Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Iran threatens war over renewed sanctions

121 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77

Wait , Trump just said in his speech about this that Iran has violated the deal but everyone else is saying they havent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson

He said they are violating the 'spirit' of the deal. Apparently on paper they have not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Why not? They're looking , rooting, hoping and literally praying for their dude, Jesus, to return. We know according to scripture that wont happen until the world has gone to crap with wonderful little things like Damascus being wiped off the face of the earth. You honestly believe there arent those in Christiandom who would or could force the issue in order to bring that about?

I know many who would, granted they're nowhere near the big red button, but that mentality is a prevalent one. 

You don't have the SLIGHTEST knowledge of what you are speaking of, Farmer.  It exposes a total ignorance of the mind of Christians.  Yes, we look forward to the day our Redeemer will come just as those who spit on his name secretly dread it.  The idea that most Christians desire, even have a lust for the destruction that will be present when He returns is just a lie.  A lie just like the one most spiteful nonbelievers tell about us lusting for mass death and destruction that our God will bring.  It is humanity that sets the planet ablaze, as usual.  The biggest difference this time around is that the god of science has now made it possible for humanity to extinguish itself from the earth unless the Creator stepped in to stop us.  You should actually do a little reading about Imam al Mahdi and what his coming is preceded by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Just a quick thought, and returning to the OP article. 

The Islamic Republican Guards Corps stated that if America declared it to be a terrorist organisation, and imposed sanctions, then it would attack US facilities within a 2000Km radius - effectively creating a state of war. 

So, on the one hand, and hypothetically, the USA elects not to trade with Iran. In return, the Islamic Republican Guards Corps will attack militarily. 

Suppose I make a personal choice not to shop at Tesco's. In return, the Managing Director of Tesco's threatens to burn my house down. 

Does that seem a reasonable, justified, and proportional response ? Would the aforementioned MD not face criminal prosecution ? Purely for making the threat ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson

Does anyone know what the Iran sanctions entail? This time I'm not being a smartass I'm genuinely asking. Sanctions can vary wildly from your economy will take a hit to medieval style castle siege where the population suffers horrendously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From There
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

if America declared it to be a terrorist organisation, and imposed sanctions,

How should Iran respond to this in your opinion? What's a reasonable response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 hours ago, and then said:

You don't have the SLIGHTEST knowledge of what you are speaking of, Farmer.  It exposes a total ignorance of the mind of Christians.  Yes, we look forward to the day our Redeemer will come just as those who spit on his name secretly dread it.  The idea that most Christians desire, even have a lust for the destruction that will be present when He returns is just a lie.  A lie just like the one most spiteful nonbelievers tell about us lusting for mass death and destruction that our God will bring.  It is humanity that sets the planet ablaze, as usual.  The biggest difference this time around is that the god of science has now made it possible for humanity to extinguish itself from the earth unless the Creator stepped in to stop us.  You should actually do a little reading about Imam al Mahdi and what his coming is preceded by.

Actually I really do. I was raised in the church and even as an adult spent a good couple of years living with the church at the center of my existence. 

5 hours ago, and then said:

The idea that most Christians desire, even have a lust for the destruction that will be present when He returns is just a lie.

WellI I didnt say most christians, however many many do have a lust for the destruction that will be present when he returns, ive seen entirely too many preachers. deacons, elders and church members whipped into a frenzy of glee at the vision of those who they oppose getting the justice they "deserve" when Jesus returns. 

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 hours ago, internetperson said:

Does anyone know what the Iran sanctions entail? This time I'm not being a smartass I'm genuinely asking. Sanctions can vary wildly from your economy will take a hit to medieval style castle siege where the population suffers horrendously.

Well, at the moment, we're talking about US sanctions; restrictions on trade. This is NOT a blockade. The US is not talking about preventing goods/services flowing into/out-of Iran; merely that US-based companies may be prevented from trading with them.

And even THEN, we are not talking about sanctions against the entire Iranian regime; merely those parts of it (including commercial organisations) controlled by the Islamic Republic Guard Corps.

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 hours ago, From There said:

How should Iran respond to this in your opinion? What's a reasonable response ?

Dunno.... a complaint to the World Trade Organisation ? A complaint to the United Nations ? Negotiation with the Ameri]cans ? Or they could simply disregard the

US. After all, as the USA is the Great Satan, and they want Death To America, why would they want to trade with them at all ?

Can I take it that you agree that the current response of the Islamic Republic Guard Corps is NOT reasonable ? And where is the Iranian Government in all of this ? Or does the IRGC actually SPEAK for the government of Iran these days ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

Instead of opening new topic i'll post this here, it's related to Iran.

First, when Hezbollah and Iran with Syria agreed to let isis fighters leave Lebanesse border, such deal was meet with attacks over medias as some sort of cooperation with isis and convoy with isis and civilians was bombarded by American coalition. LINK there are numerous links, it happened relatively recently.

But, when SDF, American backed forces do the same, it is merely with intention to save civilians, as with official statement from SDF and coalition spokesman Col. Ryan Dillon say. LINK

So, first even was used to discredit Iran as much as possible, with many headlines. But right now, when other party does it, it is presented as an effort, legit effor, to save lives.

