Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Ayatollah lays out basis for Israel attack


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#16    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,672 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 09 February 2012 - 07:04 AM

View PostFluffybunny, on 08 February 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

It is going to take several years to get our Army back to the shape it was once in before endless tours with dwindling supplies of equipment in working order, and soldiers in healthy shape and not torn up mentally and physically by multiple tours. I have had several tours of several bases over the last few years, the condition of our equipment is frightening, and the soldiers(always ready to fight) are mentally shot from years of combat duty, something that not even their grandparents would have dreamed of in WWII when the average tour of duty on the battlefront was 90 days. Now it is close to a year, with multiple returns. We do not have a big enough military to be in perpetual war. If we really had to defend ourselves from an attack at this point, we would be in trouble.
I would disagree just a little. I was in the US Army in 1994-97, and did quite a bit of training with National Guard. And they suked. The current military we have is the most experienced since the Korean War. Equipment is just equipment. Our guys fight more on Quality then Quantity, or Gear. If we laid back for 8 or 10 years, we'd loose like 75% of that experience base. Maybe 90%. I agree our guys are tired and worn down, but if another war MUST be fought, I'd rather we fight with our experienced military we have now, rather then a doughboy military 10 years down the road.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#17    Farmer77

Farmer77

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Desert

  • "Science has done its utmost to prevent whatever science has done" - Charles Fort

Posted 10 February 2012 - 05:02 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Can anyone here translate Persian?

From what I can determine, the original article appears to specifically note the plan is the opinion of the author and not endorsed by the Iranian government.

Which would make the source headline and article entirely disingenuous.

Not that I'd be surprised coming from American right wing media.

The Iranian state run media supposedly carried the story giving the appearance of governmental approval of the article.

I don't suffer from insanity, I rather enjoy it

#18    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:40 PM

View Postand then, on 09 February 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:


I considered the last paragraph tantamount to a taunt and the several that preceded it as a lecture.  It pissed me off and I reacted.  That doesn't often happen to me but it did in this instance. :rolleyes:

I find it very funny/odd that the very mention of you recruiting to fight for your beliefs is considered a taunt(not that you would ever do it), but when you speak of the US going into a war that would take my son back into battle(and heck, even me if things went sideways) it is not something similar...why isn't wanting to send people I love into combat as much as a taunt as asking you to fight for what you believe in?. I have the risk of losing a son, friends, family and in an extreme case, myself fighting for a war YOU want, but you don't even think about that, the death of my family wouldn't make a bit of difference to you as long as israel is safe, right?

Who cares as long as you get what you want? You risk nothing, but are willing to send other to die for your cause.

Most men faced with the question of fighting for what they believe in would at least respond that they wish they could if it weren't for their age, or health or whatever...but not you. Volumes...it speaks volumes.

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#19    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:17 PM

View PostFluffybunny, on 15 February 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

I find it very funny/odd that the very mention of you recruiting to fight for your beliefs is considered a taunt(not that you would ever do it), but when you speak of the US going into a war that would take my son back into battle(and heck, even me if things went sideways) it is not something similar...why isn't wanting to send people I love into combat as much as a taunt as asking you to fight for what you believe in?. I have the risk of losing a son, friends, family and in an extreme case, myself fighting for a war YOU want, but you don't even think about that, the death of my family wouldn't make a bit of difference to you as long as israel is safe, right?

Who cares as long as you get what you want? You risk nothing, but are willing to send other to die for your cause.

Most men faced with the question of fighting for what they believe in would at least respond that they wish they could if it weren't for their age, or health or whatever...but not you. Volumes...it speaks volumes.
And your comments about someone you don't know speak clearly of the kind of person you are as well.  I make no apologies for my opinions and if you have a problem with your service or that of your family then that ALSO speaks volumes about you.  Freedom of speech is a right given me by our constitution - not by you or anyone else who wears the uniform.  If dumping on a stranger in an internet forum somehow eases your feelings of the country not appreciating your sacrifice enough then I'm glad to be dumped on.  
What I don't understand about you as a man is how you can see with your own eyes the EVIL in these places and still be unmoved by the need to resist it as a nation.  And if you look at Iran or Syria and equate them with Israel then you are(at best) being willfully ignorant.  
In your universe only service members should be able to speak or hold opinions about when war will be waged.  When has that EVER been true?  
I've shown you far more respect than I've received and that also speaks volumes about you.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#20    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:39 PM

View PostFluffybunny, on 15 February 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

I find it very funny/odd that the very mention of you recruiting to fight for your beliefs is considered a taunt(not that you would ever do it), but when you speak of the US going into a war that would take my son back into battle(and heck, even me if things went sideways) it is not something similar...why isn't wanting to send people I love into combat as much as a taunt as asking you to fight for what you believe in?. I have the risk of losing a son, friends, family and in an extreme case, myself fighting for a war YOU want, but you don't even think about that, the death of my family wouldn't make a bit of difference to you as long as israel is safe, right?

