Think these had a Libyan return address on the box?
Jihadists in Egypt’s lawless Sinai Peninsula are using U.S. weapons to carry out attacks against the temporary government in the wake of the military’s ouster of President Mohammed Morsi, according to the embattled nation’s Interior Ministry.
The government office posted an official statement on its Facebook page along with images of an exploded missile that hit the third floor of a building in the city of el-Arish last week. The post said terrorist forces targeted the North Sinai Security Directorate office with a ballistic missile that struck the third floor facade of the building, leaving three soldiers injured. While attacks in the Sinai, which borders Gaza and is a haven for terrorist activity, have become commonplace, the prospect that militants have U.S. weapons typically fired from helicopters at their disposal is especially alarming.
How long until our own facilities get hit by our own weapons? Eh…..
See author page
It seems that if American businesses can make a profit, our government will let them sell to almost any country. For some time, we sold military hardware to Germany and Japan during WWII. Are we still selling to countries we shouldn’t be selling to?
@Smorgasbord: #1
So these missiles were provided to the jihadists by an American business?
Not supplied by an agency of our government?
Your source for that information, please.
Otherwise you’re just babbling.
Thomas Jefferson founded the U.S Navy because the Berbers (Muslim pirates) were acting like today’s Somali pirates.
They would attack a merchant ship.
They would kill all they needed to to take the ship.
They enslaved and held for ransom all the survivors.
They used the ship and used or sold the cargo.
All I’m saying is that no American salespeople need be involved.
It could be that old weapons controlled by a gov’t we officially gave or sold weapons to lost control of them.
A real worry should be the nuclear weapons controlled by the official Pakistani gov’t.
It seems only Israel takes action when a warlike Islamic state gets close to controlling a working nuke.
Where are WE on that front?
Petercat
those weapons might have been part of another revolution help by OBAMA,
OR SENT WITH THE MONEY AND PLANES TO EGYPT DEPOSE MORSI SUPPOSE DEMOCRACY,
AND THE GOVERMENT use business to do their own business under cover,
BYE
@Petercat: #2
I only made a general statement. I was referring to the different times we sold arms to different countries that weren’t very friendly to us over the years.
Supplying arms to Germany and Japan during WWII was an example.
@Nan G: #3
I have asked different times why we don’t let Israel wipe out the terrorist who have launched thousands of rockets into their country. How many rockets being launched into the USA would it take before we destroyed the ones launching them?
@Smorgasbord: #6
With our current administration? We probably wouldn’t respond at all, as we couldn’t be absolutely certain that we would kill those responsible, and only them. Collateral damage is unacceptable, y’know.
Potus would probably just close off the areas of the US that were within range of the missiles, declare them no-go zones for US citizens, and then cede the land to the (Mexican) government on the promise that said government wouldn’t allow missiles to be launched from there in the future.
@Petercat: #7
That brings up the question I have asked different times: How many “innocent civilians” is one soldier’s life worth. Eisenhower could have chosen to send in troops or drop the A bomb on an island (I forget which one) during WWII or Korea. He chose to send in the troops, and MANY thousands of them died. Was it worth it to save the “innocent civilians”? Each of us will have to make up our minds, since we can’t go back like we can in video games and play it under different conditions.
Also, how do we tell an “innocent civilian” from the enemy, when a lot of our enemies don’t wear uniforms? It is possible the “innocent civilians” we saved from being killed, might kill us any chance they would get. I would hate to be in charge of a bunch of soldiers in battle, especially when a lot of times I would have to ask the JAG if it was legal for me to do something I wanted to do before I could do it. Too many times the ones who we wanted to attack are gone by the time our troops get permission to engage. This just extends the war, since the enemy isn’t loosing fighters as fast as they would if we could fight this war like we used to.