US apparently readying for Iran attack

[+and-then]

Interesting paragraph from a Blog I frequent...

For at least ten consecutive days it has been observed that a massive, even unprecedented, Russian Air Force (RuAF) heavy airlift (we call it a surge operation) has continued, non-stop, from Moscow Chkalovsky Air base and Mozdok (southern Caucasus) Air Base into the Hmeimim and Hamah Syrian Air Bases. The aircraft are strategic heavy lifters such as the Antonov-124 and IL-76MD. As these aircraft cross southwards over the eastern Black Sea they are entering and flying directly over Turkey proper before entering Syrian airspace. This is combined with Iranian and Syrian heavy lift aircraft flying daily to and from Tehran to Damascus and Tiyas (T4) Air Bases. Yes, something very big is brewing in northwestern Syria.

 

This guy's sources get things right far more often than they fail to do so.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Interesting paragraph from a Blog I frequent...

For at least ten consecutive days it has been observed that a massive, even unprecedented, Russian Air Force (RuAF) heavy airlift (we call it a surge operation) has continued, non-stop, from Moscow Chkalovsky Air base and Mozdok (southern Caucasus) Air Base into the Hmeimim and Hamah Syrian Air Bases. The aircraft are strategic heavy lifters such as the Antonov-124 and IL-76MD. As these aircraft cross southwards over the eastern Black Sea they are entering and flying directly over Turkey proper before entering Syrian airspace. This is combined with Iranian and Syrian heavy lift aircraft flying daily to and from Tehran to Damascus and Tiyas (T4) Air Bases. Yes, something very big is brewing in northwestern Syria.

 

This guy's sources get things right far more often than they fail to do so.

That sure does beg the obvious question.  What are they transporting and for what purpose?

 

Are they positioning tanks, supplies, troops, missiles…?  Is this just an exercise and they really aren’t moving much of anything?  Is this an offensive or defensive move?  Is it for strategic or tactical purposes?  Is it to defend Iran from an attack or do they think that the attack on Iran is a feint and the real attack is Syria?  Are they planning an attack on other Muslim extremist groups, Kurds (they did fly over Turkey), Israel, or Saudi Arabia?  Many unknowns.  Perhaps they just want to see how Trump reacts?  How far will he listen to his Hawks?

[DarkHunter]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Interesting paragraph from a Blog I frequent...

For at least ten consecutive days it has been observed that a massive, even unprecedented, Russian Air Force (RuAF) heavy airlift (we call it a surge operation) has continued, non-stop, from Moscow Chkalovsky Air base and Mozdok (southern Caucasus) Air Base into the Hmeimim and Hamah Syrian Air Bases. The aircraft are strategic heavy lifters such as the Antonov-124 and IL-76MD. As these aircraft cross southwards over the eastern Black Sea they are entering and flying directly over Turkey proper before entering Syrian airspace. This is combined with Iranian and Syrian heavy lift aircraft flying daily to and from Tehran to Damascus and Tiyas (T4) Air Bases. Yes, something very big is brewing in northwestern Syria.

 

This guy's sources get things right far more often than they fail to do so.

Probably just preparing for the Idlib offensive, the Syrian army along with Russian air support have been increasing attacks on Idlib the past week or two with Turkey sending more weapons to the rebels in Idlib.  Also Israel recently destroyed a Syrian AA position that fired on one of its jets so that could have something to do with it but I'm guessing it has more to do with Idlib then anything.

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Probably just preparing for the Idlib offensive, the Syrian army along with Russian air support have been increasing attacks on Idlib the past week or two with Turkey sending more weapons to the rebels in Idlib.  Also Israel recently destroyed a Syrian AA position that fired on one of its jets so that could have something to do with it but I'm guessing it has more to do with Idlib then anything.

