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.


- - - - -

Iran official: 'Big war' means Mahdi's coming

mahdis coming iran official

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#31    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,271 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:58 PM

View PostWookietim, on 21 September 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

But I never want to see the US military used in that way again because it ends up destroying large swathes of humanity...
I disagree.  The way the military was used in the initial attack on Iraq was text book.  It was a thing of beauty.  If you don't think that it was surgical, what do you think would have happened if they carpet bombed?  Casualties were remarkably light.  I think that the latest estimate is 120,000 for the entire war and most of them were killed due to insurgents.  Yes, that is many lives lost and destroyed but don't even try to say that generations were lost.  You need to look at the loss of life on the battlefields of France in WWI.  That was the deflowering of a generation on both sides.  I was actually unimpressed with the shock and awe show but for what was on camera, there was far more going on elsewhere.  I knew that every fire plume that went up was saving the lives of our soldiers.  But you are right about the lack of commitment.  We were once a warrior people, now 49% are waiting for the government to take care of them.  That is what is really sad.  This is the loss of generations to come and it's done without firing a shot.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#32    Wookietim

Wookietim

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,908 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kirkland, WA

  • Search on the Android App Store for "Mothras Unexplained Mysteries" for the app I am very proud of...

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 21 September 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I disagree.  The way the military was used in the initial attack on Iraq was text book.  It was a thing of beauty.  If you don't think that it was surgical, what do you think would have happened if they carpet bombed?  Casualties were remarkably light.  I think that the latest estimate is 120,000 for the entire war and most of them were killed due to insurgents.  Yes, that is many lives lost and destroyed but don't even try to say that generations were lost.  You need to look at the loss of life on the battlefields of France in WWI.  That was the deflowering of a generation on both sides.  I was actually unimpressed with the shock and awe show but for what was on camera, there was far more going on elsewhere.  I knew that every fire plume that went up was saving the lives of our soldiers.  But you are right about the lack of commitment.  We were once a warrior people, now 49% are waiting for the government to take care of them.  That is what is really sad.  This is the loss of generations to come and it's done without firing a shot.

A thing of beauty? If you think that is beauty, then I am afraid we have no points in common and can't even hope to have a discussion.


#33    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:30 PM

View Postand then, on 21 September 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

We may not have a choice.  But the fact remains that even if we do become involved in this, it won't be necessary to put more than a few hundred boots on the ground and then only for a short while.  No one has ever said there was an interest in invading Iran.  Damaging infrastructure can be done exclusively from the air.  I'm sure there will be a howling chorus over that comment but it's true.  The war will take place in Israel and with her neighbors I believe.  Terror attacks will increase - including here in the US.  But that could very well backfire on the mullahs if they take it too far.  No one is going to get nuked over this.  Israel would never use them except in a situation where massive civilian deaths were occurring.

No, that is not the case. The issue isnt about whether to preemptively strike and be done with it or not. If only things were that clean. Any strike on Iran will cause chaos for those involved and their allies. I do not for a second believe that Iran will sit there and just take it. They will lash back and retaliate, and it will ignite the region and the players involved. Depending on how Iran's chess pieces are lined up, it could significantly hurt the west. The question now becomes, are you willing to take that risk? Is it necessary?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#34    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:44 PM

Perhaps it may be worth reading the introduction to the OP article, as to why it seems that Iran is intent on having a full-frontal nuclear confrontation with the Western Military Powers, come hell or high water:

If that is true, it sheds a completely new light on what is being played out in the Middle East

For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology.


“With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to Mashregh news, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards.


“Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”


Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.




#35    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,130 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:49 PM

View PostKarlis, on 21 September 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

Perhaps it may be worth reading the introduction to the OP article, as to why it seems that Iran is intent on having a full-frontal nuclear confrontation with the Western Military Powers, come hell or high water:

If that is true, it sheds a completely new light on what is being played out in the Middle East

For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology.


“With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to Mashregh news, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards.


“Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”


Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.



if we consider that the world has no corners: don't hold your breath until it happens!

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#36    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,271 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:54 PM

View PostStellar, on 21 September 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

No, that is not the case. The issue isnt about whether to preemptively strike and be done with it or not. If only things were that clean. Any strike on Iran will cause chaos for those involved and their allies. I do not for a second believe that Iran will sit there and just take it. They will lash back and retaliate, and it will ignite the region and the players involved. Depending on how Iran's chess pieces are lined up, it could significantly hurt the west. The question now becomes, are you willing to take that risk? Is it necessary?
Actually, now is the time to strike.  History shows that the longer one waits, the more difficult it'll be to succeed and more lives on both sides will be lost (i.e. the British and French not attacking the Germans during the Phony War).  Recent history has shown that striking Muslim forces before they are ready to strike sets them back significantly (Six Day War).

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#37    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:55 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 21 September 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

if we consider that the world has no corners: don't hold your breath until it happens!
What would be your guess if that is Iran's main aim? and btw -- that aim has been stated clearly and specifically by the highest Iranian authorities more than once.