Who cares as long as you get what you want? You risk nothing, but are willing to send other to die for your cause.

Most men faced with the question of fighting for what they believe in would at least respond that they wish they could if it weren't for their age, or health or whatever...but not you. Volumes...it speaks volumes.


And I did mention it in another post - but that wouldn't fit into your diatribe.

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:47 AM
Fluffybunny, on 04 February 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:
Well, considering that is one of his jobs, then he is doing the right thing.

What would you have him do? What are YOU willing to risk with a strike to iran? Are you going to enlist and risk your own blood to defend israel? Is it that important to you? are you willing to send your son off to die, or be permanently disabled and unable to have a normal life...is it that important to you?

It is really easy to want other people to die for your wants and wishes, when there is no risk to you, or your family there is no real risk, so going to war makes sense. Have you ever served?

You obviously have close ties to israel. That's great. Why should my son have to die or risk his life(again) in order to make you happy? What are you going to put on the table to make the risk even?

I am sorry...I know you have your concerns, but so do I, so do all the other active duty members of the service, all of the families of those that will go and risk their lives and die horrible deaths. In my experience the people that want war never seem to be the people with any risk involved, they never seemed to have served their country, and think that this country has a blank check to fight one war after another, yet want school funding to be cut to make up the difference.

This is very personal to me. I come from a family of soldiers and sailors that have all bled for this country in every war that has happened from day one. My son continued in those footsteps and spent 2 tours in Iraq. He is already getting calls from recruiters wanting to know if he would like to come back to active duty...

Wars are inevitable. Wars are sometimes necessary. When it comes to people wanting Americans to go fight and die to protect another country we have no obligation to, (and have given billions upon billions in military supplies and cash so that they can defend themselves) Then I just wonder how they can ask such a thing in good conscience. I guess it is easier when you do not risk anything...

First, thank you for your and your family's tradition of service. I say that with all sincerity. I enlisted (Army) in '86 and 7 weeks in at Fort Jackson,SC I was separated due to fractures in both feet. So NO I have not served. I would if I could and I know it's easy to say but it's true.
I am not advocating for a war to protect Israel as some abstract exercise of Zionistic fervor on my part. The purpose of the post was to discuss the reasoning behind why the SecDef would seemingly "tip the hand" of an ally preparing for war. Perhaps I didn't structure the OP well enough. Regardless the politics of the situation if Israel decides to attack then the US will be in another conflict. One of unknown dimensions or duration and the consequences could be much more harsh for those "safely" at home here.
As I said in an earlier post I believe that the fate of the US and Israel were irrevocably intertwined when Israel became a nuclear State. When it comes to nukes the world is irrevocably intertwined. The option of just ignoring a nuclear State that may be ready, for whatever reason, to use them is a nonstarter. JMO but if another of these weapons is ever used it will be a crossing of a modern Rubicon. Wherever the world ends up will be a much worse place.

EDIT:The point of mentioning that Obama was primarily interested in "protecting the troops" was that I believe it was his way of telling Israel that they are in it alone. Of course it is, hopefully, a primary goal of any US president to try to minimize losses to the men and women who wear our uniform. Again, I guess I just didn't structure the OP so well...
This post has been edited by and then: 04 February 2012 - 11:00 AM
Hine ma tov uma nayim shevet achim gam yadcha!
Top
Report
Blog This
MultiQuote
Reply
#21   and then

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#21    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:01 AM

View Postand then, on 15 February 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

how you can see with your own eyes the EVIL in these places and still be unmoved by the need to resist it as a nation.  And if you look at Iran or Syria and equate them with Israel then you are(at best) being willfully ignorant.  

We are not the world's policeman. we don't have the resources. Or will. What you advance is the very same argument that caused foolish people to approve invading iraq for theological reasons.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#22    wittyusernamefailed

wittyusernamefailed

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Still in frikkin kansas toto.

  • "Well, this is gonna be a wipe"

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:48 AM

Israel in it's current reincarnation really should not have been reborn in the way it was by the British and UN. The world made them a country without regard to the makeup of the middle east, or with a thought as to the millions that were displaced to create it. If anything it should be located on the shores of the Rhine from reparations from Germany for the atrocity of the Holocaust. But we helped create the state of Israel. and thus to a point we have a moral stake in it's protection. And when the true power behind a theocracy speaks about how it would be ok to wipe it off the map, we should at least perk up the ears a tad.


#23    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,901 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:53 AM

I'd tear a chunk out of Germany's rear end right now and give it to the Jews so they can get all their bad blood out cooing over themselves in Europe where they were being exterminated.  That would be justice.  Oh I'm so "anti-Germanic".  Or as the always-predictable morally and intellectually confused Zionist would call me, a Nazi.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#24    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:16 AM

How wonderful that Ayatolah and his gang has supporters among the members of forum  :rolleyes: .

I say let's dismantle wittyusernamefailed's and Yamato's countries (whichever they are) and relocate them somewhere else.