Well, the first deal was the same with same intention :)

Gotta love the medias and their distortion of reality in favor of making Iran look bad in every case, and Hezbollah deal was '' suspicious '' but this new deal is '' civilian evacuation ''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

But... those two events are entirely different, Sir SmokeALot, and cannot be compared. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
22 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Can I take it that you agree that the current response of the Islamic Republic Guard Corps is NOT reasonable ?

IDK man its only not reasonable if you expect the entire globe to serve as lap dogs to the world powers. Can you imagine a nation sitting down with the the UK and saying "not only can you NOT determine your own fate, we're going to punish you economically if you attempt to do so"? I think you'd be rightly p***ed and ready to blow **** up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

But... those two events are entirely different, Sir SmokeALot, and cannot be compared. 

 

By my opinion this shows how officials deal with events and how their statements are made, depending of which side is involved. This also points out how medias describe those events and only thing which decides if any event is good or bad is which side is doing it.

Not only that this can be compared but this also proves my point.

1-29.png?x44962

Before the official statement from SDF spokesperson Talal Silo position of US was as seen in this image above. Focus was on '' less risk of civilian cassaulties ''. But never did they reveal it was actuall ydeal with isis. Ryan Dillon told different story after SDF revealed the deal officially and mentioned isis. 

Reply from US coalition to Hezbollah deal : LINK

Actually, it wasn't reply with words, but with bombs.

Can you simply disregard obvious by saying how those events are not linked and are uncomparable? Yes, you can disregard whatever you want man but that doesn't mean that disregarded is not truth. 

What Hezbollah was saying when they made a deal was exactly the same, to save civilian lives. But since it was Hezbollah, just check MSM. Do not listen to me listen the information presented to you.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

I can't remember who said it, was it Sun Tzu or someone else. But '' if you surround the enemy, leave them a way of escape because those without hope and nothing to lose are fearsome fighters ''.

Both Hezbollah and US coalition did good thing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
On 10/9/2017 at 4:46 PM, and then said:

Yeah, they're just a fine group of upstanding citizens, are the Mullahs.  I wouldn't worry too much, they know where the line is drawn.  They launch a missile, just ONE, against U.S. forces in the region and there won't be any need of naming the IRGC a terrorist organization because they will effectively cease to exist.  After that, Russia can decide how far they want to risk a nuclear exchange over coming to the aid of their ally.

Trump is an enigma to these guys.  They bluster like Obama is still in control but I think they are beginning to worry that old DJ might just have a screw loose AND a twitchy trigger finger. ;)  Hell, even I wonder sometimes...

Dont know about "twitchy trigger finger" but there are several screw loose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson

Not to fan flames but I like to watch the farmer debate the gardener.

"What about the perlite sanctions?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK man its only not reasonable if you expect the entire globe to serve as lap dogs to the world powers. Can you imagine a nation sitting down with the the UK and saying "not only can you NOT determine your own fate, we're going to punish you economically if you attempt to do so"? I think you'd be rightly p***ed and ready to blow **** up. 

No, sorry Farmer77.. this is not a valid comparison. It really boils down to this;  

Person #1 --- "I choose not to trade with you anymore. I won't harm you, or actively interfere with you, but I simply choose not to trade with you"

Person #2 ---- "Really... THEN I KILL YOU"

That is the reality. Do you consider that a reasonable response ? Because if SO, then you accept the inevitable extrapolation of... "You will trade with me, or I will kill you". In other words, "Person #1" is now a slave of "Person #2". 

Now, do you consider THAT a reasonable response ? That we should all bow down to Islamic nations because they will kill us if we do not ? 

Because that is the reality of the response of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps. 

Now, remind me again... who is actually in charge of Iran ? Has there been ANY response to the IRGC's challenge, from the "official" Iranian government ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No, sorry Farmer77.. this is not a valid comparison. It really boils down to this;  

Person #1 --- "I choose not to trade with you anymore. I won't harm you, or actively interfere with you, but I simply choose not to trade with you"

Person #2 ---- "Really... THEN I KILL YOU"

That is the reality. Do you consider that a reasonable response ? Because if SO, then you accept the inevitable extrapolation of... "You will trade with me, or I will kill you". In other words, "Person #1" is now a slave of "Person #2". 

Now, do you consider THAT a reasonable response ? That we should all bow down to Islamic nations because they will kill us if we do not ? 

Because that is the reality of the response of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps. 

Now, remind me again... who is actually in charge of Iran ? Has there been ANY response to the IRGC's challenge, from the "official" Iranian government ? 

No its really not that nice. Sanctions are an active attempt to harm a nation for behavior the big powers disagree with. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran 

Quote

In 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696[2] and imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program. U.S. sanctions initially targeted investments in oil, gas, and petrochemicals, exports of refined petroleum products, and business dealings with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This encompasses banking and insurance transactions (including with the Central Bank of Iran), shipping, web-hosting services for commercial endeavors, and domain name registration services.[3]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

So you accept that it is legitimate to military attack any nation that refuses to trade with you ? 

