Steyr HS50's seized in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taliv:
"a) there's no evidence that they wouldn't have used some other gun to kill US soldiers
b) don't fall into the anti-mindset of blaming the gun instead of the shooter (those $10,000 guns sure are scary!)
c) they wouldn't have the guns in the first place if our government was doing its job"

I agree on two points and object that you are attempting to apply the the last one to me, as I clearly explained that the rifles themselves aren't the big deal here. I am not reacting as b) might suggest.

My agreement with a) is immaterial. It doesn't matter if they would have used another gun. If they would, then make them use another gun and don't give them any. Its very simple. Ethical businesses do not support terrorism or terrorism-supporting states. I realize that ethical businesses are few and far between, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the crux of my problem with the situation.

My agreement with c) is also immaterial, as I said essentially the same thing in the very post you were responding to. Of course we should have stopped that shipment or stopped the sale from occurring. That we should have but didn't doesn't mean that Steyr shouldn't have sold them to begin with. They're guilty of an unethical business deal, even if we should have stopped them.

For those who think I'm just a knee-jerker, let me explain why I'll never buy a Steyr weapon. Its for the same reason I didn't buy Nike shoes. The sale of those weapons to that regime and the use of sweatshop child labor are both predatory practices and, while legal, they are unethical. They are not things that good people do. For businesses, "ethics" has traditionally meant "the study of how to stay out of prison." To me, ethical standards are far above legal standards. Just because you've stayed out of prison doesn't mean you're conducting business ethically. The law is a minimum standard of behavior to me, even if few people will agree with me.

In this particular unethical business transaction, Steyr has proven that their only interest is money. While this is true of any corporation, there's also no need to pursue profit in such a predatory way. That is my objection. Steyr's greed has gotten someone killed and I refuse to think that's ok, even if some other people would call me a salivating dog as a result.
 
I have no problem with Steyr.

They are not an American firm, and they are not bound by U.S. opinions. I also find it disconcerting that the state department would rather the Iranians have these arms, than those of us on this board.

Moreover, I certainly hope that those who refuse to own a Steyr for arming terrorist sponsoring states, also refuse to own a Saiga, old Russian surplus, Colt, anything chinese including the new SASS replicas, HK, and however many other firms arms that have engaged in business in other distateful countries.
 
"They" is whoever's posted on the board this week.

Coltrane, nice one.

Personally I'd like real evidence that the weapons are in Iraq, being used against our troops, and are responsible for casualties. I'm wondering if and where they'd be able to get ammunition, and if the insurgents have the capability to effectively field the rifles if they did. There've been a few stories of decent, well-trained enemy snipers, but from the sounds of things they're very few and far between.

I'm also interested in the question of if Iran is giving serious surface-to-air weaponry to insurgents in Iraq. How many helicopters have we lost since the beginning of the war due to enemy action? I've seen a claim that the total is more than 50 since the war began, and there's been about half a dozen so far this year. Some seem to be due to shoulder-fired missiles, but some are supposedly due to "heavy caliber small-arms fire". Coordinated DShKs perhaps?
 
The sale of those weapons to that regime and the use of sweatshop child labor are both predatory practices and, while legal, they are unethical.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: In much of the third world, the choice for much of the population is:

A: Work in a sweatshop.
B: Starve to death.
C: Make money required to survive by allowing men to do things to your body that we don't discuss in polite company.

sorry for the thread drift

In this particular unethical business transaction, Steyr has proven that their only interest is money.
Click to expand...
In this case their interest was in survival. After they got the screw over by our government what else were they supposed to do? Sit on a massive investment they couldn't sell? Its not like they made those rifles with free labor and materials.

Also, if Iran actually used the guns in the way that they said the would (ie: illegal drug interdiction) than one might argue that was a good thing.
 
Ding, Ding, Ding

And we have a winner. Hk91fan do you want the pink flamingo or the over stuffed Scooby Doo?
 
