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 -
Sir Smoke aLot

New Israel-Lebanon war on horizon?

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

They where not in predominantly Jewish lands ? Hmm... I guess that depends on how far back into history you want to go ? 

Now, surely you know that "Israel" was a lot more than the House of Judah, and Israelis did not practice the Jewish faith. For the last 1,000 years the land was called Palestine and if you see it as a good thing that Israel gets taken back, then surely you won't mind if the Jebusites take back Jerusalem. 

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

In more recent times; these where (approximately) Christian lands. Bethlehem ? Jerusalem ? Ring any bells from the Bible ? 

Of course there were Christians there but they were really stunted by the Muslims.

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

The muslims are invaders. I though "right of conquest" gave no legal rights on the land ? So why do you happily recognise it as "muslim land" ? 

Fine. that it all goes back to the Canaanites which there are some amongst Palestinians. Those Johnny-come-lately euro jews will just have to go back home.

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

In terms of "...ISIS building a caliphate", then.. in purely territorial grounds, I guess you are correct. However, you can't compare the behaviour of ISIS with the behaviour of the state of Israel. 

And why can't you compare the two, because the Jews didn't cut off heads and put the vid on Utube?
The end result was the same. "Clear the land of religious undesirables". 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Truly ? I thought it was Syrian territory ? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms#History

That was the UN's wrongful opinion. Even the Syrians admit that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese land. The famers there pay taxes to Lebanon.

The reason why the UN chose to call it Syrian land is because UN resolution 425 ordered Israel out of all Lebanese land, which included Shebaa Farms. But if they called it "Syrian" land, then Israel was not to be held accountable by the UN for being in violation of # 425.

Clever UN, eh?

Like it made a big difference LOL. Israel disobeyed UN res 425 from 1978 to 2000, and it should never matter WHO owns the land, it is not Israeli land, and that alone makes then illegal occupiers.

NOTE: Sheba Farms does not abut Israel. It abuts Lebanon and Syria.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
40 minutes ago, and then said:

I'd remind you that people who read the scripture (Ezekiel 37) mocked believers then who said the Jews would return to Zion and a nation would be born in a day.  They mocked until 15 May, 1948.

God works in strange ways, eh?

Sorta makes one wonder about "determinism". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
17 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Yet the only ones playing the bullies in the region are Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia.  Israel has constantly invaded surrounding territories, the US has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and being involved in numerous other wars in Somalia, Syria...and Saudi Arabia has invaded Yemen supported again, by US led allies in the region.  Let's also not forget that the most murderous group of terrorists that was ever created (ISIS) was supported and funded by Saudi Arabia.  Just to finish in crescendo let's also remember all the recent attempts by the dynamic duo Bolton/Pompeo to go to war against Iran for the most innocuous and feeble reasons but sure, let's fall into the deceiving trap of our western leaders and claim Iran to be the warmongers wanting to become the regional powerhouse.  The poor ba$tards can't even sell their oil, squashed by the US/SA petrodollar.

Maybe you and others here need to encrypt something into your signatures once and for all, I don't believe anyone here supports the Iranian regime, we just don't fall for the political twists our Govts plot for their own selfish agendas. 

Essentially all of that is just wrong and completely emotionally driven.

Israel has fought mostly if not exclusively defensive wars, it really comes down to the definition one wants to use, along with having decent relations with half of its immediate neighbors for the past few decades.

Out of the wars you mentioned America being involved in the only two that could be called into question is Iraq and Syria.  While Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction Saddam did do everything in his power to make it look like he did or was developing them.  Saddam was also violating the disarmament agreement that ended the first gulf war and was warned repeatedly for years that continued violation of it would result in military action taken against Iraq.  As for Syria America did have to enter to help fight ISIS.  Syria, Russia, and Iran were more interested in keeping Assad in power then in defeating ISIS meaning they fought who ever the greatest threat was at the time which caused them to fluctuate between focusing on ISIS and the various rebel groups.  Also without America entering into Syria Iran would of had a much large presence within Syria which would of drastically increased the chance of Israel taking even more extreme measures then what they are taking now.

Saudi Arabia had got involved militarily in Yemen after the Houthis hearing only a rumor of Saudi Arabia planning to get involved threatened to invade Saudi Arabia and overthrow the Saudi government.  After that threat Saudi Arabia decided to accept the request for military support from the internationally recognized Yemeni government.  Not really the invasion you make it out to be.  

Certain wealthy individuals within Saudi Arabia did help fund ISIS, wealthy individuals is not the government unlike the Iranian government which does directly fund terror groups, but funding isn't what created ISIS.  What created ISIS was the Shia lead Iraq government, specifically al Maliki who had the backing of Iran when he first started, deciding to purge the government and military leadership of any and all Sunnis essentially disenfranchising approximately 20% of the population which lead to the Sunnis revolting and ISIS to establish itself and become a prominent group during the chaos.  

