Humanitarian aid flotilla attacked.... - Page 8

They could hold them off until we, 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bombed Iran.'

You do realize that if that were to happen the US mainland would be hit hard.

Homicide bombers? Iran has nothing in their arsenal that can reach any part of the US.

What's very amusing is the ambiguous pronoun usage here.

"Homicide bombers" WOULD cause major destruction on the US in the form of dirty nukes and attacks on stored nuclear waste. God knows what else too.

Pretty sure nuclear sites would be secured immediately.
There are plenty of empty FEMA camps which could be used for internment...

Pretty basic. A. Khamenei + M. Ahmadinejad + Iranians = their.

Let's hope your right on the nuclear waste front, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that their an easy target. What about dirty nukes actually going off despite these unused FEMA camps? It's likely that they'd be used to contain any US citizen that could spread infection from a biological source. The Iranian's have advanced skills in that area medically that could very quickly be converted to weaponry, if they already haven't.

Maybe NK will get involved too. They may actually be able to reach the US with nukes, we really don't know for sure.

How would they make 'dirty nukes', if the nuclear facilities are secured? It is actually quite difficult to smuggle in and transport nuclear material within the US, or a jihadist group would have already done so.
The FEMA camps would be used as detention centers and internment camps, should Iranians and other Muslims in the US go homicidal.
If Iran attacked us with biological weapons, we would go nuclear, despite Obama''s rhetoric. Iran would be no more.
N. Korea isn't that stupid.

No terrorists have even tried getting a dirty bomb into the US. Iran would have all of it's resources to utilize and I don't think there's any way at all that the US could stop them setting off hundreds of dirty bombs, even thousands. Sure some of their attempts might fail but most probably wouldn't.

NK isn't that stupid as such but if things escalate and given what escalation means in that area, why wouldn't they want to take a shot at the US, when they're being blown to bits anyway?

HMMM, let's see. Taliban is training in Iran, they produce IEDs en masse and we spent 1 Trill on 2 wars and haven't really won anything ... our boys are still getting killed and Iraq is ready to convert back to the way it was using their brand new US weapons ... yeah it's THEIR deaths, right. They turn off the oil spigot and the west goes down without a fight.

Iran is not at all what it seems. Our only hope is to support moderates in Iran, neither Israel nor the US can win this any other way.

How do you know?
What resources? Obtaining and transporting nuclear material isn't as easy as some would think.
N. Korea would be no more, that's why. They are all talk.

There is a tremendous difference between total war and regime change and nation building. A war with Iran would be an air and sea war, not a war on the ground. We would immediately bomb their sea and airports, communications, military installations and infrastructure. They would be isolated and crippled within 1 week.

How much oil do you think we get from Iran?
We can't support any side in Iran, because that would be seen as a US coup, not a domestic one.

No, pretty basic is you used their after several plural nouns. Hence the ambiguity. In your sentence, their could refer to the people of Iran, the US, or Israel.

I tend to side with the interpretation that involves all three countries. We shouldn't be looking for a war and we shouldn't be so pigheaded as to think the only casualties are going to come from Iran.

If Iran do try to support the Flotillas militarily I think it is a big mistake and possibly a provocation that might support SDW's general contentions about President A.

Really there is no reason for it and would be a totally stupid move. I don't think it will happen but if does then I think that it essentially means a war no?

Israel would not back down from a confrontation. If Iran did this and backed down they would lose face - so that's why I think it won't happen. Is bluster.

As to war: how would they do it? If Israel got into a war then the US would too by definition. At that point I think the US loses support of Saudi and moderates like Jordan.

You'd have the US troops pinned down in Afghanistan which could become the theater as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq attack there. Turkey have one of the largest standing armies in the world and you have not just the Islamists launching suicide attacks but Iran also have such squads but on a trained military level with naval divisions etc.

You can't also predict which way Russian will go if the oil gets switched off to the West. That's a big carrot.

I can't see it happening though.

Iran could not survive a US military assault. Period.

I have a problem with that statement because it ignores the notion of free will. And, it ignores the human capacity to make mistakes and misinterpret.


Uh...so why is the US called the Great Satan?


So if you're a follower/believer---everything you do is the will of God, regardless?


Of course its possible. It's the only way we can explain the actions of Iran's leadership. They are perverting Islam for their own purposes. In the least, they are misinterpreting. Then these people are coupling that perverted faith with nuclear weapons.

I see one is your opinion and one is facts. Hmmm? Which do I choose?

Only posting your opinion ( whoever you are ) and never posting supporting evidence from a credible 3rd party on an internet forum isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

Well, that's your right. I'm just outlining the Islamic conception of Predestination.

Wiki

Although to be fair, there are differing theological opinions as to the extent of it.


It is a quote of Khomeni's. It does not refer in the Persian to the actual Devil who is called 'Iblis' but means 'a devil' like you would say 'so and so is demonic' or something similar. Having said that he did actually call the US Iblis as well sometimes so it's a moot point.

There are many 'Satans' in Islamic theology, it is a plural or can be. Maybe people who use this term just want to suggest the US is something bad?

The Shaytan are not really evil though - they owe a lot more to the 'trickster' or 'fool' motif that is common in many traditional societies...as does Iblis who is even sometimes seen as a 'good Muslim' in some regards by some (admittedly heterodox) sects.


That's my understanding. There are different schools and interpretations though. Many get hung up on semantics but it is essentially a restating of the age-old philosophical debate that Christianity solved with 'the fall' but Islam had to address in different ways.

