Iran Rejects US Nuclear Talks

[SDW2001]

This may not be the end of the possiblity of direct talks, but it doesn't help. If Iran refuses to talk to US and refuses international compromise offers, what do we do? It would seem military action is getting closer. What would such action look like?

SDW

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by SDW2001
What would such action look like?

I don't believe that the US can muster any kind of credible attack on Iran, unless they're dependent solely on air power. I smell disaster.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I don't believe that the US can muster any kind of credible attack on Iran, unless they're dependent solely on air power. I smell disaster.

Speaking strictly in a military sense, I disagree to an extent. I believe we would rely on air power primarily. I think though, that we could sustain an major ground operation at the same time if we had to. It has been said we have the capability to fight two major wars at the same time.

[Aurora]

Iran has a choice of the carrot or the stick. Why is it these guys allways choose the stick?:err:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Speaking strictly in a military sense, I disagree to an extent. I believe we would rely on air power primarily. I think though, that we could sustain an major ground operation at the same time if we had to. It has been said we have the capability to fight two major wars at the same time.


Yeah!

Let's start yet another war and spend more money!

That'll get those republican's reelected as the public is already tired of Iraq.;)

[segovius]

Personally I've had enough of this US/UK proto-fascism. The ONLY way they can be stopped is by a massive military defeat. The sheep hve had their chance but do fuck-all.

The time has gone for talk - I say bring it on. Attack Iran. And Iran should (and will) sort them out once and for all and free the world of this sickness before other (Muslim) country's citizens get massacred on some psychopath's whim.

And Iran can and will cause a loit of damage. Let's just get on with it. It really has come to that.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It has been said we have the capability to fight two major wars at the same time.

And win?

[southside grabowski]

If this one comes to war, it will be a mess. How would the Iraqi Shia respond to a US attack on Iran?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Speaking strictly in a military sense, I disagree to an extent. I believe we would rely on air power primarily. I think though, that we could sustain an major ground operation at the same time if we had to. It has been said we have the capability to fight two major wars at the same time. Well we do have 100,000+ troops right next door. Let's cut and run to Iran!

[groverat]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
If this one comes to war, it will be a mess. How would the Iraqi Shia respond to a US attack on Iran?

:err:
Apparently Moe and I had a similar thought... that's disturbing.
:err:

- An air attack on Iran would enflame a good portion of Iraqi Shia, the side we are desperate to keep happy and friendly to us.
- Attacks on our soldiers in Iraq would increase.
- Bush's approval ratings would rise, as would Republican chances to maintain control of congress.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
:err:
Apparently Moe and I had a similar thought... that's disturbing.
:err:

- An air attack on Iran would enflame a good portion of Iraqi Shia, the side we are desperate to keep happy and friendly to us.
- Attacks on our soldiers in Iraq would increase.
- Bush's approval ratings would rise, as would Republican chances to maintain control of congress.

I'm not so sure about the last one. Polls show the public didn't approve of Iraq and I think they are tired of all of this.

I smell a back fire if this happens.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah!

Let's start yet another war and spend more money!

That'll get those republican's reelected as the public is already tired of Iraq.;)

Right, because that's wat I said.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Frank777
And win?

Yes.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes.


Ha!:no:


Dream on..........

[spindler]

I'm starting to see the genius behind the idea of proposing a two term presidency limit after FDR was done. The idea was that the nation should never be too dependent on one man. If Bush started a war with Iran, while it would be unpopular, I think he WOULD win a third term, simply because Americans wouldn't want to be at war with wishy washy bums like Kerry or Hillary Clinton in charge. There's a sickening codependency between Americans and Bush. He's gotten us into a mess, but he's the natural leader for the mess.

[jimmac]

" He's gotten us into a mess, but he's the natural leader for the mess. "

Too natural. Having gotten us in to it.


I really don't think we need leaders who create their own problems to solve.
;)

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes.

How's about we win the first major war we're in first and then consider other major wars? You can't intellegently claim to be able to win two major wars at the same time while on the ground its quite clear that you don't have enough to win one major war.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
How's about we win the first major war we're in first and then consider other major wars? You can't intellegently claim to be able to win two major wars at the same time while on the ground its quite clear that you don't have enough to win one major war.

