US Gun Insudtry Armed Osama bin Laden

[jad1097]

WTF?

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1007-101.html


VPC: US Gun Insudtry Armed Osama bin Laden
U.S. Newswire
7 Oct 11:48
VPC: U.S. Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden's Terror Network:
Al Qaeda Bought 25 Barrett 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200 ext. 105
E-mail: nseligman@vpc.org

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. gun industry sold
at least twenty-five 50 caliber sniper rifles to Al Qaeda, Osama
bin Laden's terror network, a study released by the Violence Policy
Center (VPC) today reports. The study, Voting From the Rooftops,
details the tremendous power of the Barrett M82A1 50 caliber sniper
rifles-which U.S. Marines used in the Gulf War to knock out Iraqi
armored vehicles from 1,750 yards away-and the gun's potential use
to commit terror acts that could cause enormous casualties. The
Barrett sniper rifle has spawned a bourgeoning market for these
types of weapons that are becoming cheaper, lighter and more widely
available. There are known to be at least fifteen 50-caliber sniper
rifle manufacturers-nearly double the number of companies that were
manufacturing and marketing 50 calibers to civilians in 1999.

"We can be shocked, but not surprised that the gun industry
would sell these dangerous military weapons to Al Qaeda," said the
study's author, Tom Diaz, VPC's senior policy analyst. "These 50
caliber sniper rifles are ideal tools for terror and
assassination."

Voting from the Rooftops explains the enormous range of 50
caliber sniper rifles, the explosive power of special
armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition easily
available in the United States, and why this war-fighting power in
the hands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists creates a grave threat
to all Americans. Among the dangers the study details are:

How 50 caliber sniper rifles can create disaster at industrial
facilities handling explosive, toxic or volatile chemical-the kind
of threat terrorism analysts already warn transforms a target into
a weapon.

Why a report for the Air Force warned that 50 caliber sniper
rifles endanger aircraft, bulk fuel tanks, fuel trucks and other
airport facilities-terrorists can turn planes into "bombs on the
ground."

The rash of 50 caliber sniper rifles found in the arsenals of
domestic terrorist and extremist groups, including one that plotted
to kill a state governor, U.S. Senator, and federal judges.

[BBA]

Oh well...looks like we'll just have to get them before they get us.

[MTAtech]

No surprise. Most of the weapons the Taliban have came from the U.S. The rest they captured from the Soviets with the U.S. weapons.

[club_med]

The US government followed a tactic that many other countries have attempted (Israel, Russia, France just to name a few).

I'm talking about the military and monetary funding of groups, in the hopes that they will be able to topple an enemy system.

While it has proven to be a successful method, not to mention cheap too, the 'blow back' effect is very high. Often the regimes that form after the goal is achieved are very fragile and unstable, subject to change at any time.

What often happens is that you end up creating a 'little monster' that soon becomes uncontrollable, and could turn around to hit you in the face.

I think the US government has learnt a lesson, they seem to very cautious when asked about whether they will/are supporting the Northern Alliance.

I sincerely hope they don't make the same mistake twice. The Northern Alliance does not seem fit to fill the power vacuum that will appear after this conflict is over, they are no different than the Taliban.

A UN supported (initiated), broad based government is the most suitable solution in my opinion.

[Warthog]

Actually, I think it's a somewhat false report.

During the Afghan conflict in the '80's we gave them Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. That was the first time they were used in combat.

Warthog

[Fingers]

I agree with Club_Med on this one.

Arming a group who's politics we still don't necessarly agree with is NOT a good idea. Merely "helping" them win and take over control isn't much better. Eliminating the Taliban is our first objective though. If we need to use the Northern Alliance or any other rebel forces to accomplish that, then I'm all for it, but leaving them in power as the ruling body probably isn't in our best interest, or the best interest of Afghanistan either.

I truthfully haven't given much thought as to what happens to Afghanistan after this is over. Right now I'm most interested, as is our Gov't, in eliminating or at least reducing the threat to the US, but there has to be a plan to get Afghanistan back on it's feet... I hope that issue is being given it's deserved consideration.

[club_med]

I think it would be futile to leave Afghanistan in a chaotic condition after the conflict is over.

If we want security, and if we want to prevent or minimise the repetition of the Sept 11 events, then I think we should make a huge effort to leave Afghanistan in a stable state, one that would allow the country to develop and advance.

If it remains weak, impoverished and chaotic, it would be the perfect breeding ground for future problems, and we can be sure to have a tragic repetition of the current events.

The innocent people of Afghanistan deserve stability and humane living conditions.

The innocent people of the world deserve security and peace.

[thekingofpain]

It was pointed out in Bin Ladins latest filmed address that he was also wearing a US military jacket...
Behind the scenes they were probably munching on the Humanitarian Field Rations we recently airdropped as well...