But everything is God's Will regardless in this view...it is actually a more accurate attempt at a theological solution to the main religious problem of 'evil' than Christianity imo.

In Christianity, evil exists, God has foreknowledge and man has free will so the major problem is to explain evil.

The usual answer is 'it comes from Satan'. Fine, but where does Satan come from? God created him. Why if he had foreknowledge?

It's a problem. Islam sidesteps it by saying; in essence there is only the will of God. And we cannot understand it. It's an orthodox view:


Hardcore Sunni Site and not my personal opinion - necessarily


Maybe. If what you say is true then they are certainly perverting it. One might argue Shi'ism in general is a corruption.

Though it is a fact that several Iranian Mullahs have issued fatwas declaring nuclear weapons are haram (ie forbidden in Islam) so if you take these Imams as being sincere in their faith (if not then all bets are off anyway and anything is possible) then you must expect that they themselves would take steps to stop any programme. Perhaps already are doing if it exists - it would not be something broadcast to the West.

The Taleban did.

The Iraq insurgency did.

I'm not sure that the US could neutralize Iran without troops on the ground at some point. If that happened I don't see how they could win. It would be a prolonged extension of the Afghan conflict but with no borders.

They'd be vulnerable on many fronts from many different threats; Islamists, Taleban, Turkish State army, Iranian Stare forces...quite possibly some home-grown resistance or maybe not....but it not cut and dried by any means.

Some of those things being blocked are obviously not about terrorism. But they are about comfort. Looks like they are pressuring the government by making it hard on those they govern. Is it mean? Yes. Is it a human rights violation? I doubt it. Foods and supplies are allowed. All the usual suspects of not allowed items are there as well, such as military equipment and bomb making equipment. To focus on fertilizers and cleaning solutions is ridiculous as they do not state which ones are and are not allowed specifically. I am sure there is a comprehensive list that specifies varieties that are acceptable or not.

Not nearly as cut and dried as you try to make it seem.

Dude, play right into the caricature they have drawn for you.

Iran would not be able to effectively resist a frontal assault by the US alone. But it would not be a simple battle likely. Hopefully they (Iran) will not be this idiotic.

Obviously intentions are still not for massacre if you are using paintball guns firing rubber bullets. So they are not as idiotic as I initially thought, they did intend to be able to stop attackers. But they did not intend to kill people as a first measure.

Project much?

There are people who have well reasoned views. There are people that fall a little short of that. And there are people who just flat out are the reason the caricatures exist. Sorry to say it, but Steve distinctly falls into the latter category.

It was a J. McCain reference. Those less ignorant than yourself understood.

I couldn't live anywhere without potato chips, I'd go nuts and start killing people!!

Seriously though, it's completely shocking what is happening.

I know what the reference was. Get over yourself man. No need to lash out for every little thing.

Clearly you didn't. You are the one who attacked me. Didn't I tell you to put me on ignore?

I hope you're right and this doesn't even happen. I don't think it would necessarily mean a war. Given the added support that Israel attacking Iranian protected ships supplying humanitarian aid to Gaza would likely give to Iran, especially from Turkey, Israel might and it's a big might, back down, at least to the degree where they're not shooting at each other. If Israel holds off and attacks Iran, or the US attacks Iran, over it's nuclear program later, after supplying more proof (even if it's fuzzy truth), there's no way Turkey would even bat an eye. There are a lot of people and countries that would object to Israel going full blast at Iran over this. I really don't think Israel want's this to be the start of a major conflict, given how bad they already look.

What are the circumstances that offer Russia a big carrot? Are you saying that they would welcome a conflict, with their involvement supporting Iran, to help cripple the supply of ME oil, because the price of their oil would shoot up, or I am I completely off?

No, you told me. You can't even keep who you blindly hate straight.

I wonder if he could remember if he could actually see what people looked like?

I don't reply to names, just ignorance.

NK has likely got nukes, that it's unlikely, but nonetheless a possibility, that they could reach the US, they could reach Japan with much less trouble. Therefore if NK were to get a missile into the US, not even necessarily a nuke and the US then nuked NK, NK could nuke SK and or Japan. Would that really be a good idea then for the US to be the cause of Japan getting nuked again? NK might of course hold off on doing that, but they might not hold off too and they can certainly threaten it.


If anyone had tried to get a dirty bomb into the US they either succeeded and haven't assembled it fully or set it off yet or they got caught trying. If they got caught trying I suspect we would all know about it and know who it was that tried.

Iran itself has a lot of nuclear material, there's also talk of them getting it and nuclear equipment from NK. Iran has the potential to build the mother of all dirty bombs and the resources of IRAN to get them from A to B.

What you have shown is that you don't even keep track of who you are talking to. Let alone what they have said or believe.

That would create an infinite loop with yourself. Probably not the best idea for this thread as it would expand out of control. :P

I don't see any scenario where N. Korea would get involved. They aren't ready to die as martyrs, as many in Iran are. I am sure they also realize we can simultaneously bomb them, as well as Iran. Their 'tests' were inconclusive, so I doubt they have a bomb yet. They are looking for appeasement, nothing more.


I don't think it is likely any radiological material has been smuggled into and transported within the US. There is a vast system of sensors- both out to sea, on the highways and through various other means which would have picked up such smuggling. The most likely scenario would be a dirty bomb made with medical waste, but we keep pretty good track of that.

Not all successful or ongoing operations make the press.

Why don't you and your girlfriend put me on ignore?