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 -
ExpandMyMind

US apparently readying for Iran attack

296 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Smoke aLot
8 hours ago, and then said:

Do you expect Iran to admit it?

But what do you expect then? That accusation should lead to punishment? Without trial, without checking evidence and facts from the field?

8 hours ago, and then said:

Iran's military will be gutted if they attack us - proxies or not.

You clearly did not bother to look at those videos above... It's exactly that such ''proxy attack'' fabrication is proposed for decades by many pro war parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
8 hours ago, and then said:

You don't deign to accept U.S. or Israeli statements.  Do you expect Iran to admit it?  Believe as you wish but remember that everyone has that same option.  Iran's military will be gutted if they attack us - proxies or not.  Bring the pain, baby...

And also look at this from few years ago, you have other sources too...

This was not in no way ''defeat'' of US soldiers but something which happens a lot around the world when ships get into territorial waters of their ''enemies''. That said you should see how Iranian were treating US soldiers in this case. With honor and respect. Now you might say that they can't hurt them because US would retaliate hard, that's fine but it shows that Iran is strong, independent sovereign nation with who no one can play around. Iran is not puppet material.

I wonder why Iranians did not kill those soldiers or beat them up? I wonder how those within US embassy back in time of revolution were all returned in good shape? Iranian are not mad people, they are not blood thirsty people no matter how hard someone tries to portrait them like that. 

When US attacked Saddam in Kuwait there had to be over 100.000 service personnel and over 700.000 ground troops. That war lasted for what, 3 months to get hold on Kuwait?

For Iran war, well, it's logistical nightmare to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 21-5-2019 at 3:09 AM, pallidin said:

I am not gullible to anything.

I am a dolphin/honey badger hybrid, afraid of no-one, yet gentle to most.

Your claim against Bolton is for some reason without source-justification.

Feel free to extend your comment to include your reasoning.


And this is actually liked by 'And Then' & 'Rolltide', claiming Bolton isnt a quintessential warmonger. I rest my case.

Apologies, but its rather obvious it is ab so lutely use- less to engage in any form of discourse with these folk. With the ironic audacity to use the concept of 'reasoning' in their actual defense.

:D

Now instead of glazing over anytime someone pokes a hole in your oversimplified sense of reality, try and read the factual content that follows (I highlighted the relevant parts in blue for you):

Quote

John (“Bomb Iran”) Bolton, the New Warmonger in the White House

Hawks are closing in on the White House. John Bolton, arguably the most abrasive American diplomat of the twenty-first century, will soon assume the top foreign-policy job at the National Security Council.

[..]

Bolton, a Yale-educated lawyer whose trademark is a white walrus mustache, championed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which produced chaos followed by waves of extremist violence in the region. He also advocated international intervention to oust Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. He has repeatedly urged military action in Iran and North Korea, which he has called “two sides of the same coin.”

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, written two months ago, Bolton condemned the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran as a “massive strategic blunder”—then went further. American policy, he wrote, “should be ending Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution before its fortieth anniversary,” next February. “Recognizing a new Iranian regime in 2019 would reverse the shame of once seeing our diplomats held hostage for four hundred and forty-four days. The former hostages can cut the ribbon to open the new U.S. Embassy in Tehran.”

Shortly before the Iran deal—brokered by the world’s six major powers—Bolton wrote a piece in the Times entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” In it, he predicted, “Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.” Three months later, Iran accepted the nuclear deal, the most significant nonproliferation treaty in more than a quarter century. The deal was endorsed unanimously in a U.N. resolution.

[..]

The deepest disagreement between Bolton and Trump may be over Russia—especially its President, Vladimir Putin. In an op-ed last July, Bolton wrote that undermining the U.S. Constitution “is far more than just a quotidian covert operation. It is in fact a casus belli, a true act of war, and one Washington will never tolerate.” He charged that Trump had been duped by Putin in their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit last summer.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/john-bomb-iran-bolton-the-new-warmonger-in-the-white-house

 

Quote

John Bolton on the Warpath

Earlier this year, as Donald Trump prepared to meet the North Korean Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un, in Vietnam, he took a moment in the State of the Union address to congratulate himself on a diplomatic masterstroke: “If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea, with potentially millions of people killed.” For John Bolton, the national-security adviser, the summit represented a conundrum. Two months before he entered the White House, in April, 2018, he had called for preëmptive war with North Korea. During the past two decades, Bolton has established himself as the Republican Party’s most militant foreign-policy thinker—an advocate of aggressive force who ridicules anyone who disagrees. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he argued that Kim’s regime would soon be able to strike the United States with nuclear weapons, and that we should attack before it was too late. “The threat is imminent,” he wrote. “It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.”