[Harold7]

jad1097,

Please consider the source of the article you cite... the Violence Policy Center, being rabidly anti-gun ownership, could hardly be accused of being an objective commentator with no political or social agrenda.

I'd like to see the shipping invoices to Al Qaeda and Bin laden involved individuals and groups before taking anything the VPC has to say seriously.

This is just another chance for the far left to push their anti-gun agenda... I'm sure they'd find fault with American citizens using their own firearms to defend themselves if confronted by a terrorist as well.

The lead headline ... "Gun Industry Arms Bin Laden" says it all... implying,not too subtly, that Colt, Ruger, Winchester, Browning etc. (in other words any company which manufactures firearms) has some nefarious, unpatriotic plan to intentionally sell arms to terrorsts, putting all of our lives in danger.

These people have no shame... they'll use any tragedy or atrocity as a pretext for pushing their anti-gun agenda.

:)

[Warthog]

Good post, Harold.

I saw on Dateline NBC an interview with one of the so-called "Northern Alliance" soldiers. They asked him why he was fighting the Taliban, he simply answered "They're not from my tribe".

Warthog

[jad1097]

Harold,

I just posted what I saw elsewhere, nothing more nothing less. I had no idea what VPC stands for and did not care. I don’t really care where it came from, right wing or left wing WGaF. I will now go and deliberately find some more left wing stuff for you to read.


You doubt this but you do not doubt that our country taught these people how to fly so they could kill our people, right?


Take a look at some of the other news on that site.
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/current.htm






Oh, and I was not really suprised to read this since we all know that we have been arming people in the middle east for decades.

[BP]

I'm not too concerned about the .50 cal's. Our snipers that carry them are very well trained with them.Given equal arms,better training wins.

It's the Russian 14.5mm I'd be worried about. A 994 grain bullet traveling at 3300 feet/sec has a LOT of muzzle energy... 24,035 ft. lbs. of energy at the muzzle compaired with around 14,000 for a .50cal.
That coupled with a heavier bullet means that it's range is much farther than the .50, putting the bad guys out of the range of the US snipers.


http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/antitank.htm

[Tom Jones]

I don't think there is a good solution to what is going on. To accomplish something....stablize a country..you have to either oppose or help them. Since we do not take over countries we only have those two choices.. You can not know what will happen in advance...so any decision you make will have results...some good, some bad.... You have to support your countries decisions....as an American....whether right or wrong...as like us...nobody is perfect. We can't let others dictate what we should do in our country..which is the best country by far.... Just make sure that our constitution stays like it is...and we don't become a ditatorship, by giving up our freedoms..like those that follow....these terrorists... I am sure.....the terrorists would love to disarm America.....destroy our constitution piece by piece.....and kill all Americans..... You can either follow them, going along with their goals or stand up for what makes us Americans..... In America you have that choice.

[ILC]

Both hand guns and long gun sales are at an all time high in a LONG time. Uh oh...Americans wanting to defend themselves?!?! What a horrible mess this country is coming too. I guess this is making us uncivlized.

ILC

[Tom Jones]

<snicker> Do you mean you would not wish to defend yourself, family or perhaps a friend. Give this a thought.. Which would you prefer to have if you needed someone in your foxhole... Someone that had experience in using a firearm....or someone with little to no experience. The basic reason for machine guns is to overcome the lack of experience of the user.. You get responsiblity from teaching the right use of a tool... Remember the police only come after you have a need for them....not when you need them for defence ... Defending yourself, family and country is a responsibility...YOURS, MINE. I carry a pocket knife, a tool. Suppose on the hijacked airliners....that passengers had knives..Maybe the twin towers would still be standing, all those people still alive. Mortar does not alway hold bricks together...it levels them and holds them apart...

[jad1097]

This was not a debate about guns. I don't recall anyone saying that guns are bad or we should not have any.

[Axel]

A few points to consider - The U.S. only really has 2 rivals when it comes to arms sales and supplies - That's China and the USSR -

Take a look around at the availability of the AK47 assault rifle - coming originally out of the USSR and later closely copied by the Chinese - exported all over the world.....

The M-16 would be more popular, but it's designed to wound - not kill with a much smaller calibur than the AK47 - and the M-16 has more moving parts which makes it more prone to failure....

You cannot submerge an M-16 in mud - load it and expect it to fire reliably - but you can do that with an AK -

And as to who supplied the Afghan's with most of the arms they currently have - I'd say that has to go to dead Russian soldiers..... from their former occupation of the country in question....

The U.S. weapons industry is a business - they sell to whomever the U.S. state department will allow.... Some of those dollars fuel our ecomony..... Some of those jobs are U.S. jobs.....

Again - guns don't kill people - people kill people - If you were worried about what they were going to be used for - you shouldn't sell them to begin with - but that's quite an un-American, uncapitalistic idea and the NRA and weapon industry lobby has plenty of money to fund politicians who won't openly oppose them..... I.E. - the time to bann the sale of weapons is long since past.....