our troops then you have a reading/comprehension problem.

Don't try to piss in my pocket then tell me its raining!
You entire post to me was inaccurate and in general quite silly.-TZS

Calm down. (Isn't it funny how the toughest guys on here have the thinnest skin?) We're all friends and countrymen here. I want to have a civil discussion and learn from you. I'm glad you're on the forum so that we can have discussions and hopefully understand each others viewpoints better.

I'll try and state this simply: First you said "weapons, bombs, and munitions" and called for air strikes upon the country that supplies them to the insurgents in Iraq. I responded with an article that says that the USA has lost weapons in Iraq.

You then responded very indignantly, acting like the article was inaccurate and was not at all relevant to the discussion because it did not mention IED's. You repeated IED's several times to reenforce your point.

Now you're admitting that the munitions that we have lost in Iraq could indeed be turned into IED's, as you state in the bold text above.

So now we are back where we started. You called for air strikes against countries supplying munitions to Iraq. The United States of America is one of those countries.

I understand what's really happening in this discussion, but I'm enjoying it anyway. You were in such a rush to make a case against Iran, you got caught saying a stupid thing (calling for the bombing of weapons suppliers) because of facts that you were ignorant of (that the US lost munitions in Iraq.) It's a perfectly understandable mistake, one that all of us make from time to time.

[avsp]

Was the loss of Coalition supplied weapons in Iraq a deliberate act? If so, who by? Would any negligence on anybodies part justify a bombing campaign?

Further, do these weapons losses show that the Iraq state apparatus is too weak/corrupt/infiltrated/divided to be allowed to do anything much?

But much more importantly, ..., wot dis guy sed

Originally Posted by Boris

Well lets say Iran is sending arms to iraq... what exactly is the US going to do about it?

What kind of 'air strike' campaign against Iran would be just, effective etc?
What other actions would it be wise to take with regard to possible Iranian reactions to doing this?
Similarly to the reactions of all other players?

Is it the case that the Coalition forces