Article

2007-06-24 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran supplied missile that hit UK helicopter in 2006

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mrp 2007-06-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top
File under: Mahdi Army

#1 At least we have no confirmation the Iranians are engaged in cigarette smuggling into southern Iraq. This would set a very bad example for our young people.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-06-24 02:22|| 2007-06-24 02:22|| Front Page Top

#2 "failed to tell the British because of a row between the State Department and the CIA over the reliability of the source"

After all the hindsight-based fault-finding with the pre-OIF intelligence, it should come as no surprise that current intelligence data is held close, and only passed on - anywhere - when it is certain (which is either never, or too late.)
There is risk in acting on uncertain information - but it should be remembered that there is also risk in not acting on uncertain information. Look northeast of Iraq for a major potential example.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-06-24 14:09|| 2007-06-24 14:09|| Front Page Top

#3 doesn't this sound just like a typical Sunday agenda piece by TimesOnLine.. pfffft...

Brit media is even less trustworthy than our MSM.

America knew that the Mahdi Army, the radical Shiite militia, had obtained the shoulder-launched missile from the Iranians but failed to tell the British because of a row between the State Department and the CIA over the reliability of the source, US intelligence sources said.

BULL SHIT---> timesonline!,

Our Intel agencies pass on all sorts of Intel with caveats attached.

Posted by RD">RD 2007-06-24 14:39|| 2007-06-24 14:39|| Front Page Top

#4 Our Intel agencies pass on all sorts of Intel with caveats attached.

RD - as someone who has worked on the inside, let me tell you that there is a deep and abiding schism between CIA and State. What it boils down to is "it wasn't our call, so it's worthless" - on both sides. It's not something new, either - it's existed at LEAST since the CIA was founded (a case can be made about the Naval code-breaking prior to and during WWII). While keeping things close-hold may be part of the problem, the turf wars are real - and as seen in this case, can be deadly deadly.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-06-24 17:13|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-06-24 17:13|| Front Page Top

#5 thanks OP, I appreciate the feedback.

I'm always, I repeat, always open to your ideas and suggestions. as well as Pappy, Fred, John, and most of the Rantburgers...

I am aware of the pissing contest between State and the DIA, CIA, etc... but only from reading about it, not like you a professional miner and user of Intel who has witnessed the problem up close and personal.

2 questions..

Don't you think Timesonline favors these hit pieces on anything American, American military American Intel etc?

Would it be correct to say then, that the Intel about the missiles would never be given to the Brits because of the same old 'inter agency territory dispute'?

Why wouldn't the CIA give the brits a 'Heads Up' but cover their ass by saying the source is a little flakey?

Posted by RD">RD 2007-06-24 18:55|| 2007-06-24 18:55|| Front Page Top

#6 So while we all argue about who said what to who, the Iranians get a pass?

Posted by Skunky Glins5285">Skunky Glins5285 2007-06-24 19:35|| 2007-06-24 19:35|| Front Page Top

23:52 Atomic Conspiracy
23:49 Baba Tutu
23:37 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:57 Super Hose
22:49 Bright Pebbles
22:46 Super Hose
22:45 C-Low
22:45 trailing wife
22:22 Super Hose
22:18 Natural Law
22:17 Barbara Skolaut
22:15 N guard
22:05 twobyfour
22:04 Zenster
22:02 twobyfour
21:57 Zenster
21:33 Zenster
21:31 trailing wife
21:27 lotp
21:25 Procopius2k
21:22 Frank G
21:15 Occasional poster
21:15 Penguin
21:04 trailing wife