Two thoughts:

1) .gov should have allowed the impoortation of these rifles to the USA, along with all the over banned firearms (AK-47, Glock 25, 28, etc). Heck then it would have been our patriotic duty to buy the Steyrs, to keep our soldiers safe ;)

2) I would not be surprised if this entire event was 100% intentional on the part of our government. They've been trying to ban the .50 here for a few years now. They can't seem to get it done by just saying "they could shoot down airplanes." So now they have an actuall example of a terrorist using such a weapon against the US, and next time FineSwine pushes a "ban the .50" bill you can bet they will cite this incident. [/dale dribble] :evil:
 
I am having a Deja Vu. It seems I have heard this before... lemme see... oh yeah, Weapons of Mass Destruction, need to go now, it's that way, really it is.

Personally, the Iraqis deserved to get the crap kicked out of them. Saddam was a real evil man, and his spawn were like the gates of hell strewn wide. Not to mention the fact that immediately after 9/11, they were heard making some bad statements to the effect of their wanting to be a part of it. They offered bounties on pilot's heads for patrolling the no fly zone, even Clinton bombed them, and they were generally not very well liked by the rest of the Mid East. And of course, we gave Saddam a chance to bug out without us invading, and he said he would give us the mother of all battles, or something to that effect, and basically dared us to. Not that we were still pissed about 9/11 and looking for a fight....

But now everyone is losing their stomach for the war, it has been totally mis managed, we've given them huge amounts of money we never should have, and they're picking us off like flies around the manure heap. We need to get out of the cities, secure the oil, get pay back for what we've spent, and split. I don't want to stand in the middle of their civil war, and I also find it hard to disagree with people who want to set off ordnance downtown. The good lord knows that I, as a former USAF tech, would like for nothing more than to have set off a few 2000 lb IUDs in the neighborhoods that are problematic. Lay a little more shock and awe on them. Take the oil, and bail.

Forget the Iraqis, and forget the Middle East. They don't like me ( I am infidel ) and I don't like them ( they ARE the AntiChrist ) and the sooner we are out of Babylon, the better.

My .02, YMMV.
 
They offered bounties on pilot's heads for patrolling the no fly zone, even Clinton bombed them, and they were generally not very well liked by the rest of the Mid East.
Click to expand...

First off the "No Fly Zone" covered most of thier country, and it combined with sanctions on most goods was the modern day version of a siege, which is what you do before you attack. So offering bounties on the heads of the people sieging you is by no means out of line.

I agree he was a bad guy, that his children were much worse than him and had he been removed or killed and they took over things would have been even worse. However him not being liked by the Middle East has more to do with the fact that he was not a Muslim fanatic, and did not even pretend to be a supporter of Islam until the end, and was one of the only regimes in the region you could say that about. This is partialy why the CIA helped and backed him against Iran by having American and British factories built to create chemical weapons that would give him a fighting chance against the much better equiped Iranians. He only became an enemy when he threatened western oil and regional stability by invading Kuwait, which had actualy stolen back some disputed land while Iraq was busy with Iran.

We knew he had chemical weapons because we had the reciepts and helped create them. The only thing we were wrong about was that he really was telling the truth about destroying them all. That was something our government could not fathom to believe because what power hungry dictator willingly destroys thier most powerful weapon? So they gambled that he still had them, and fabricated evidence, and lost the gamble when we invaded.

We had sieged his country for over a decade before invading, and then forced them to accept spies to scout out his defenses and capabilities in the form of investigators searching for MWDs. There is absolutely no way we could have lost the initial war under those circumstances. THAT is why we invaded. What would be the point of spending billions sieging a country for over a decade if you were not going to invade after they were sufficiently weakened?

That is like saying we did not provoke Japan to attack us by putting an embargo and even intercepting and blockading goods headed through the ocean destined for an island nation. We were doing to them what the German U-boats were doing to the UK. Yet they started it :rolleyes: Our government wanted an excuse to join the war when they were ready, but wanted public support first and pressured Japan until they were given one by Japan.