The "war" part is really over. It was over in April of 2003.
Now it's a question of rebuilding and securing the country. All I'm saying we have the capability to fight two MTW (Major Theatre Wars) at the same time and win. It's what the Pentagon plans for. We have the personnel, equipment, etc.

Keep in mind I am speaking strictly in a military sense. I am not advocating attacking Iran nor do I wish to see simultaneous theatre wars.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The "war" part is really over. It was over in April of 2003.
Now it's a question of rebuilding and securing the country. All I'm saying we have the capability to fight two MTW (Major Theatre Wars) at the same time and win. It's what the Pentagon plans for. We have the personnel, equipment, etc.

Keep in mind I am speaking strictly in a military sense. I am not advocating attacking Iran nor do I wish to see simultaneous theatre wars.

" The "war" part is really over. "

And the money and resources have been spent.;)

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The "war" part is really over. It was over in April of 2003.

:lol:

Pavlov eat your heart out. How the hell do they do it?

[segovius]

Btw - and this is something that will warm the heart of any self-respecting winger lusting for Iranian blood, at least until some sort of repeat performance happens occurs shortly - today is the 19th anniversary of the Sardhast atrocity: when Saddam massacred women and children with chemical weapons supplied to him by the US.

The same US that used the same chemical weapons as an excuse to kill Iraqis like Saddam had killed Iranians.

I suppose this - and the hundreds of similar examples of US behaviour past and present - might have a teensy-weensy bit to do with why Iran or any other nation in the cross-hairs will never trust the US, especially around a negotiating table.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The "war" part is really over. It was over in April of 2003.

This was not a major war by any stretch. It was a war against an army that was in serious need of cash, food, equipment. It was a war against and army that gave little or no resistance. A major war is war against Germany, Russia, China.

It's one thing to fight Iraq and Syria at the same time, it's quite another to fight Russia and China at the same time, or Russia and Germany, or Germany and Turkey. It all depends on the context, and I'm not sure any military in the world can fight two such major wars and still win in the end (just look at Nazi Germany, their fortune started changing entirely when they found two armies that didn't just desert - UK and Russia).

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This was not a major war by any stretch. It was a war against an army that was in serious need of cash, food, equipment. It was a war against and army that gave little or no resistance. A major war is war against Germany, Russia, China.

It's one thing to fight Iraq and Syria at the same time, it's quite another to fight Russia and China at the same time, or Russia and Germany, or Germany and Turkey. It all depends on the context, and I'm not sure any military in the world can fight two such major wars and still win in the end (just look at Nazi Germany, their fortune started changing entirely when they found two armies that didn't just desert - UK and Russia).

I'm telling you: The Pentagon's plans call for the capibility of fighting and winning two simultaneous MTW's. It's a fact.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's a fact.

I'd call it an untested hypothesis. ;)

[Frank777]

Just to muddy the waters further, it's important to note that if the US were ever to engage in two wars simultaneously, all sorts of nefarious things would take place across the planet.

Every oppressive regime would know that they could do as they please, and that America and its allies would be pre-occupied with fighting on two fronts already.

The 'Axis of Evil' would have so many new potential members they'd start charging for admission.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I don't believe that the US can muster any kind of credible attack on Iran, unless they're dependent solely on air power. I smell disaster.
Why would we need to put troops on the ground when our objective is just to knock out a few facilities to show them who's boss? Iran doesn't stand a chance against the US in the air; few non-Western countries other than Israel and China do.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm telling you: The Pentagon's plans call for the capibility of fighting and winning two simultaneous MTW's. It's a fact.

Is this the same Pentagon that is unable to defeat people with hand-grenades and kalashnikovs?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I'd call it an untested hypothesis. ;)

And we all know how SDW feels about theories!:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This was not a major war by any stretch. It was a war against an army that was in serious need of cash, food, equipment. It was a war against and army that gave little or no resistance. A major war is war against Germany, Russia, China.