[..]

In May, 2001, Bolton was named Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. The terror attacks of September 11, 2001, came a few months later, and the State Department and the White House were often in conflict about how to react: Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, urged an assertive use of military power abroad, while Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, was more restrained. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff, told me that Bolton was appointed to his position only at Cheney’s insistence. “Everyone knew that Bolton was Cheney’s spy,” Mark Groombridge, an aide to Bolton at the time, told me.

George W. Bush’s Administration had vowed to attack any “rogue nation” that developed weapons of mass destruction, and Bolton began a public crusade against America’s enemies, real and presumed. In May, 2002, he spoke at the Heritage Foundation, where he accused the Cuban government of developing an ambitious biological-weapons program and of collaborating with such pariah states as Libya and Iran. As he prepared to give similar testimony to Congress, Christian Westermann, an analyst at the State Department’s internal intelligence bureau, told him that the bureau’s information did not support such a view. (Westermann declined to comment for this story.) Bolton, according to several officials, threatened to fire him. “He got very red in the face and shaking his finger at me, and explained to me that I was acting way beyond my position for someone who worked for him,” Westermann later testified. “I told him I didn’t work for him.” Bolton began excluding Westermann’s supervisor from daily briefings and, after an unsuccessful attempt to fire him, tried to transfer him to another office.

Bolton’s immersion in the arcana of weapons of mass destruction encouraged an absolutist view. “The first thing he thinks about in the morning is protecting Americans from nuclear weapons,” Sarah Tinsley, who has worked as an aide to Bolton since the eighties, told me. In 2003, as he prepared testimony for an appearance before Congress, he described Syria’s efforts to produce nuclear and biological weapons as an urgent threat—an assessment that intelligence agencies thought was exaggerated. A bitter internal debate ensued; the accusations endangered the Syrian government’s coöperation in hunting suspected terrorists. “We were getting some of our best, if not our best, intelligence on Al Qaeda from Damascus,” Lawrence Wilkerson told me. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, took Bolton aside and “told him to shut up,” Wilkerson said. Before Bolton testified to Congress, much of his language was diluted. Armitage reached out to a team of intelligence officers who vetted public statements made by State Department officials, and asked them to give special scrutiny to Bolton’s. “Nothing Bolton said could leave the building until I O.K.’d it,” Thomas Fingar, who led the team at the time, told me.

As the Bush White House made the case to invade Iraq, Bolton came into conflict with José Bustani, who was in charge of overseeing the Chemical Weapons Convention—a treaty, endorsed by the U.S. and a hundred and ninety-two other countries, that bans the production of chemical weapons. Bustani, a former senior diplomat from Brazil, was negotiating with the Iraqi government to adopt the treaty, which mandated immediate inspections by outside technicians. He thought that, if inspectors could verify that Iraq had abandoned its chemical-weapons program, an invasion wouldn’t be necessary. But, he told me, when the Iraqis agreed to accept the convention, the Bush Administration asked him to halt his negotiations. “I think the White House was worried that if I succeeded it would mess up their plans to invade,” he said.

Not long afterward, Bustani recalls, Bolton showed up at his office in The Hague and demanded that he resign. When Bustani refused, Bolton said, “We know you have two sons in New York. We know your daughter is in London. We know where your wife is.” (Bolton has denied this.) Bustani held firm, and the White House, determined to remove him, convened an extraordinary session of the Convention’s members—in many cases, Bustani said, paying the travel expenses of delegates to insure that they attended. The group voted forty-eight to seven, with forty-three abstentions, to cut short Bustani’s term.