History is written by the winners in war, and it usualy favors those that write it. History is often written to be PC after the fact, to show the victors as the undeniable heroes to a public not very good at deciding it for themselves. Yes the Japanese were expanding, conquering, were going to eventualy be a dangerous force to be reckoned with and were allied with the Nazis. No they were not trying to cause America any problems or disturb such a distant, large, and powerful nation. It was America that decided to start a problem before they were too difficult to deal with later. However the public would not condone that, so they were simply pressured to attack us to gain public support in our 'retaliation'.

The public is viewed as pawns that don't know or wouldn't understand what is really in thier best interest. So the information they are given coincides with this perspective, and has to be given a proper spin to paint them a "proper" picture. Sadly I must often agree with this, but it just goes to show what the government thinks of our ability to reason.
 
Last edited:
Iraq was sufficiently weakened after the first gulf war, and we had the backing of the majority of the people then to finish it. Why didn't we do this then? It would have been over, and there would have been no need for a siege.

BTW, the terms of surrender were what they were. I didn't negotiate them. Heck, only 3 countries in the world still support sanctions against Cuba. But we still do it anyway. I am not going to stand here and pretend that the US is always right. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I think it's time we start evaluating our own needs, and begin to put our own citizens' priorities ahead of Somalis. Ever see a starving children in North Carolina commercial? Doesn't mean that there aren't.

We have this thing going on where we feel the need to respond to someone's empassioned plea for help, when all they really want is money. Fight for democracy? Are you crazy? But fight for a drug dealing warlord? Sure, we could do that.

Don't waste my time by asking me to fight for someone else's freedom. I am way too busy fighting for my own. Privacy? Thing of the past. What the framers said in the very beginning was that voting, rights, and all things American stem from the right to own property, and that property was the only way to really achieve freedom. Property rights were exclusive, and that invading someone's property was THE violation that was costing people their liberty.

So, should Iraqis want us to leave their property? Absolutely. Let's leave it like they left the twin towers. Or the Pentagon. Or that farmer's field. I didn't ask for this war, and I didn't start it. They did. On 9/11. They invaded Kuwait. How many Isreali bombs are killing their children now that we are there and seeing who exactly is responsible for the fiasco that they perpetrate? Don't hear that line much anymore either. Enough is enough.
 
Iraq was sufficiently weakened after the first gulf war, and we had the backing of the majority of the people then to finish it. Why didn't we do this then?
Click to expand...
Because he still had an intact military, and lots of chemical weapons. Yes we would have won, but it would have been much more costly than it was after a decade long siege.

So, should Iraqis want us to leave their property? Absolutely. Let's leave it like they left the twin towers. Or the Pentagon. Or that farmer's field. I didn't ask for this war, and I didn't start it. They did. On 9/11. They invaded Kuwait.
Click to expand...
I think your confusing Iraq with other Arabs. Iraq was in fact very anti extremist because extremists to a dictator are a threat to thier own authority and could just as easily turn on them. A control freak that admired Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler for how they came to power and ruled, and was inspired from the movie The Godfather (his favorite movie) squashed any 'terrorists' or fanatics in his country. His absolute only link to any terrorism or guerilla activity is in giving money to suicide bomber family members in Palestine, another country. This was more a ploy to increase his public image than any sophisticated mischief as the entire Middle East is united by only one thing: thier Hatred for the state of Israel. So that was an easy way to reach out for support no matter the sectarian beliefs of an individual.

He absolutely had nothign to do with, and would definately not conspire with someone well versed in organized guerilla terror campaigns like Osama Bin Laden. Of course you can easily trace back Osama's training and even his leadership position to the CIA who was supporting and backing him and others against the Soviet Union when they invaded Afghanistan. They realized he was a wealthy guy that could fund many things himself and turned him into a sort of folk hero, a logistic and morale tactic. Of course there was often a middle man, the Pakistani Intelligence for many things, though not all.