As for what you call innocuous and feeble reasons you completely ignore that Iran is an actual state sponsor of terrorism.  Unlike Saudi Arabia and other gulf states where individual citizens fund Sunni terror groups, of which some of these Sunni terror groups also receive funding from individuals in Europe and America, Iran as state policy funds terror and separatist groups throughout the region and world.  Some of the groups Iran has funded has included the Armenian secret army which was meant to destabilize Turkey before the Armenian secret army fell apart, the Japanese Red army which were communist terrorist who plotted attacks against American interests across far east Asia, various factions of the Taliban which for some reason most people treat as a monolithic group of people instead of multiple factions with various degrees of alignment of which Iran opposed some factions and backed/aided others, and countless Iraqi militias and terror groups among many other groups but I'm too lazy to list them all.  

Ultimately it would be better to nip the problem with Iran in the bud now while it would remain largely a regional problem instead of waiting for it to grow even larger and more destructive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/09/02/hezbollah-chief-nasrallah-knows-exactly-why-he-is-in-a-bunker-israeli-pm-netanyahu-says-after-border-violence/ 

Netanyahu says the only reason there wasn't massive retaliation- instead of "just" the 100 artillery shells is that no Israeli troops were injured. "Not even a scratch".  

I find it hard to believe because the video shows two missiles hit that truck and there are some pictures of alleged evacuation of injured troops but those pictures are fake most likely, made in some prior event.

I do hope that you are correct tho, short lived exchange ended up well in that case.

BTW Nasrallah's head is on target list since 1980's, he is in hiding since then for good reason.

9 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, that is confusing. 

Your comments about ".. it's a sin to kill over another mans belief.." is incorrect under Islam. It is Islamic orthodoxy to kill nonbelievers. 

It's not Islamic to kill nonbelievers because they are nonbelievers. Don't be silly. That's like twisted interpretation of Jihad, which is defensive war not offensive head chopping and murders of 'infidels'. Most people who have mouthful of Sharia do not even know the meaning behind it and there are million examples which disprove such falsities, many from accepted history records too.

Again, there is no Islamic orthodoxy or anything else which you name, there is one Islam only because there is one holy book and one source, unchanged, constant. Saudi sects can have their own twisted ways, and remember that because that is important factor in this equation.

It's very interesting to see how those claims against Islam - claims which are part of larger agenda - they all have the same source and are made from study of writings written by figures from extremists.

Instead of judging Islam through Bin Laden you should learn to appreciate what normal people and true representatives of faith are saying. It's much better approach, rather than giving importance to radical elements because by doing so you are actually promoting such sick ideas and damage your relationship with Islam. But, that is agenda anyways and many do cheer about (some of which i named here, organizations which are linked with top officials).

Subject was discussed on this forum numerous times over the years and i found that those who attack Islam do not have valid argumentation to offer so it's usually empty discussion to lead, maybe people are just not interested in other sources than propaganda ones. I might be wrong of course, but that's how i see it. You just continue to write the same non truths, as if that will make people believe in them as truth. It's not about quantity you know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
10 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Not so long ago everyone was hostile to gay people. But the world is changing, somewhere that process is slow but it is happening. Is Iranian government made up of religious extremists? Maybe, but MAYBE there are fascists in every nation's administrations. Such allegations are too far reaching and mostly come around laws which are present all over Asia, Africa and ME. Many nations execute people for crimes, even democratic ones.

Crime act of doing that which is outlawed by law. In Iran there are many ''crimes'' but Iran today is not the same as Iran 40 or 60 years ago.

I do not base my opinion over rights of LGBT community nor will i ever try to impose my standards on others.

That is fascism and for that reason many people died and are dying and i felt that on my skin too, since you mention Bosnia.

I felt that because others tried to say that i can not exist simply because i am Muslim, in the hearth of Europe. Worldwide aristocracy (democratic saints which you speak of) were watching blood of my people for years, were talking BS and enjoying entertainment while people died because they were born. Is that value which Iran should adopt? Who are you or me or anyone to say how someone should lead their nations?

No one has moral high ground, sorry but no one. Think about that and let people live like they chose, not like you think is proper way to live. If someone doesn't wan't gay people in their countries it's their sovereign right if majority decide so, that is basis of democracy - majority decides.

 

Most western countries do not execute people for crimes and being Gay is definitely not a crime.  The war in Bosnia against Muslims was wrong, so you more than others should understand and be more considerate for things such as crimes against minorities and others (such as Gays) that don't fit in with the perfect Islamic model.  If that's what Islam teachers then it's a rotten doctrine.

I'm confused by your post.  First you say:

'I do not base my opinion over rights of LGBT community nor will i ever try to impose my standards on others.

That is fascism and for that reason many people died and are dying and i felt that on my skin too, since you mention Bosnia.'

then you seem to acknowledge the exact opposite.

It's not about high moral ground it's about humanity.  You say nobody has a right to interfere with what the majority in a country decides.  How about the rights of Gays?  How about the discrimination of women (I'm talking about Iran and SA, not Bosnia)? How about if your son was born Gay, would you be OK if he was condemned to death?  Sorry that's not Democracy, taking peoples rights away and discriminating against minorities IS fascism. 