#38    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,130 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostKarlis, on 21 September 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

What would be your guess if that is Iran's main aim? and btw -- that aim has been stated clearly and specifically by the highest Iranian authorities more than once.

I don't know what Iran's main aim is as i have not been there since the 80s, but I can tell you what the aim of the unholy camarilla running the place is: To stay in power and on the gravy train as long as possible. And if they have to derail the coming of the Mahdi for that they will.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#39    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:02 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 21 September 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

I don't know what Iran's main aim is as i have not been there since the 80s, but I can tell you what the aim of the unholy camarilla running the place is: To stay in power and on the gravy train as long as possible. And if they have to derail the coming of the Mahdi for that they will.
Guess that's positive thinking in a negative situation. :tu:


#40    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 21 September 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Actually, now is the time to strike.  History shows that the longer one waits, the more difficult it'll be to succeed and more lives on both sides will be lost (i.e. the British and French not attacking the Germans during the Phony War).  Recent history has shown that striking Muslim forces before they are ready to strike sets them back significantly (Six Day War).

Saves lives on both sides? Do you think that if the US didnt attack Iraq like it did, Iraq would have attacked the US or Isreal? Doubtful.

Preemptive wars do have their uses, I'll concede that. Attacking preemptively *could* save many lives. Attacking preemptively *could* also cost many lives though, if the reasons were wrong. This is exactly why preemptive wars are the ones that necessitate the most objective, unbiased factual analysis. I am not willing to go to war and risk many lives based on a hunch, nor am I going to accept what someone who is too emotionally invested into the war has to say. We need to look at the facts, and we need to look at all the possibilities in order to come up with the correct course of action and ensure that if innocent lives are going to die.

You mention history? An allied preemptive attack on Hitler, in hind sight, certainly would have saved many lives, yes. Conversely though, Japan attacked China under the guise of a "preemptive" war. Germany's invasion of Poland was sold as a "preemptive" war. Anything can be called a preemptive war, but not all preemptive wars are justified.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#41    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:27 PM

Quote

What would be your guess if that is Iran's main aim? and btw -- that aim has been stated clearly and specifically by the highest Iranian authorities more than once.


Karlis, Isreal also says that its ready to go to war. There's a difference between saying you're ready to go to war, and saying that you're going to start the war.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#42    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:37 PM

View PostStellar, on 21 September 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Karlis, Isreal also says that its ready to go to war. There's a difference between saying you're ready to go to war, and saying that you're going to start the war.
Israel says it is *prepared* for war.
Iran says it will *start* war (meaning; when/if Iran has the capability to do so). Very big difference.


#43    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

View PostKarlis, on 21 September 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Israel says it is *prepared* for war.
Iran says it will *start* war (meaning; when/if Iran has the capability to do so). Very big difference.

I must have missed where they said they will start war in your article. Could you point me to it?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#44    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:18 PM

View PostStellar, on 21 September 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

I must have missed where they said they will start war in your article. Could you point me to it?
You are correct and I am in error, Stellar. In *this* thread, nobody in authority in Iran has said that Iran will start war.

My apologies for jumping to an unfounded conclusion, based on information provided in this thread.
Karlis


#45    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,271 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:45 PM

View PostStellar, on 21 September 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Saves lives on both sides? Do you think that if the US didnt attack Iraq like it did, Iraq would have attacked the US or Isreal? Doubtful.
Absolutely!  Saddam had already attacked Israel and there is nothing to believe that he wouldn’t do it again.  He would have continued to attack the Kurds and Shiites.  He would retake Kuwait.  He would have attacked Saudi Arabia.  And he would at least deploy his nukes to counter Iran’s.  Remember he considered himself as the new Saladin and who knows, maybe felt that the Mahdi would favor him.

Quote

Preemptive wars do have their uses, I’ll concede that. Attacking preemptively *could* save many lives. Attacking preemptively *could* also cost many lives though, if the reasons were wrong. This is exactly why preemptive wars are the ones that necessitate the most objective, unbiased factual analysis. I am not willing to go to war and risk many lives based on a hunch, nor am I going to accept what someone who is too emotionally invested into the war has to say. We need to look at the facts, and we need to look at all the possibilities in order to come up with the correct course of action and ensure that if innocent lives are going to die.
It doesn’t matter if the reasons are right or wrong (to the world).  A nation will attack when the reasons are right for it.  Don’t take too long to analyze it or you could find yourself conquered.  There is a time constraint involved here.  You want to be pre-emptive and not premature.  And Israel is very good at that.

Quote

You mention history? An allied preemptive attack on Hitler, in hind sight, certainly would have saved many lives, yes. Conversely though, Japan attacked China under the guise of a “preemptive” war. Germany’s invasion of Poland was sold as a “preemptive” war. Anything can be called a preemptive war, but not all preemptive wars are justified.
That’s true but a pre-emptive strike on Iran is already established to be justified.  The question is when?  Only Israel knows the trigger point.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users