So like it or not we are directly involved in this and have been for a long time. In fact in the 90's Bill Clinton bombarded Osama Bin Laden and his organization's training camps with cruise missles. As you can see now it did little to prevent 9/11 a few years later. Bombing from afar does not solve things. These are not the Japanese people that were just confronted with the truth that thier emporer (and praying to him was thier part of thier religion) was not a God, and who had been trained to be obedient subjects submissive to the Samuri for hundreds of years. These are people that would see the nuclear fallout and black rain and the deaths it caused and spend thier lives trying to exact revenge on the US. They are religious fanatics, with a religion that says only those that submit to Muslim rule and are sub citizens that pay more taxes are to be tolerated (actualy written in the Koran). All others must adopt Islam or be killed. You cannot reason with that, no matter how many American Muslim centers or politicians want to tell you it is about peace and harmony. These people have a religion and spiritual base that allows endless high morale in guerrilla warfare/ terrorism, and were trained by our nation to do it well.

This however is off topic, and I only mention it because you seem to combine 9/11 and Iraq. Iran and weapons of thiers being used to fight and kill Americans is the topic.

Along that topic the often mentioned solution of "nuke them" would easily backfire on the U.S. because it would show we are willing to use them first. This could cause any other nation with nukes to use them pre emptively in the future against us to insure we don't hit them first. Nukes are also a very bad choice when you are the most sophisticated and powerful military in the world. It would be like a big strong man surrounded by frail women and children wanting to turn things into a gun fight when they clearly have the advantage in a physical fight, and would be giving away much of thier advantage by escalating things to firearms. Well the US has little advantage to gain with nukes, but loses a lot of its advantage when others start to use them. Right now nukes are a "don't make me press the button" option used by the nations that have them in the world. It is in the interests of the United States that it stays that way.

Solutions are not as simple as the public would like. That is why many are quick to criticize Bush for getting us into this mess and denounce the situation, but those in the know have little else to put on the table as a solution. The truth is the situation has existed before Bush even came to office. Clinton was involved in it, Bush senior was involved in it, and Ronald Reagon was involved it it. In fact it goes back even further, research how Iran got F14s in the first place.
 
Originally Posted by Stretchman:

So, should Iraqis want us to leave their property? Absolutely. Let's leave it like they left the twin towers. Or the Pentagon. Or that farmer's field. I didn't ask for this war, and I didn't start it. They did. On 9/11. They invaded Kuwait. How many Isreali bombs are killing their children now that we are there and seeing who exactly is responsible for the fiasco that they perpetrate? Don't hear that line much anymore either. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what happened on 9/11/01? Cause Iraq had nothing to do with it.
 
America has been involved in the situation before Saddam was even in power. The United States backed Saddam Hussein in an assassination attempt on General Abdul Karim Qassim in 1959, who himself has just had a coup a year prior to takever Iraq by overthrowing its king Faisal II. It goes much further back than most people realize.

As I said Saddam was often a puppet used by the US until he stepped out of line and threatened western oil by invading Kuwait, even though Kuwait had just stolen back some land that was disputed. He gave women equality, and education, and abolished Sharia Law (Muslim law). He created the least Muslim nation in the Middle East.

He did bad things and had absolutely evil children , but it is more complicated than that. His party was the same party ruling Libya and they were going to unite, however it didn't happen after some unknown informants brought it to his attention of traitors in the midst..Which kept Iraq and Libya seperate, which just so happened to keep the Middle East more divided and conquered, hmmm. The kurds he attacked are a people without a nation that occupy a region that spreads across several countries, and they often attempt to undermine local governments trying to get themselves a country, yet these were the civilians he killed with weapons, in America we would have called them terrorists (of course this does not at all make it right or less horrific). Most of the Regions borders were only recently created, but thier empires and cultures and kingdoms go back thousands of years. So there is many disputes, with many sides having 'legitimate' claims. The Middle East is home to the earliest civilizations of history, and is far too complex to be meddling with. Unfortunately they have all that oil that we need...and we are already involved and have been for many generations, so it is too late now.
 
Last edited:
There are some very easily led people here.

Remember when every here was all worked up about those nuke's sitting around everywhere in Iraq ready to be shot at us?

You could probably line up all of the weapons that are currently in Iraq and make it half way to the sun.

If any G36's turn up in Iraq, will people begin to boycott HK? No, because there is no reason to.