It's one thing to fight Iraq and Syria at the same time, it's quite another to fight Russia and China at the same time, or Russia and Germany, or Germany and Turkey. It all depends on the context, and I'm not sure any military in the world can fight two such major wars and still win in the end (just look at Nazi Germany, their fortune started changing entirely when they found two armies that didn't just desert - UK and Russia).

Yes! And it just underscores what's wrong with getting bogged down in a quagmire like this.

It's still expensive!

You know just like Vietnam.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
Why would we need to put troops on the ground when our objective is just to knock out a few facilities to show them who's boss? Iran doesn't stand a chance against the US in the air; few non-Western countries other than Israel and China do.

Agreed. In fact, I'll go further. Even Israel would not be anywhere near a match for US airpower. Ditto on China.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I'd call it an untested hypothesis. ;)

That's true, but that is what they plan for. It could be more difficult than planned.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yes! And it just underscores what's wrong with getting bogged down in a quagmire like this.

It's still expensive!

You know just like Vietnam.;)

That's not the issue. We're not talking about if it would be a good idea or not. We're talking about the capability to fight and win war on two fronts. Honestly, when you act like this you just show that if I say "black," the only thing your interested in saying is "white." You have nothing to add to the discussion as usual.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Agreed. In fact, I'll go further. Even Israel would not be anywhere near a match for US airpower. Ditto on China.

No China would just launch their missles at us.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
No China would just launch their missles at us.

I know that. I'm just speaking hypothetically.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's not the issue. We're not talking about if it would be a good idea or not. We're talking about the capability to fight and win war on two fronts. Honestly, when you act like this you just show that if I say "black," the only thing your interested in saying is "white." You have nothing to add to the discussion as usual.


Whatever.:no:

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Agreed. In fact, I'll go further. Even Israel would not be anywhere near a match for US airpower. Ditto on China.
I'm not, however, saying that we should do so. However, this will be a much more risk-free engagement than Iraq: you don't have to put the bell on the cat's collar, you have to plunk down a few laser-guided bombs on the cat from a Strike Eagle.

Oh, and China is building a more formidable airforce by the day. They've purchased the Su-27 plans from the Russian aerospace manufacturer Sukhoi and producing them domestically under the J-11 moniker. The Su-27 is a worthwhile fighter; it still wins training engagements against our F-15B and F/A-18. They've also purchased a good number of Su-30MKKs, which are even more capable in the air and also have an advanced avionics suite competitive with American technology.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/7162/j116096ys.jpg

[Gene Clean]

I love me some military arrogance from the guys that can't beat a bunch of irregulars on the ground throwing hand-grenades at them.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I love me some military arrogance from the guys that can\'t beat a bunch of irregulars on the ground throwing hand-grenades at them.


Military arrogance comes from building and inventing new weapons systems. When was the last time anything new was invented in Dar al-Islam?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Military arrogance comes from building and inventing new weapons systems. When was the last time anything new was invented in Dar al-Islam?

Well, why don't you invent a new weapon and win the war in Iraq? You're losing, as far as I see, and by you I mean you and your satellites.

Invent yourself a new weapon and win the Iraqi war. Shooting civilians is not enough.

Oh and, when you start counting, remember that you are using Arabic numbers. And when you teach your kid Algebra, well,...

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh and, when you start counting, remember that you are using Arabic numbers. And when you teach your kid Algebra, well,...

<adding fuel to fire>

It is no coincidence that those great achievements predate the rise of Islam in Arabia.
What have they contributed to the world since?

</adding fuel to fire>

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
<adding fuel to fire>

It is no coincidence that those great achievements predate the rise of Islam in Arabia.
What have they contributed to the world since?

</adding fuel to fire>

<dousing fire by pouring cold water over Frank's head in the forlorn hope of stimulating logical thought>

The rise of Islam in Arabia began with Muhammad in the seventh century - the mathematical and scientific advances referred to occurred between the tenth and fourteenth centuries.

There seems to be some sort of problem with the use of the word 'predate' in this context.