Later that year, Bustani was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, for his work against chemical weapons. When U.S. troops moved into Iraq, they found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/06/john-bolton-on-the-warpath

 

I know I know, 'it isnt Fox so its probbly fake news..' But alas, these are all verifiable facts, quite safely and objectively fitting Bolton warmly in the warmonger category.. For all those with a balanced train of thought.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
47 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

It's exactly that such ''proxy attack'' fabrication is proposed for decades by many pro war parties.

I forgot that we were in the age of our realities being determined solely by our opinions.  I'm not doing the research for you because you wouldn't believe my sources even if they were generally perceived as neutral. 

Do you deny that Iran funds, trains and equips the Hizballah, Hamas, and many other, smaller militias in the region?  Do you deny that they have the power to order said proxies to do their will?  

I believe (opinion coming) that Iran's leaders have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma.  It's a kind of "use it or lose it" power base they've created, mostly with money that would have been better spent on their economy and people.  The 150 billion of theirs that Obama released to them has been spent to build up that power but their economy is now in freefall and they are hard-pressed to continue that funding. When the $ stops, a LOT of the loyalty associated with it will follow.  If they want to use those proxies they'll have to keep the cash flowing or use them soon.  

I believe they may act irrationally because they KNOW that window is closing on them and they're angry at having been put in such a situation by the orange meany that everyone thinks is an idiot :)   The move by Trump is looking rather astute to some of us.  I don't wish for war with Iran unless they are far enough along that they could field a nuke. That must NOT be allowed, regardless the cost.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

And this is actually liked by 'And Then' & 'Rolltide', claiming Bolton isnt a quintessential warmonger. I rest my case.

Apologies, but its rather obvious it is ab so lutely use- less to engage in any form of discourse with these folk. With t

You stopped engaging because your blatant bias and unproven statements were called out.  No problem, you've been exposed and that was all the purpose of it.  BTW, you're doing the exact same thing with Pallidin's words.  He did NOT "deny" that Bolton was a warmonger.  He may believe that but he didn't SAY that.  It isn't a good idea to use your perception of other's words as though you know better than THEY what they mean.  

IMO, Bolton IS for a war that will crush Iran.  He IS ardently pro-Israel and he also believes that Iran is a growing menace to America and the rest of the world by dint of their pursuit of nukes.  Let's face it, the old bustards are straight up insane and power-hungry.  Power hungry is the normal human state but people with delusions shouldn't be allowed access to nukes.  KnowhatImean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
17 minutes ago, and then said:

  I'm not doing the research for you because you wouldn't believe my sources even if they were generally perceived as neutral. 

If you do not want to discuss those points it its fine.

19 minutes ago, and then said:

Do you deny that Iran funds, trains and equips the Hizballah, Hamas, and many other, smaller militias in the region?

Of course that Iran aids them but not as much as they should.

With Hamas situation is, well, it's close to impossible to send anything to Gaza, only by few criminals from Israel and Egypt does Hamas manage to buy anything. Man do you hear what you are saying? Gaza is in full blockade from all sides and you say that Iran equips them?

Then you say that Hezbollah is terrorist organization? Are you aware that MSM and officials who are pro war never mention Hezbollah, and there is a reason they do not.

Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, just recently called on Lebanese army (as he did on many occasions before) and said that he will bring Air defense from Iran if Lebanon want's it, they just need to say. Hezbollah is greatly represented in Lebanese government and no one can label whole people as terrorist. That's against most basic human rights and against every law ever written. Hezbollah fights for Lebanese sovereignty and that fact is respected even by some of US closest allies? But everyone who resists Israel is terrorist in narrative, that's not new story.

When isis started to rampage in Iraq do you know who was there to help after few days? Iran. 

So please we all know very well that Saudi Arabia is leading terrorist exporting entity in the world and they are backed and in bed with both US and Israel, officially with Israel too in last few years. With allies like that USA is in no position to preach about Iran.

32 minutes ago, and then said:

I believe they may act irrationally because they KNOW that window is closing on them and they're angry at having been put in such a situation by the orange meany that everyone thinks is an idiot :) 

Iranians are wise, everything says that they are not irrational, remember when they freed woman and African Americans from the embassy in 1979? :P Lesson about morality and justice to western friends.