I tend to agree that Idlib must be the target.  If you want to support Tartus, then Jableh and Hama are key positions.  But a 10 day logistical operation with Syrian and Iranian cooperation?  Now would be the time for stingers to make their appearance.  A defeat for Iran here would give encouragement to the Green Revolution and we wouldn’t need to invade Iran.  The US has a carrier group, bomber group, and anti-missile units in Iraq.  Everything you need to neutralize missile sites and command & control.  Defang and blind Iran and the regime will fall from the inside.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I tend to agree that Idlib must be the target.  If you want to support Tartus, then Jableh and Hama are key positions.  But a 10 day logistical operation with Syrian and Iranian cooperation?  Now would be the time for stingers to make their appearance.  A defeat for Iran here would give encouragement to the Green Revolution and we wouldn’t need to invade Iran.  The US has a carrier group, bomber group, and anti-missile units in Iraq.  Everything you need to neutralize missile sites and command & control.  Defang and blind Iran and the regime will fall from the inside.

I keep hearing these opinions that the U.S. is going to be bogged down in a war with Iran and I think they may be a bit self-serving.  Only a fool would agree to send in 100+ K troops INTO Iran.  The goal of weakening and destabilizing the mullah's regime could be accomplished with FAR less risk.  Yes, we'd lose some service members and possibly even some Littoral vessels but Iran would have it's IRGC and possibly the Basij savaged into impotence.  The people could take it from there.  It will be critical NOT to kill civilians if we attack Iran.  We shouldn't take out electricity, water or sewer either if it can be helped.  Hopefully, we'll have contacts to some kind of organized resistance that we can move weapons to in the event such an attack becomes inescapable.

[RavenHawk]

30 minutes ago, and then said:

Hopefully, we'll have contacts to some kind of organized resistance that we can move weapons to in the event such an attack becomes inescapable.

I’m sure we do.  Unless Trump’s saber rattling is just a distraction, he wouldn’t be doing this unless he has at least one ace up his sleeve.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

15 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

“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.”

''His Eminence further explained: Negotiation is a mutual give and take.''

This is starting point in his wisdom here. Without mutual respect negotiation is WRONG. To satisfy others wild demands is also wrong. LINK to full text.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Kind’a reveals a bit of Muslim sensibilities.

So again you have to point a finger at Islam. Let me say this, assuming that you believe that Muslims are fundamentalists who are obeying blindly, have backward beliefs and are true to fatwas and imams, are thirsty for western blood...

Why do you then say that Iran wants to have nukes and WMD's because Ayatollah made a fatwa against Nukes, labeled them contrary to Islam, back in time of Saddam's aggression? So what you are saying is that Muslims can be labeled as obeying blood thirsty maniacs but it's OK to attack Islam, so much so that any praise is neglected regardless of how bad and illogical it makes you look like. ''Islam is a threat, they kill infidels and must do it cuz they fear punishment.'' - then believe them when they make fatwas regarding prohibition of WMD's too, nah, lets cherry pick what we like only and make it look bad!

Instead of cherrypicking that which i already posted you proceeded to make wild fantasy story based on poorly researched subject. Like a man who is drowning, he catches a straw. Don't be so narrow minded, Khamanei was talking about USA politics and their demands.

First demand is to stop defensive missiles program and then US will negotiate. USA already negotiated and moved out of the deal, loosing all it's credibility (as if it had any because of crooked politicians). Iranians are not tiny sellouts to succumb to demands of liars, they are big and prideful nation.

You expect Khamenei to say that ''negotiation is God given right, especially when your partner demands you to give concessions to even get to the table''.

As Mr Zarif say and explains : 

 

So please research the subject properly before engaging in jet another, seemingly for you - ''open window'' for attacks on Islam. This is about politics.

Now i know you won't either watch this statement by Zarif nor will you address my points, as if you and some people here are simply present to smear and attack topics of this kind, rather than to confront with facts and engage in interesting discussion. You could learn from Mr. @RoofGardener, he is civilized enough to understand the difference between politics and religion and at least peeks into some of arguments.