How about.. it is legitimate to militarily attack any nation that refuses to trade with you on your terms

OK.. how does that differ from "give us what we want, or we will launch missiles against you" ? 

How does that differ from fascism and extortion ? 

Now... how is that different from the Islamic Republican Guard Corps threatening to launch missiles against the US if the US refuses to trade with Iran ? 

I mean. really ? It is REALLY quite simple. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So you accept that it is legitimate to military attack any nation that refuses to trade with you ? 

How about.. it is legitimate to militarily attack any nation that refuses to trade with you on your terms

OK.. how does that differ from "give us what we want, or we will launch missiles against you" ? 

How does that differ from fascism and extortion ? 

Now... how is that different from the Islamic Republican Guard Corps threatening to launch missiles against the US if the US refuses to trade with Iran ? 

I mean. really ? It is REALLY quite simple. 

Sanctions arent just a nation saying I wont trade with you though. Sanctions are saying I wont trade with you and im going to keep everyone else from doing so as well. I would fully expect our government to make the exact same threats if put in that situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Sanctions arent just a nation saying I wont trade with you though. Sanctions are saying I wont trade with you and im going to keep everyone else from doing so as well. I would fully expect our government to make the exact same threats if put in that situation. 

NO.. that is not what is currently on the table. It is JUST the USA.

What YOU are describing is a blockade, which is a VERY different kettle of fish, and is NOT what is happening. 

The Islamic Republican Guard Corps is threatening the USA. And ONLY the USA. 

Farmer77... do you agree with the idea that is is appropriate to kill somebody if they choose not to trade with you ? 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

As for sanctions, EU follows and will follow USA, it's just that things seem a bit different now but, eventually, sanctions could arise from EU and nations outside of EU too, after they sell enough airplanes and spare parts to Iran, among other things. It was seen many times before so it makes it hard for me to believe that EU would not act as America would like. 

Profits are important aspect of every political 'fight' these days. Just ask how much money did Japan and South Korea spend in mid of crisis in that region.

”I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States.”

As Mr. Trump said on twitter.

Article : LINK

America has great expenses in Afghanistan, Iraq... Of course, economy is large and strong but hardly self sustainable considering military expenses.

Industry has to make sales and every profit counts. Iranian money is no different than money from EU or elsewhere. Money has to flow because if not, banks will be in very difficult position sooner than predicted.

In military industry, Trump trully is 'America first'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

If the EU chooses to impose sanctions then that is their decision (though I'm sure they would be heavily influenced by the US). However, that is their right. It is STILL not a 'blockade', it is just a choice not to sell things. 

Do you agree that such activity does NOT justify threats to kill ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
On 10/16/2017 at 8:25 PM, RoofGardener said:

Do you agree that such activity does NOT justify threats to kill ? 

Of course not but that is not the point at all, i've explained it in post #6 already.

Keep in mind that if America marks IRGC as terrorists ( which it did not, fortunately for both sides, LINK ) then IRGC becomes target. IRGC is not simply military wing it is strong body in Iran with ties into everything from industry to army.

That was the reason for such reply because designating IRGC as terrorists makes them target. Iran reply was in line with threats from USA and this has nothing to do with sanctions to Iran as medias manipulate and try to fabricate it.

Now most important, both from moral and legal point of view :

if you were Iranian president and you hear what Gen. Wesley Clark and other officials have stated about '' War on Terror '' and '' isolating Iran '' you would 100% sure remember 1982 and have fear of similar world coalition against your country happening again.

Back then, when Saddam ( backed by USA, France, Britain, most Arab states except Lybia and Syria... ) attacked Iran ( who had only China and India and merely as an supply route ) that surely was unpleasant experience, at least for first two years of war.

Saudis provided about 10 billion $ monthly for Saddam in those years.

And, they all failed. Iran was in offensive for remaining 6 years of war. 8 years of war, Iran survived and threatened Saddam who was actually crying for peace after invading Iran and being crushed so he had to go defensive ( but still his army was much stronger than Iranian ).

Then CIA meddling into Iran's affairs and changing of regimes. First time it was because Iran nationalized oil industry ( a big no no, how dare you take your resources for yourself instead of giving them to Brittish, evil Iran :) ) .

So, Iran has a lot to hate about America and west in general, they all have Iranian blood on their hands. What did Iran do to western countries? Ever?

If they are threatened they have right to make threats but we can not see threat as crime already done. That is wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Designating the Islamic Republic Guards Corp as a terrorist organisation does NOT mean that they can be attacked. It merely means that the USA can impose sanctions relating to trade between US companies and IRGC companies and interests.

As for the Iraq attacks on Iran..... why WOULD the USA help Iran ? It was Iran that invaded their embassy and held their staff hostage. It was Iran that organised mass demonstrations screaming "Death to America". What did they EXPECT would happen ? :P

As for Saudi.. well... obviously they would align against Iran; they are a Sunni state, and Iran is a Shia state. Nuff said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.