Only after Obama and especially after years with Trump did status quo start to look endangered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
43 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

And this is actually liked by 'And Then' & 'Rolltide', claiming Bolton isnt a quintessential warmonger. I rest my case.

Bolton was even dancing with people whom state department listed as terrorists. His warmongering quality is unquestionable and he might be worlds authority on that, with Elliott Abrams, i have to mention him to because of democratic cruelty and murders :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
29 minutes ago, and then said:

You stopped engaging because your blatant bias and unproven statements were called out.  No problem, you've been exposed and that was all the purpose of it.  BTW, you're doing the exact same thing with Pallidin's words.  He did NOT "deny" that Bolton was a warmonger.  He may believe that but he didn't SAY that.  It isn't a good idea to use your perception of other's words as though you know better than THEY what they mean.  

IMO, Bolton IS for a war that will crush Iran.  He IS ardently pro-Israel and he also believes that Iran is a growing menace to America and the rest of the world by dint of their pursuit of nukes.  Let's face it, the old bustards are straight up insane and power-hungry.  Power hungry is the normal human state but people with delusions shouldn't be allowed access to nukes.  KnowhatImean?


Dude, please. If you ask for proof of anything in the way Palladin did, you dont believe it.The very notion someone calls for proof when reading the statement 'Bolton is a warmongerer' is rather telling. One must be completely unhinged with reality to ask that question in earnest. Not to mention the talk about Dolphin Badger hybrids, my god.

Oh and what 'unproven' statements were those, pray tell.. called out by whom? You cant mean the hammerclaw exchange, surely..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)

This is what WAR does with regular Americans, not even touching upon the financial cost of the American taxpayer, and not even touching upon the suffering incurred in the nations they 'intervene' in (based on deceit)..

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-26/army-virtue-tweet-backfires-1000s-expose-heartbreaking-horrors-war


..Funny how most ardent warmongers are boastful, deceitful (and boasting about being deceitful like Pompeo) chickenhawks who never served in a war a single second in their lives.

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
3 hours ago, and then said:

...Iran is a growing menace to America and the rest of the world...

So true.

Political reality can be harsh, but by all means should be recognized.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)

Yes! And the US is the defender of Peace & Security around the world, seeding democracy and saving the local populations from their evil dictators.. Yay! :yes:

On a more serious note; if any nation is a menace to the world, responsible for wholesale destabilization & destruction, numerous wars of agression based on deceit, economic warfare against anyone who doesnt comply, economically and politically supporting the source of Islamist Wahhabi extremism Saudi Arabia, its the United States of America.

Everyone with a semblance of objectivity, strongly based on clearcut facts and figures (numer of wars started, number of economic sanctions effectuated (where civilians are the true victim), number of innocent civilians murdered, number of political collusions to manipulate foreign nations political landscape etc etc) knows this.

The audacity to blame Iran for supporting terrorism after the whole Syria debacle - where Western powerplayers led by thesame USA vehemently supported the rebels / extremists (including but not limited to al nusra) to oust Al Assad while maintaining the clostest of political and economical ties with the Sunni source of ISIS ideology - is a complete and utter inversion of actual reality. Its Sunni extremism (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, allies of the West / Israel) which is the quintessential sign of modern day Islamist terrorism (Ie. ISIS, AQ), not Shia (Iran). But because Iran and some Shia militia's pose a strategical problem for Israel / SA / USA, they are deceitfully designated as the main source of Islamist terrorism, and subsequently demonized in every way possible like all the assaulted nations before her.

And here we have people calling themselves 'Christians' who actually know this, but still passionetaly cheer on the warmongering words of the neocon criminals they support (because these criminals are zionists just like them). People who see themselves as followers of Christ, can you imagine.

My god what a comical world we live in. Expect void terms like 'America hater' to start flying around as a response to this, never addressing content or adding anything of substance. Just ignore and respond with meaningless, ridiculous soundbites.

 

 

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 5/26/2019 at 8:05 AM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Without trial, without checking evidence and facts from the field?