 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

''That evil scumbags who do not want to negotiate and say that negotiations are poison... How dare they offer non aggression pacts, such behavior shatters our narrative!''

Yours sincerely, the MSM.

I just had to make this effort of a joke

[Setton]

16 hours ago, and then said:

Interesting paragraph from a Blog I frequent...

For at least ten consecutive days it has been observed that a massive, even unprecedented, Russian Air Force (RuAF) heavy airlift (we call it a surge operation) has continued, non-stop, from Moscow Chkalovsky Air base and Mozdok (southern Caucasus) Air Base into the Hmeimim and Hamah Syrian Air Bases. The aircraft are strategic heavy lifters such as the Antonov-124 and IL-76MD. As these aircraft cross southwards over the eastern Black Sea they are entering and flying directly over Turkey proper before entering Syrian airspace. This is combined with Iranian and Syrian heavy lift aircraft flying daily to and from Tehran to Damascus and Tiyas (T4) Air Bases. Yes, something very big is brewing in northwestern Syria.

 

This guy's sources get things right far more often than they fail to do so.

 

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That sure does beg the obvious question.  What are they transporting and for what purpose?

 

 

 

Are they positioning tanks, supplies, troops, missiles…?  Is this just an exercise and they really aren’t moving much of anything?  Is this an offensive or defensive move?  Is it for strategic or tactical purposes?  Is it to defend Iran from an attack or do they think that the attack on Iran is a feint and the real attack is Syria?  Are they planning an attack on other Muslim extremist groups, Kurds (they did fly over Turkey), Israel, or Saudi Arabia?  Many unknowns.  Perhaps they just want to see how Trump reacts?  How far will he listen to his Hawks?

Idlib offensive. Nothing remotely interesting about it. 

[RoofGardener]

18 hours ago, and then said:

Interesting paragraph from a Blog I frequent...

For at least ten consecutive days it has been observed that a massive, even unprecedented, Russian Air Force (RuAF) heavy airlift (we call it a surge operation) has continued, non-stop, from Moscow Chkalovsky Air base and Mozdok (southern Caucasus) Air Base into the Hmeimim and Hamah Syrian Air Bases. The aircraft are strategic heavy lifters such as the Antonov-124 and IL-76MD. As these aircraft cross southwards over the eastern Black Sea they are entering and flying directly over Turkey proper before entering Syrian airspace. This is combined with Iranian and Syrian heavy lift aircraft flying daily to and from Tehran to Damascus and Tiyas (T4) Air Bases. Yes, something very big is brewing in northwestern Syria.

 

This guy's sources get things right far more often than they fail to do so.

I wonder what his sources ARE ? No other media outlet - or blog, or anything - is reporting this. Personally, I'm doubtful of this blog.  Such a large airlift - both from Russia and from Iran - would surely be noticed ? 

Edited May 30, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Alchopwn]

23 hours ago, and then said:

  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.

For starters, I completely agree with this statement.  Whatever one may think of the current theocracy in Iran, I suspect most Iranians are heartily sick of it, and would like the Mullahs gone, especially the younger generations.  Iran is one of the very few countries in the Middle East that has proper institutions and solid democratic and republican system that is more than a veneer on a military dictatorship.

On a related issue, I suspect that a solid part of the reason for the proxy wars between Iran and Saudi is because the USA and Saudis had been working to build a resistance movement within Iran.  While the NCRI is presently peaceful, it is growing LINK.  Iran was once a prominent US ally, and may well become so again.  Hopefully the USA won't  take them for granted again if that happen.  1979 was a major foreign policy disaster for the USA.

23 hours ago, and then said:

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.