Why is it ok to talk about the dismantling of any existing country, is behind my grasp  :no: :alien: :wacko:   .

Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#25    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:31 AM

If all the countries that were arbitrarily drawn into or out of existence after the world wars were relocated it would only change the location of the conflict - not the nature of it.  But no argument is being made for that... only Israel needs to be relocated.
The only problem with that scenario is that Israel would light up the region before being "relocated"  because they know that it's not their location that's the real issue.  It's their right to exist as a Jewish State that cannot be tolerated.  If I ask an opponent in negotiations what can I do to satisfy your demands?  And he says - Die - then negotiations are over.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#26    wittyusernamefailed

wittyusernamefailed

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Still in frikkin kansas toto.

  • "Well, this is gonna be a wipe"

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:48 AM

Erikl, I would have thought that it would be clear that I am not advocating the destruction of Israel in any way, nor suggesting that we could in any way turn back the clock per say to fix the mistakes of post WW2-Cold war era. But I am saying that we as a third party to the Mid east conflict have to understand that the seeds of todays conflict have a very long history. The conflict has to be seen through the eyes of the context of the Arab and Persian countries, through their own conflicts rising from the differences in Sunni/Shiite doctrine. As well as the Israeli's own history of persecution at the hands of pretty much every civilization they came in contact with for most of the last 2k years.
  Does this context change anything? Maybe not. the pieces on the board have been moving for quite some time, and the many sides have gotten so far apart that negotiation may not be possible. But what does not help is to broadly paint any of the cultures as "evil" or "Wrong". Both sides were wronged and have given it back in return. And the world at large stirring up the pot for it's own various ends has not helped matters at all.


#27    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:57 AM

View Postninjadude, on 16 February 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

We are not the world's policeman. we don't have the resources. Or will. What you advance is the very same argument that caused foolish people to approve invading iraq for theological reasons.
If the mistakes of Iraq are to invalidate America ever being involved in another war then we'd better pray that no REAL evil takes aim at us again like it did on 911.  Complaining perpetually about the unfairness of the past mistakes or conspiracies may be satisfying for you but it doesn't take reality into the equation of national security.  Ignoring danger doesn't remove it.  We tried that for more than a decade leading up to 911.  For the record,AGAIN, I do not advocate invading anyone.  It would be a desperate move to put troops on the ground  there and would be useless - just wouldn't work.  Breaking their toys can be done in an air campaign.  If we chose to we could also cripple their IRGC troop concentrations and their equipment.  Iran could make mischief and kill people in a limited way for the indefinite future.  But even that is preferable to giving them de facto hegemony in the region.  Why is that concept so difficult to understand?  As far as having the will...hell, most Americans didn't even want to be involved in the Revolutionary war.  We had to be dragged into WWI and WWII.  War is a horrendous, wasteful, hateful thing.  The only thing worse is slavery.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#28    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,672 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:41 AM

Aggressive Acts by Iran Signal Pressure on Its Leadership

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#29    Xcathdra

Xcathdra

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2010

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:36 AM

As much as Iran irritates me, I did want to point this out.

The article is referencing comments made by the Ayatollah in 1979, not the current Ayatollah. The names are spelled differently.

The incident with Ahmadinejad and wipe Israel off the map, where people state it was a mistranslation, was during a speech where he was quoting the doctrine the op linked to.

The current Ayatollah recently gave a speech calling Israel a cancer that needs to be cut out.

With the 1979 Ayatollahs speech on Farsnews (linked to the IRGC) the article is suggesting that the current government in Iran is publicly / officially endorsing the the late Ayatollahs game plan.


#30    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:57 AM

View PostXcathdra, on 16 February 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

As much as Iran irritates me, I did want to point this out.

The article is referencing comments made by the Ayatollah in 1979, not the current Ayatollah. The names are spelled differently.

The incident with Ahmadinejad and wipe Israel off the map, where people state it was a mistranslation, was during a speech where he was quoting the doctrine the op linked to.

The current Ayatollah recently gave a speech calling Israel a cancer that needs to be cut out.

With the 1979 Ayatollahs speech on Farsnews (linked to the IRGC) the article is suggesting that the current government in Iran is publicly / officially endorsing the the late Ayatollahs game plan.
Welcome xcathdra!  Yes you're correct but there would be no need to continually clarify their intentions if the leadership didn't play games with the topic.  They repeatedly make oblique comments about Israel being a cancer and needing to disappear.  There is a tool called innuendo after all... The particular flavor of Shia that the leadership espouse is one that looks fervently for a new world order of peace and security under a global caliphate led by the 12th or final prophet.   Al Mahdi.  They say that if the world is brought to an existential crisis then the Mahdi will appear to save the day.  Do they REALLY believe it?  Who knows, but people who are irresponsible enough to even say this stuff in public should never have the bomb.  Personally I think Syria is the match that's going to set off the festivities.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users