</dousing fire by pouring cold water over Frank's head in the forlorn hope of stimulating logical thought>

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by segovius
<dousing fire by pouring cold water over Frank's head in the forlorn hope of stimulating logical thought>

The rise of Islam in Arabia began with Muhammad in the seventh century - the mathematical and scientific advances referred to occurred between the tenth and fourteenth centuries.

There seems to be some sort of problem with the use of the word 'predate' in this context.

</dousing fire by pouring cold water over Frank's head in the forlorn hope of stimulating logical thought>

<laughing histerically at Franks apparent lack of any knowledge on history, Islam, math, and related things!>

hahahah!

<laughing histerically at Franks apparent lack of knowledge on history, Islam, math, and related things!>

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
<laughing histerically at Franks apparent lack of any knowledge on history, Islam, math, and related things!>

hahahah!

<laughing histerically at Franks apparent lack of knowledge on history, Islam, math, and related things!>


LOL. Must be real fun to be stuck in the 10th century.

[occam whisker]

Btw, what were these great 10th to 14th century mathematical and scientic advancements you\'re referring to?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Btw, what were these great 10th to 14th century mathematical and scientic advancements you\'re referring to?

Numbers, for one. (Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and nine, also.)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Numbers, for one. (Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and nine, also.)


Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals

[Frank777]

Ok, "predate" is incorrect. I take that back. I also admit I'm not at all an expert in Math History.

However, the advancements I have read about are in the seventh and eighth centuries, just as Islam was solidifying its hold on most of Arabia.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Btw, what were these great 10th to 14th century mathematical and scientic advancements you\'re referring to?

Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham (965–1040) (Arabic: أبو علي الحسن بن الهيثم, Latinised: Alhazen), was an Islamic mathematician, astronomer, and physicist, who made significant contributions to the principles of optics and the use of scientific experiments. He is sometimes called al-Basri (Arabic: البصري), after his birthplace Basra,Iraq, then part of Buwayhids dynasty, Persia[1]. He is considered the father of optics for his writings on and experiments with lenses, mirrors, refraction and reflection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haitham

Al-Idrisi (b.1100-d.1165 or 1166) full name Abu Abd Allah Muhammad al-Idrisi (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد الإدريسي) was an Arab cartographer, geographer and traveller who lived in Sicily, at the court of King Roger II. Muhammad al-Idrisi was born in Sabtah, then belonging to the Almoravid Empire (nowadays Ceuta, Spain) and died in Sicily, or maybe in Sabtah. Al Idrisi was a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad(S.A.W May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him).

In 1154 al-Idrisi made a large, south-oriented mappa mundi known as the Tabula Rogeriana and an accompanying book, named Geography. Taken together, they were named Nuzhat al-Mushtak by Roger, but Kitab Rudjar ("Roger's Book") by al-Idrisi.

Al-Idrisi constructed a world globe map of 400 Kg pure silver and precisely recorded on it the seven continents with trade routes, lakes and rivers, major cities, and plains and mountains.

His world map was used in Europe for centuries to come. It is worth mentioning that Christopher Columbus used the world maps , which was originally taken from Al-Idrisi's work.

A second, expanded edition was produced in 1161 with the remarkable title The Gardens of Humanity and the Amusement of the Soul, but all copies of it have been lost. An abridged version of this edition, named Garden of Joys -- but usually referred to as the Little Idrisi -- was published in 1192.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Idrisi

Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan (Arabic: جابر ابن حیان) (c.721–c.815), known also by his Latinised name Geber, was a prominent Islamic alchemist, pharmacist, philosopher, astronomer, and physicist. He has also been referred to as "the father of Arab chemistry" by Europeans. His ethnic background is not clear; although most sources state he was an Arab, some describe him as Persian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan

Ibn Khaldūn (full name Abū Zayd ʕAbdu l-Rahman ibn Muħammad ibn Khaldūn al-Haḍramī) (ابو زيد عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن خلدون الحضرمي ), (May 27, 1332/732AH to March 19, 1406/808AH) was a famous Arab historiographer and historian born in present-day Tunisia, and is sometimes viewed as one of the forerunners of modern historiography, sociology and economics. He is best known for his Muqaddimah "Prolegomena".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun

Ala-al-din abu Al-Hassan Ali ibn Abi-Hazm al-Qarshi al-Dimashqi (Arabic: علاء الدين أبو الحسن عليّ بن أبي حزم القرشي الدمشقي ) known as ibn Al-Nafis (Arabic: ابن النفيس ), was an Arab physician who is mostly famous for being the first to describe the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

He was born in 1213 in Damascus. He attended the Medical College Hospital (Bimaristan Al-Noori) in Damascus. Apart from medicine, Ibn al-Nafis learned jurisprudence, literature and theology. He became an expert on the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence and an expert physician.

In 1236, Al-Nafis moved to Egypt. He worked at the Al-Nassri Hospital, and subsequently at the Al-Mansouri Hospital, where he became chief of physicians and the Sultan’s personal physician. When he died in 1288, he donated his house, library and clinic to the Mansuriya Hospital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Nafis

Ibn Al-Thahabi (?, Suhar, Oman - 1033 CE, Valencia, Spain)

Was a physician, famous for his work Kitab Al-Ma'a (The Book of Water), which is the first known alphabetical encyclopedia of medicine. In it he lists the names of diseases, its medicine and a physiological process or a treatment, and adds numerous original ideas about the function of the human organs. Indeed, he explains an original idea of how the vision takes place, similar to Ibn al-Haitham. It also contains a course for the treatment psychological symptoms. The main thesis of his treatment is that the cure must start from controlled food and exercise, and if the symptoms persist then use specific individual medicines.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Thahabi


Abu al-Qasim Khalaf ibn al-Abbas Al-Zahrawi (936 - 1013), (Arabic: أبو القاسم بن خلف بن العباس الزهراوي) also known in the West as Abulcasis, was an Andalusian-Arab physician, and scientist. He is considered as Islam's greatest medieval surgeon, whose comprehensive medical texts, combining Middle Eastern and Greco-Roman classical teachings, shaped European surgical procedures up until the Renaissance. He is often regarded as the Father Of Surgery.

His greatest contribution to history is Al-Tasrif, a thirty-volume collection of medical practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zahrawi

Al-Zarqali (in full Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Yahya Al-Zarqali, rendered as Arzachel in Latin Europe; Azarquiel in Spanish and Italian), (1028–1087 CE), was a leading Arab mathematician and the foremost astronomer of his time. He flourished in Toledo in Andalusia, now Spain. Combining theoretical knowledge with technical skill, he excelled at the construction of precision instruments for astronomical use. He constructed a flat astrolabe that was 'universal,' for it could be used at any latitude, and he built a water clock capable of determining the hours of the day and night and indicating the days of the lunar months.

Al-Zarqali corrected Ptolemy's geographical data, specifically the length of the Mediterranean Sea. He was the first to prove conclusively the motion of the aphelion relative to the fixed background of the stars. He measured its rate of motion as 12.04 seconds per year, which is remarkably close to the modern calculation of 11.8 seconds. He also contributed to the famous Tables of Toledo, a compilation of astronomical data of unprecedented accuracy. Arzachel was famous as well for his own Book of Tables. Many "books of tables" had been compiled, but his almanac (even our word is Arabic) contained tables which allowed one to find the days on which the Coptic, Roman, lunar, and Persian months begin, other tables which give the position of planets at any given time, and still others facilitating the prediction of solar and lunar eclipses. He also compiled valuable tables of latitude and longitude.

His work was translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th Century, and contributed to the rebirth of a mathematically-based astronomy in Christian Europe. Four centuries later, Copernicus mentioned his indebtedness to Al-Zarqali and quoted him, in the book that gave new meanings to 'revolution,' De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium.

Arzachel crater on the Moon is named after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zarqali

[occam whisker]

:no:

A long list of long titles with nothing of import. No real specifics, and nothing but regurgitated knowledge sponged from past civilizations that were carved into extinction under the sword of jihad.

[Frank777]

Okay, that's unfair.