As far as I am concerned, Trump is under the sway of Putin.  The present Whitehouse regularly echoes Russian foreign policy documents, and that shouldn't happen.  Russia has made a concerted move to fund and mobilize the extreme right wing across the developed world, and Trump is part of that due to his relationship with the Russian Mob in NYC.  To this end, if the Kremlin decides that it is within their interests to get their orange man to invade Iran, he will.  Of course such a scenario would be terrible for the USA, but so is a trade war with China.  I am pleased that there is no war yet, but I worry that if and when the Syrian War is over, the Russians will be in position in the region to nudge the USA into a fresh Vietnam War in Iran.

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

''His Eminence further explained: Negotiation is a mutual give and take.''

That is very true.  What do you think of one side (Iran) that takes everything and gives nothing?  Khamenei had Kerry wrapped around his little finger.  Well, Trump is not Kerry nor Obama.  Trump knows how to negotiate.

 

This is starting point in his wisdom here. Without mutual respect negotiation is WRONG. To satisfy others wild demands is also wrong. LINK to full text.

And Khamenei has no respect for non-believers.  He wouldn’t have risen to be the Supreme Leader in a theocracy if he did.  Islam makes a clear separation between believers and non-believers.  Correct?  What is the Muslim view of dar al-Harb?  Can you tell me what the gist of Ali’Imran 28 is and its pertinence in negotiations with non-believers is?  This concept permeates throughout the Quran.  The above link shows his disrespect for America, almost trying to take a moral high ground.  It really reveals his concern about not being able to deceive and take advantage of this country as usual.

 

So again you have to point a finger at Islam.

Absolutely!  Somehow, I get the feeling that you think I do so out of hate or something.  No.  I do so out of history, doctrine, and track record.  I do so out of fact.

 

Let me say this, assuming that you believe that Muslims are fundamentalists who are obeying blindly,

Not at all.  I believe that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims that just want to live their life and protect their family.  However, no matter to what degree a Muslim commits Shirk and Bida, the doctrine is still in the fiber of every Muslim.

 

have backward beliefs and are true to fatwas and imams, are thirsty for western blood...

No, I do not.  Islam is hardly a backward belief.  Some of its accouterments are archaic, but only because it does have a difficult time modernizing.  It depends on which fiqh the imams and/or fatwas it originates from.

 

Why do you then say that Iran wants to have nukes and WMD's because Ayatollah made a fatwa against Nukes, labeled them contrary to Islam, back in time of Saddam's aggression?

That fatwa has always been in question.  Was it strictly for Western consumption?  Because why does Iran mine, mill, and enrich U235 at weapon grade production levels?  One doesn’t need 3000 centrifuges in cascade for several years to produce reactor grade.

 

So what you are saying is that Muslims can be labeled as obeying blood thirsty maniacs

So you consider Mohammad a maniac?

 

but it's OK to attack Islam, so much so that any praise is neglected regardless of how bad and illogical it makes you look like.

The only thing illogical is that statement.  Deceit should be held in praise?  I guess for however long one stays fooled.

 

''Islam is a threat, they kill infidels and must do it cuz they fear punishment.''

“Infidel” is a French term.  The Quran uses many other terms “those who spread mischief through the land”, “the losers”, “unjust people”, “dis/un/non believers”, etc.  Why would a Muslim risk punishment befriending such unsavory kinds?  It is setup this way to defend the Ummah from the wrong kind of thinking.  The point isn’t to kill but to dominate.  Getting hung up on killing is a distraction.

 

- then believe them when they make fatwas regarding prohibition of WMD's too, nah, lets cherry pick what we like only and make it look bad!

Deceit in Islam is well known.  Actions speak louder than words.

 

Instead of cherrypicking that which i already posted you proceeded to make wild fantasy story based on poorly researched subject. Like a man who is drowning, he catches a straw.

Evoking “cherrypicking” isn’t an effective defense.  “Wild fantasies”?  and Khamenei is throwing nothing but straws.

 

Don't be so narrow minded, Khamanei was talking about USA politics and their demands.