Rather than let our service members be killed by proxy forces and wait for some biased court to quibble over it for years?  Are you kidding me?  Or are you just delusional?  You are free to believe as you wish.  We are free to absolutely destroy people that mean us harm.  Fair enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 5/27/2019 at 5:40 AM, Phaeton80 said:

Yes! And the US is the defender of Peace & Security around the world, seeding democracy and saving the local populations from their evil dictators.. Yay!

Feck you and the camel or horse you ride in on, Slick.  Most of us don't give two good damns what the rest of the world does, nor are we responsible to them or YOU ;).  They can continue living in the 7th century and suffering from misogynistic pedophile governments which murder for amusement if they feel the need.  Or they can fight for their freedom and throw them off rather than just swallow their pride and redirect their anger at a safe target - DA JOOS - while their leaders spend them like currency.  Maybe you can start a Go-Fund-Me for them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 5/27/2019 at 5:40 AM, Phaeton80 said:

People who see themselves as followers of Christ, can you imagine.

You'd prefer "Issa" perhaps?  You might want to lay your Qur'an aside for a bit.  Pretty sure you're a Hafiz by now.  Try studying what that "Christ" is going to do to those who are murdering His people.  Isaiah explains it in some detail.  Or you can ignore it and just witness it if you're around.  I don't think it's a time so far off any longer.  Just remember, we all live by our choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
On 5/27/2019 at 12:40 PM, Phaeton80 said:

Yes! And the US is the defender of Peace & Security around the world, seeding democracy and saving the local populations from their evil dictators.. Yay! :yes:

On a more serious note; if any nation is a menace to the world, responsible for wholesale destabilization & destruction, numerous wars of agression based on deceit, economic warfare against anyone who doesnt comply, economically and politically supporting the source of Islamist Wahhabi extremism Saudi Arabia, its the United States of America.

Everyone with a semblance of objectivity, strongly based on clearcut facts and figures (numer of wars started, number of economic sanctions effectuated (where civilians are the true victim), number of innocent civilians murdered, number of political collusions to manipulate foreign nations political landscape etc etc) knows this.

The audacity to blame Iran for supporting terrorism after the whole Syria debacle - where Western powerplayers led by thesame USA vehemently supported the rebels / extremists (including but not limited to al nusra) to oust Al Assad while maintaining the clostest of political and economical ties with the Sunni source of ISIS ideology - is a complete and utter inversion of actual reality. Its Sunni extremism (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, allies of the West / Israel) which is the quintessential sign of modern day Islamist terrorism (Ie. ISIS, AQ), not Shia (Iran). But because Iran and some Shia militia's pose a strategical problem for Israel / SA / USA, they are deceitfully designated as the main source of Islamist terrorism, and subsequently demonized in every way possible like all the assaulted nations before her.

And here we have people calling themselves 'Christians' who actually know this, but still passionetaly cheer on the warmongering words of the neocon criminals they support (because these criminals are zionists just like them). People who see themselves as followers of Christ, can you imagine.

My god what a comical world we live in. Expect void terms like 'America hater' to start flying around as a response to this, never addressing content or adding anything of substance. Just ignore and respond with meaningless, ridiculous soundbites.

 

 

Some people still believe that Netanyahu was correct when he said this.

And they turn blind eye when he does this :

israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyah

But Iran is to be blamed :D

Then we have Israeli official, ex Mossad chief say how Al Qaida never did harm to Israel so they help them to show compassion to enemy. As interview goes on he was asked ''but they attacked your ally, would you aid Hezbollah fighters?'' he replied ''no'' basically contradicting whole excuse about why they help al nusra and isis affiliates in Syria :D

It really is comical world :D You surely know about all of this it's such old BS. Is media space really censored so hard is the USA? There is no free journalism in the USA?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
3 hours ago, and then said:

Are you kidding me?  Or are you just delusional?

You fail to address any point i make and accuse me of what you are to be blamed for. If you do not use such tactic you resort to accusations of anti Semitism or something more vile. Since you do not offer anything constructive and you avoid addressing anything i won't waste my time anymore since you do not show even the slightest amount of respect by addressing any of my points which i back with credible information.