That's so offside a World Cup referee couldn't miss it.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Frank777
Okay, that\'s unfair.

That\'s so offside a World Cup referee couldn\'t miss it.


Ok, name one scientific discovery found in all of that list.

[segovius]

How Islamic Inventors Changed the World (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article350594.ece)

[segovius]

Actually the Muslim scientific advances were a direct result of Islamic religious thought. The two are inseparable in this context.

Similar advances - and the attendant civilization (Fez had street-lighting and houses had running water in the 12th century for example) that goes with it - would be the case now if Muslims and Muslim nations actually followed Islam.

The fact that they don't is why these things are absent from the Islamic world today and also a reason for the chaos that can be seen there (other factors obviously exist such as suppression by the west).

By this I don't mean any religious import such as US Christians might use "God is blessing/cursing us because of x" but rather that Islam in its original form is a system of criticism and analysis which inevitably results in deductions and observations about the physical world.

For example, in original Islam there is no dogma of belief. Belief is inferred from action. More importantly, this lack of dogma includes notions of God's actions: ie, it is stated that God created the world but it is enjoined on humans to find out how.

Therefore the starting point is essentially: 'what we see is created by God and what we deduce of mechanisms are his methods'.

Many other religious traditions do not start from this point but rather from the other end, ie: "God created the world in manner X therefore whatever we see that accords to X is true and whatever contradicts X is false."

Two different approaches. One conducive to scientific advance and one not. Also it will clearly be seen that the Islamic world has, since the time the advances ceased, adopted this second approach described above.

In fact, one can put an exact time and place on this. The advances we are talking about were centred mainly on Islamic Spain. Many people think, incorrectly, that it was the Christians that ended Islamic Spain and although this is to a certain extent true, Spain was under attack for a long period before this by Islamic fundies: The Almoravids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid).

The Almoravids are the direct predecessors of todays Wahabis and Taleban and saw Spain as 'heretic'. They particularly objected to musical advances and the free mixing of Christians and Jews. if they had not weakened Spain then the Christian armies may well have not succeeded.

Since then they have held sway in Islamic thought - through the simple means of killing anyone who disagrees. An effective method. Actually - as an aside - you can see a similar process practiced by fundies in Iraq today: 90% of the country's philosophers, top professors, scientists have been assassinated by fundies.

One other factor needs mentioning: it wasn't just Muslims, it was a co-operative effort between Muslims, Jews and Christians that succeeded in rescuing the whole of Greek thought and preserving it. This provided the basis for the discoveries and without the input of Christian and Jewish traditions this may not have been possible.

[occam whisker]

It\'s now evident that Eliyahu Asheri, the eighteen year-old Israeli student, snatched by terrorists on Sunday, had been dead for several days by the time Mohammed Abdel Al, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, made his cynical speech in front of the international press demanding that Israel stop its operation in Gaza.

So yes, the Jihadis have given us a great advancement in thought, it\'s called Taqqiyya.


Taqqiyya: dissimulation, dissembling, deceit, dishonesty, duplicity, lying, guile, subterfuge, feigning, shamming, faking, bluff, bluffing, posturing, hypocrisy.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Taqqiyya: dissimulation, dissembling, deceit, dishonesty, duplicity, lying, guile, subterfuge, feigning, shamming, faking, bluff, bluffing, posturing, hypocrisy.

Moronwatch: taqiya only applies to Shi'i in situations where their life is in danger and strictly applies to denying one is a Muslim.

The above description would seem to fit better with you as it is impossible to believe that someone could really be so abysmally ignorant and therefore you are most likely lying.

Btw - I'll name that poster in one: DMZ.

:lol:

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Moronwatch: taqiya only applies to Shi\'i in situations where their life is in danger and strictly applies to denying one is a Muslim.

The above description would seem to fit better with you as it is impossible to believe that someone could really be so abysmally ignorant and therefore you are most likely lying.

Btw - I\'ll name that poster in one: DMZ.

:lol:

But then who\'s there left that practices \"real” Islam--by your own account that ended more than half a millennia ago. LOL.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by occam whisker
But then who\'s there left that practices \"real” Islam--by your own account that ended more than half a millennia ago. LOL.
Mr Occam. Have you posted on this board before?