Don’t you think that US demands are based on past experiences?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

First demand is to stop defensive missiles program and then US will negotiate.

I think it has more to do with using missiles offensively.  It seems that the current wisdom is to not get caught up in an invasion of Iran.  That should be a better deterrent than missiles.  Any missiles that Iran has will be targeted first.

 

USA already negotiated and moved out of the deal, loosing all it's credibility (as if it had any because of crooked politicians).

We lost credibility when we entered the deal.  Now we have that credibility back.  We lost it because of crooked politicians like Kerry and Obama allowing Iran to take advantage of us in such a manner.

 

Iranians are not tiny sellouts to succumb to demands of liars, they are big and prideful nation.

But it’s ok for them to lie?  What nation isn’t prideful?

 

You expect Khamenei to say that ''negotiation is God given right, especially when your partner demands you to give concessions to even get to the table''.

Seems only fair.  The US has given one concession after another without getting any in return.

 

As Mr Zarif say and explains : 

Nice sob story.  Clearly an exercise in CYA.  If Iran was not such a pariah, then maybe they wouldn’t have needed to go begging from one country to another and being turned down.  They complain about missiles raining down on their cities but have no qualm about supplying missiles to proxies to rain down on Israeli cities.  Are we supposed to feel bad for them?

 

So please research the subject properly before engaging in jet another, seemingly for you - ''open window'' for attacks on Islam. This is about politics.

I do a lot of research.

 

Now i know you won't either watch this statement by Zarif nor will you address my points,

I watched it.  And I believe I have addressed your points.

 

as if you and some people here are simply present to smear and attack topics of this kind,

And some people here ignore the facts.  If there is a smear, it’s not because I’m trying to smear anything.  I try to understand it.  If it is an inconvenient truth to some, so be it.

 

rather than to confront with facts and engage in interesting discussion.

I challenge with a most interesting discussion.  It just gets too close to the quick.  The why is what interests me.  It is in that where the truth lies.

 

You could learn from Mr. @RoofGardener, he is civilized enough to understand the difference between politics and religion and at least peeks into some of arguments.

We may not be in lockstep, but I’m pretty sure we share many of the same principles.  Politics *IS* the religion of Islam.  You really can’t separate the two.  What’s more interesting than something peeking into an argument is the silence that is generated by facts.

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Russia and from Iran - would surely be noticed ? 

All I can tell you is that his info has correct more often than it has been wrong.  He is former military and that's where his contacts reside.  As to such moves being noticed...by who?  The media?  They're busy right now with anything they can skew to Trump's detriment.  Don't doubt their focus.  They have eyes for NOTHING ELSE.  It may well be that Russia and Iran aren't as "finished" with beating down opposition in Syria as they claim.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, and then said:

All I can tell you is that his info has correct more often than it has been wrong.  He is former military and that's where his contacts reside.  As to such moves being noticed...by who?  The media?  They're busy right now with anything they can skew to Trump's detriment.  Don't doubt their focus.  They have eyes for NOTHING ELSE.  It may well be that Russia and Iran aren't as "finished" with beating down opposition in Syria as they claim.

American media might be like that, but British media is NOT. For NONE of them to have picked up on this - nor the wire services (AFP, Reuters etc) - well, that is passing strange. 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

12 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And Khamenei has no respect for non-believers.  He wouldn’t have risen to be the Supreme Leader in a theocracy if he did. 

Those are your assumptions  You could be right but also, you could be wrong and that's main reason why i such avoid assumptions. Back in hostage crisis Ayatollah, not this one but they share same values, released some hostages and they were ''infidels'' lol

12 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Don’t you think that US demands are based on past experiences?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

 

 

US has gone out of the deal, not Iran.

And some wars were started over false reasons so no one is in moral high position and no one is able to preach to Iran, especially not in the manner it's done by the US officials (but not all of them, many are vocal in support of non interventionism).