I am not sure why i gave you so much respect, i guess i am naive to believe in people too much since you only resort to insults. Have fun with your ''sources'' and do not bother me with your vile childish remarks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You fail to address any point i make and accuse me of what you are to be blamed for. If you do not use such tactic you resort to accusations of anti Semitism or something more vile. Since you do not offer anything constructive and you avoid addressing anything i won't waste my time anymore since you do not show even the slightest amount of respect by addressing any of my points which i back with credible information.

I am not sure why i gave you so much respect, i guess i am naive to believe in people too much since you only resort to insults. Have fun with your ''sources'' and do not bother me with your vile childish remarks.


..And when someone like SSaL says this to you, you know you crossed a line.. (rational folk, as in 'not Israeli / USA fanboys', that is). But leave it to AT, aka mr Inversion, to remain convinced of the complete opposite situation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
4 hours ago, and then said:

You'd prefer "Issa" perhaps?  You might want to lay your Qur'an aside for a bit.  Pretty sure you're a Hafiz by now.  Try studying what that "Christ" is going to do to those who are murdering His people.  Isaiah explains it in some detail.  Or you can ignore it and just witness it if you're around.  I don't think it's a time so far off any longer.  Just remember, we all live by our choices.


Dont worry about my study habits buttercup, Im quite sure my view is broader, considerably less limited / confined, and less conditioned, than yours is. I have read something to that effect, yes.. with a small nuance; those who worship vain idols, take others as G*d besides G*d, will find a hefty penalty. Comitting mass murder by warmongering and sheer deceit doesnt go down well either, I have been told. Only G*d knows best though, we'll just have to wait and see, wont we.

I am a follower of the Thora, Gospels, Qur'an, because I found it increasingly plausible they are all from thesame source (and found it similarly plausible all proceeding religions have been diverted, diluted, infiltrated). You think present day Christianity is the unchanged truth from the time of Christ himself. My enemy hides / acts behind numerous different masks, ultimately acting against religion as a whole, Islam and Judaism being two of them often used. Your enemy is.. Islam.

See the difference in the two? Fine evening to you sir.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Have fun with your ''sources'' and do not bother me with your vile childish remarks.

Right back atcha old sock.  Rave on, just don't expect unbiased people to take you seriously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
8 hours ago, and then said:

Feck you and the camel or horse you ride in on, Slick.  Most of us don't give two good damns what the rest of the world does, nor are we responsible to them or YOU ;).  They can continue living in the 7th century and suffering from misogynistic pedophile governments which murder for amusement if they feel the need.  Or they can fight for their freedom and throw them off rather than just swallow their pride and redirect their anger at a safe target - DA JOOS - while their leaders spend them like currency.  Maybe you can start a Go-Fund-Me for them?

And all said without the slightest hint of irony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
7 hours ago, Setton said:

And all said without the slightest hint of irony. 

Absolutely none and completely unapologetic.  Just like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
12 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


..And when someone like SSaL says this to you, you know you crossed a line.. (rational folk, as in 'not Israeli / USA fanboys', that is). But leave it to AT, aka mr Inversion, to remain convinced of the complete opposite situation.

what a very revealing comment :D 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 5/27/2019 at 12:03 AM, and then said:

Do you deny that Iran funds, trains and equips the Hizballah, Hamas, and many other, smaller militias in the region?  Do you deny that they have the power to order said proxies to do their will?

There is always a limit to the level of control that a national government can exercise over its proxies.  For example, presently Putin is heartily p***ed off with the Donetsk separatists, who are undoubtedly his proxies.  To assume that Iran has 100% control over the Huthis or Hizbollah is unrealistic in the extreme.  Proxies are only proxies insofar as they feel their interests are being supported, and while those interests are mutual, everything is easy, but when disagreements occur (and they always do), then the Proxies begin to quietly assert their own interests, with or without their paymaster's approval.

On 5/27/2019 at 12:03 AM, and then said:

I believe (opinion coming) that Iran's leaders have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma.  It's a kind of "use it or lose it" power base they've created, mostly with money that would have been better spent on their economy and people.  The 150 billion of theirs that Obama released to them has been spent to build up that power but their economy is now in freefall and they are hard-pressed to continue that funding. When the $ stops, a LOT of the loyalty associated with it will follow.  If they want to use those proxies they'll have to keep the cash flowing or use them soon. 