DO any of you ever have the feeling that you are being blindly led into supporting another war in the Middle East?
 
If any G36's turn up in Iraq, will people begin to boycott HK?
Click to expand...

There sure are tons of H&K G3s floating around Iraq (stamped)with the emblem of the Pahlavi Shahs). Quick, boycott ze Germans!

Oh, Iraq has tons of Nazi Mausers too, those fascists just never stopped causing us trouble!


I'll say again (and not just out of personal likelihood of deployment), a war with an Iran would be an exceedingly nasty business far surpassing both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Ask your average Iraq of Afghanistan vet how fun Iran sounds.

Oh wait, we have air power! turning Iran into a sheet of glass (as so frequently advocated by the chest pounders) would make the U.S. into an instant international pariah, and cause domestic partisan feuding that would make the current situation seem like a teaparty. Plus the Iranians have tons of agents living outside Iran who would surely dedicate their lives to elaborate revenge within the 48 states, being that they'd have no family or homeland left (not many distractions left in life).

Oh, and there's that whole ethical thing about nuking 70million people, for those concerned. Not just some monolithic block of "them", but families of Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Turkmen, other religious groups like Zoroastrians, Armenian Christian, Iranian Jews, etc. But I guess if you don't like dark people, they all look pretty similar.

-MV
 
Last edited:
"Moreover, I certainly hope that those who refuse to own a Steyr for arming terrorist sponsoring states, also refuse to own a Saiga, old Russian surplus, Colt, anything chinese including the new SASS replicas, HK, and however many other firms arms that have engaged in business in other distateful countries."

As a matter of fact, I'd love to see a list of companies that have sold arms to anti-american nations involved in terrorism since 9/11. But I wouldn't be happy to boycott them.

I'd be positively thrilled to boycott them.

"DO any of you ever have the feeling that you are being blindly led into supporting another war in the Middle East?"

Not at all. I'm not advocating military action against Iran and I'm extremely unlikely to. Nor am I advocating action against the Austrian government because they had nothing to do with it. Its a company, not a government, that's behaving unethically here. I know its important to draw those distinctions, and I am. this also addresses the "boycott ze germans" comment.


"In much of the third world, the choice for much of the population is:

A: Work in a sweatshop.
B: Starve to death.
C: Make money required to survive by allowing men to do things to your body that we don't discuss in polite company."

A fair point, however there's no need for a factory to be a sweatshop, given how many millions upon millions upon millions (stop me when I get close) of dollars that Nike makes. Those workers could be treated humanely and given a living wage. The fact that they could be and are not is part of the ethical problem here. I don't mind that they're employed and it keeps them off the street. I mind that they're exploited, brutally, in the name of the profit margin.

"If any G36's turn up in Iraq, will people begin to boycott HK?"

If they show up in large quantities that are traceable directly to a questionable sale such as this, then maybe people should.
 
DO any of you ever have the feeling that you are being blindly led into supporting another war in the Middle East?
Click to expand...

+1

Do you have any idea what happened on 9/11/01? Cause Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

That is totally subjective. Cavemen with cell phones. They did it. With no support. Of course, someone said that Iraq and Libya had ties. And Libya had ties with terrorists. In fact, they had training camps. And Iraq had ties at one time to the CIA. And so did Osama Bin Laden. There it is again. That one degree of separation. Oh, and Iraq had motivation, being under siege and all, like they were. But they absolutely had nothing at all to do with the terror of 9/11. Really.

After the invasion, there were murals found showing the twin towers and Saddam in front of them, smoking a cigar. But of course, being that he was an all powerful dictator and all, people could just put up anything they wanted. But I am certain you are right. He was innocent. And no one was happy at all to see him go. Especially not his own people, who tried him, convicted him, and executed him.

So now, there's Iranian weapons being found in Iraq. I imagine there's also Syrian weapons being found in Iraq. Heck, there's probably weapons from all over the world being found in Iraq. Including ( gasp ) US weapons too. But they are probably there for the most part for the infighting that's going on there. Like, the civil war that looks like no one will be able to stop from happening. But if we invade Iran, then maybe...?