12 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

We lost credibility when we entered the deal.  Now we have that credibility back.  We lost it because of crooked politicians like Kerry and Obama allowing Iran to take advantage of us in such a manner.

Yes, what we are seeing with Trump is America first, finally...

 

[RavenHawk]

On 5/31/2019 at 4:41 AM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Those are your assumptions  You could be right but also, you could be wrong and that's main reason why i such avoid assumptions.

It’s called an educated guess but I understand why you would defend yourself and call it an assumption.  Are not backbiting, slander, and malicious gossip considered sins in Islam?  Making such educated guesses could fall under these categories.  You can’t partake in such whether it is true or not.

 

Back in hostage crisis Ayatollah, not this one but they share same values, released some hostages and they were ''infidels'' lol

And what is that supposed to mean?  You release a few “infidels” and no one can say that you didn’t.  This is pure deception.  That seems to reflect the constraint on backbiting.

 

US has gone out of the deal, not Iran.

We got out of a deal that we should have never entered.  It was wrong on every level.

 

And some wars were started over false reasons so no one is in moral high position and no one is able to preach to Iran, especially not in the manner it's done by the US officials (but not all of them, many are vocal in support of non interventionism).

A war with Iran wouldn’t need false reasons.  The question would be to what extent?  I don’t think we need boots on the ground.  Iran is already the isolated pariah.  Trump is better at wielding sanctions than a carrier group.  He’ll use the military option to setup “The Deal”.  Iran is definitely not on any kind of moral high ground.  If they think they are, then they can continue to preach and they’ll see what happens.

 

Yes, what we are seeing with Trump is America first, finally...

Do I get the feeling that you do not understand that phrase?

[Sir Smoke aLot]

11 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s called an educated guess but I understand why you would defend yourself and call it an assumption.

Let me see if i understand this... To state my opinion, for which i have no doubts, is called ''defending''? 

To make an educated guess one has to be educated in the subject. To make baseless accusation is not sign of knowledge about the subject.

11 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Do I get the feeling that you do not understand that phrase?

Well since Trump is very smart it takes a lot to understand words of his stature so you might have a point here, i fail to comprehend the greatness.

 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

 

 

The terrible punctuation just makes that even more entertaining. 

[RavenHawk]

10 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Let me see if i understand this... To state my opinion, for which i have no doubts, is called ''defending''?

In this particular case yes.  You come to the defense of Khomeini and try to insult Trump.  The main difference being that one is Muslim and one isn’t.  At least you are a credit to your faith and that is not a knock.

 

To make an educated guess one has to be educated in the subject. To make baseless accusation is not sign of knowledge about the subject.

I should say thank you.  You inadvertently acknowledged that I do know a little something of which I speak.  

 

Well since Trump is very smart it takes a lot to understand words of his stature so you might have a point here, i fail to comprehend the greatness.

No, you just failed to comprehend the meaning.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

In this particular case yes.  You come to the defense of Khomeini and try to insult Trump.

Wrong in both cases. I stated historical fact about released prisoners. That was not defense of Khomeini but little insight into essence of their ideology, that of Islamic Republic of Iran.

2nd, i did not try to insult Trump i merely posted what he says and does and also i posted his tweet so let me try to understand this... You claim that Trump is insulting him self? Or that his fingers are anti-Trump? US soft power is on decline, that's factual and i am not happy about it.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

No, you just failed to comprehend the meaning.

It's ok to make assumptions, we all do everyday about many things but to claim that some of those assumptions are universal truth, without shred of evidence, that's wrong, to say the least. You failed mister, this ain't about me or about my comprehension of the meaning but about you and your tries to force your assumptions by means of destroying others credibility (be it Iran, Islam or me, as evident in ''comprehend'' part).

You can do better i am sure of it.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

21 hours ago, Setton said:

The terrible punctuation just makes that even more entertaining. 

His tweets on Stephen Coldbert show have very high entertainment value but there is some magic in it's raw form too lol