 Not everything in politics is about funds.  Plenty of people fight for a cause alone.  Consider the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.  All they wanted was a bowl of rice a day, a lecture on Communism and 3 clips for their AK47.  Now obviously a steady supply of resources is really important, but it isn't everything.

Back to the point. In terms of the present Yemeni civil war, yes, it is a proxy fight, but only to a degree.  The Houthis (More properly known as Ansar Allah) are mainly a political movement, with loose ties to the Houthi tribe.  While they are pretty anti-Semitic and have repeatedly said they want to conquer Israel and drive the Jews screaming into the sea etc. that is normal behavior for Muslims the world over, and amounts to empty rhetoric.  Ansar Allah says that it wants a functioning Democratic Republic that espects the rights of the Houthi minority and a great drop in corruption.  They also support the Zaydi Sect of Shia Islam, which is their connection to Iran.  On the other hand, to assume that this is only about Sunni vs Shia, would be a mistake.  Ansar Allah is said to be supported by Eritrea, Iraq, Oman, North Korea, Syria and Qatar, not just Iran.  Iran however is said to be the largest supporter.

On 5/27/2019 at 12:03 AM, and then said:

I believe they may act irrationally because they KNOW that window is closing on them and they're angry at having been put in such a situation by the orange meany that everyone thinks is an idiot :)   The move by Trump is looking rather astute to some of us.  I don't wish for war with Iran unless they are far enough along that they could field a nuke. That must NOT be allowed, regardless the cost.

In fact building nukes may well lose the war for Iran.  The Iranian aim thru this entire conflict period of proxy wars has been to destabilize and collapse the Saudi Monarchy, just as he Saudi Monarchy has been aiming to destabilize and oust the Mullahs in Iran.  The USA wants a stable Saudi but is okay with war, as they can sell their oil dearly.

The real enigma, as usual, is what the Russians are actually up to.  Their foreign policy has a clear Middle East Focus at the moment.  The whole seizure of Black Fleet naval assets is directed at the Middle East.  Their near war with Turkey and the opening of the Bosphorus to the Russian Fleet is aimed at the Middle East.  Is this only about the war in Syria?  I doubt it.  I think the Russians know that when the Iranians develop a nuke, that the USA will go into Iran with guns blazing, and the Russians want to use that conflict to break the back of the USA by supporting Iran.  Why?  Because with the USA weakened and bruised from a war in Iran that is like Afghanistan and Vietnam only worse, Russia suddenly seems like a much bigger player, and they can reassert their global ambitions with a freer hand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Because with the USA weakened and bruised from a war in Iran that is like Afghanistan and Vietnam only worse, Russia suddenly seems like a much bigger player, and they can reassert their global ambitions with a freer hand.

Under what circumstances do you foresee a commitment of large numbers of U.S. forces in an actual invasion/occupation?  Iran is dangerous using its assets spread around the world but the way to keep most of those in check is to use a level of force that can be increased gradually and in no circumstance do I foresee Divisions of U.S forces on the ground in Iran.  It would guarantee the populace gathering around the flag and would create a blood sponge.  It's often empty rhetoric but in this case, especially, the Iranian people are NOT our enemy.  Handled carefully, they could well be critical allies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 5/20/2019 at 3:54 AM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

To be more precise, he said :

 

And the very next tweet is:

Negotiating with decent people is also wrong let alone negotiating with U.S. officials who aren’t even decent and don’t abide by anything. No noble and wise Iranian would trade their strong points. Of course no one among our wise men seeks negotiations.

Kind’a reveals a bit of Muslim sensibilities.  Those that are not decent are non-believers and therefore considered “the losers”.  Losers never negotiate up to Muslims, but Muslims will dictate down to the non-believer, especially when they think they still have the upper hand.

But of course this is poison.  It’s poison from the viewpoint of a spoiled child that was caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  We are no longer playing their game (the game of appeasement and capitulation).  They are now playing Trump’s game.  We don't have to worry about going to war, the next move is theirs.

  • 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.