Get serious. Let's just take the oil and split.

I have to get off of this thread. It's getting my dander up, and you are right, it is going OT.
 
All I can say is, I've stopped being amazed by how many people cannot comprehend the difference between verbally supporting an action and actually perpetrating it. Following the same logic, there are many forummers here (and hundreds of thousands of Americans) who, were we to nuke Iran, should be tried for the crime of genocide. I'd like to express this more eloquently, but I'm afraid I can't break the concept down any further than it already is. This isn't about or referring to Stretchman, it's about the fact that a non-trivial portion of the public truly do link "Middle Easterner" with "terrorist scum". I've had people tell me in complete seriousness that our country will be an Islamic theocracy within the next few decades, and that Islam is going to take over the world (ergo we should drop the bomb immediately and put Stalin, Mao, and Hitler to shame).

One can throw blame at schools, but they're limited by parents, who are a product of culture, which is the net result of socioeconomic conditions, human nature, and various trends over a long period of time (with a smattering of individual people and events thrown in). Ultimately there's really neither guilty nor innocent, just actors on a much, much larger stage than most any ever realize. Regardless of what we do or say, it will all continue on to wherever it will go.
 
Wes,

All I can say is, don't read the "Utah gunman" thread. It won't improve your opinion of many our fellow THRers very much.
 
Maybe if the US Gov had let Americans buy these rifles, they wouldnt have ended up being sold to bad guys to kill Americans. The irony.
Click to expand...

What the Hey are you folks talking about, I just got my CDNN catalog in the mail yesterday, I can order one this morning as soon as they open for $2999.

They are legal in the USA and CDNN is selling them, no doubt If I call Xring supply in Newark DE they have one on the shelf right now or will be happy to order me one.

Its a single shot .50 BMG rifle, which is legal in the USA except some of the socialist republics, Like California, and maybe New Jersey, and Md.

Its a single shot bolt action rifle, Its legal guys, in normal US states where bolt action hunting rifles are legal.

Download the catalog here

http://www.cdnninvestments.com/dowournewcat.html
 
The solution to the middle east problem is to take all the oilfields, and sell the arabs all the weapons they want so they can finnish killing each other.
The only reason we need to be in the middle east is to assure the flow of cheap oil to keep our economy going.

We dont need to bring freedonm or democracy to folks who want to kill each other over a 700 year old feud, over which end of the egg to crack.

Its no surprise that there are Iranian supplied weapons in Iraq or that the Iranians are supporting the Shiite Militias.
 
What's that mean? It's ok as long as there's absolutely no possibility it could personally affect you?
Click to expand...

TBL, good heavens, no, that is not at all what I meant (and if it is what LiberalGunNut meant, then I withdraw my thumbs up!).
Click to expand...

Ok, sorry.

Steyr has recently sold to a group of investors calling themselves "The Hunters" headed up by Franz Holzschuh; "The Man that brought Starbucks to Austria".

Steyr got screwed by the US government as the rifles in question were built for the American sporting and LE market, but then were not allowed to be imported (although apparently some HS50s made their way here). Steyr's old management decided it would be better to sell these rifles to Iran "for use in police work" than to hold on to them, go out of business and have the rifles sold off by the bank (probably to Iran).
Click to expand...

Wow, that just leaves a worse taste than before. Some germanic banking
group sells rifles to a regime that uses them against US soldiers. Anyone
know some family backgrounds on the members of the "Jaegers"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
S50 Steyr-Mannlicher .50 calibre rifles sold to Iraq !
Replies
11
Views
1K
Ivy Mike
Ivy Mike
R
  • Locked
Terrorists use Google maps
Replies
3
Views
387
Jeff White
J
S
  • Locked
Shame on Steyr,I quite liked their rifles
Replies
1
Views
466
Art Eatman
A
T
  • Locked
Just say NO to Steyr
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Zundfolge
  • Locked
AHA! Steyr bashers, how would you like your crow?
Replies
10
Views
861
Lucky
L
Back
Top