I am nice.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Mr Occam. Have you posted on this board before?

I am nice.


Yes. About 76 times, it seems.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm not, however, saying that we should do so. However, this will be a much more risk-free engagement than Iraq: you don't have to put the bell on the cat's collar, you have to plunk down a few laser-guided bombs on the cat from a Strike Eagle.

Oh, and China is building a more formidable airforce by the day. They've purchased the Su-27 plans from the Russian aerospace manufacturer Sukhoi and producing them domestically under the J-11 moniker. The Su-27 is a worthwhile fighter; it still wins training engagements against our F-15B and F/A-18. They've also purchased a good number of Su-30MKKs, which are even more capable in the air and also have an advanced avionics suite competitive with American technology.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/7162/j116096ys.jpg

China is no joke, I agree. But they are no match for the total strength of US airpower. You have to look at several factors, inlcuding our stealth technology as just one example. Imagine a US air attack that came from 8 carrier battle groups. This would be preceded by the full fleet of B-2 bombers. That's just the tip of the iceberm so to speak.

I'm not sure what you mean by their planes winning training excercises. Try it with American pilots. Again, I would never want a war between the US and China, but as it stands, we command a big advantage.

[occam whisker]

China can\'t afford a military showdown with the US. If it attempts anything of the sort, its fragile banking system would collapse, and so would all the economic gains it has enjoyed to date.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not sure what you mean by their planes winning training excercises. Try it with American pilots. Again, I would never want a war between the US and China, but as it stands, we command a big advantage.
Right now, we really don't have any carrier-deployable stealth fighters, and our limited number of F-22s are designated for homeland defense.

Currently, simulations show that an F-22 Raptor can theoretically engage and win against ten Su-35 aircraft. This is because the F-22 can shoot the poor bastards down from practically over the horizon. When you put an F-15C against an Su-35, there is a 20% weight that the Russian Flanker will thrash the American Eagle.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
Right now, we really don't have any carrier-deployable stealth fighters, and our limited number of F-22s are designated for homeland defense.

Currently, simulations show that an F-22 Raptor can theoretically engage and win against ten Su-35 aircraft. This is because the F-22 can shoot the poor bastards down from practically over the horizon. When you put an F-15C against an Su-35, there is a 20% weight that the Russian Flanker will thrash the American Eagle.

That's ridiculous. A real combat situation would likely be completely different. Secondly, we don't need carrier deployable stealth aircraft. We can get them there from land bases and midair refueling.

Let's take a step back. Are you really arguing that the Chinese could take us on in the air?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's ridiculous. A real combat situation would likely be completely different. Secondly, we don't need carrier deployable stealth aircraft. We can get them there from land bases and midair refueling.

Let's take a step back. Are you really arguing that the Chinese could take us on in the air?

No they'd just launch missles.

[Placebo]

I'm just saying that all exercise evidence shows that Russian air superiority aircraft best American air superiority aircraft in within-visual-range combat.

Another cunning advantage of the MiG is that it can take off and land on a dirt landing strip. Imagine that, guerilla air combat. :p

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Secondly, we don't need carrier deployable stealth aircraft. We can get them there from land bases and midair refueling.
We don't have a great number of F-22s either though.

[groverat]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm just saying that all exercise evidence shows that Russian air superiority aircraft best American air superiority aircraft in within-visual-range combat.

Which is kind of like saying, "I can beat you up if you aren't allowed to use your hands."

[Frank777]

It's amazing that we can shoot objects outside of our visual range now, given that we will lose the ability to do this by the 24th century.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by groverat
Which is kind of like saying, "I can beat you up if you aren't allowed to use your hands."
BVR engagements quickly degenerate into dogfights if the conditions are less than ideal. And let us not forget that the Russian avionics in the Su-35 and MiG-35 are capable of BVR tracking.

Also, the J-10 is a thoroughly Chinese aircraft that we know virtually nothing about, and has done extraordinarily well in exercises.