10 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

US could but it would have to sacrifice tens of thousands of troops. In order to make ground for ground invasion Iran would have to be leveled to the ground with bombs so there is question if such move would be in US interest.

To even question US military might is silly thing and i said that in numerous posts here, but sometimes even politicians realize if something is worth it or not. Israel is not even comparable with Iran, regardless of media tries to portrait it as such.

Not sure about tens of thousands of troops dying.  Look at how the US has Iran en-capsuled.

image.png.8d90445ae4291900ce9533eb1718298f.png

US troops would come poring in from every angle, by sea, land and air and they'd be in Tehran before Ali Khamenei would finish saying Allahu Akbar.  You're right, it's silly to question the military power of nations such as the US and Russia which is why I pointed that out to you.  The world needs to try to diminish the power and expense these nations subsidise their military with, not try to match them.

 

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
10 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Still didn't notice other countries as prominent as Israel.  Actually, the Union Jack in your list seems quite noticeable, not sure if it's the fully flagged one or the quarter flagged with the southern cross below it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
Just now, Black Red Devil said:

The war in Bosnia against Muslims was wrong, so you more than others should understand and be more considerate for things such as crimes against minorities and others (such as Gays) that don't fit in with the perfect Islamic model.

It's not about what i think or believe but about legal system of whole nation. It's up to them to reach level of tolerance which others have reached and it's not up to us. We can offer advice but we can not judge them by our standards. Not so long ago situation was the same worldwide and while West has learned to give rights to many groups of people, in some other aspects other nations are better. Should they impose their worldview?

5 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

It's not about high moral ground it's about humanity.  You say nobody has a right to interfere with what the majority in a country decides.  How about the rights of Gays?  How about the discrimination of women (I'm talking about Iran and SA, not Bosnia)? How about if your son was born Gay, would you be OK if he was condemned to death?  Sorry that's not Democracy, taking peoples rights away and discriminating against minorities IS fascism. 

What is humanity? Where is it? I see cruelty, lack of care for less fortunate people and all sorts of inhumane acts - all across the world. Of course it's about arrogance in belief that one's world view is better and that it gives them moral high ground to preach around.

Again, it's not about how i feel and right of self determination on national level is something far greater than individual freedom in many nations. I do not hear outcries or demand made on them. I do not want to list world alliances now and those made and broken since end of WW2 but you would be surprised how differences find common language, regardless of issues. Gay people are not the only group which is deprived of every civilized treatment or rights, did you know that?

8 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Not sure about tens of thousands of troops dying.  Look at how the US has Iran en-capsuled.

You might think that it would be an easy feat. I agree but only if USA is ready to commit mass bombing and slaughter of 90% of Iranian population. In that case US casualties would not be high. I like to believe that such evil act will not be done in this world, at least not by the USA.

This is also modern warfare now. US does have many advantages over it's adversaries but it's not as easy as before because that advantage does not equal to superiority. By superiority i think of being able to strike your targets without risking damage to your self.

Then there is terrain geography in Iran. There is desert area with harsh climate, winds (which once resulted in US group being crippled without single shot fired from Iranians). And there are also 85 million of little obstacles in that nation. Iraq was hard fight, decisive victory in the end but aftermath and years which followed proved how it was disaster in the end, especially because US - Iraq relations are not so good now, after so many sacrifices.

Syria, since 2011 war is dragged even tho militias (supported by coalition partners against Assad) had about 3 years to accomplish what was asked for. Many people left Syrian Arab Army in those years and Assad was left in tough position with little to no control over larger areas. But war failed for 'revolutionaries'. They failed, then Russia entered the scene at end of 2014, early 2015. Iraq war made way for isis so that is one reason why Syrian 'revolution' failed too, because isis was green light for Russia to intervene.

Syria has like 24 million people. Of course, US did not wage that war and US could end Assad rule in relatively short time but Syrian 'opposition' was well equipped, quite well, but the game has changed.

To shorten this, there are many implications and considerations to take when talk about Iran war and that is precisely the reason why over decade (officially) of calls for war on Iran (cooked in Netanyahu's office) have not resulted in the war. There are smart generals in the US and i believe that they did consider every possibility. Many high ranking officers and former generals have spoken about this over the years and i do find them relevant as strategists.

There is good article on NY Times, about that warmongering which i mention, LINK.

All in all, Iran is too big to digest and Iranian people have learned to be hostile towards foreign influence, they are not driven by force which removed Saddam.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

 

20 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Still didn't notice other countries as prominent as Israel.  Actually, the Union Jack in your list seems quite noticeable, not sure if it's the fully flagged one or the quarter flagged with the southern cross below it. :P

Actually, the two most prominent are China and the Soviet Union, I believe ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

As for what you call innocuous and feeble reasons you completely ignore that Iran is an actual state sponsor of terrorism. 

And why is that, because Iran funds Hezbollah, who is fighting Israel? That doesn't make anybody terrorists but in the US government's eyes, if you say anything unflattering about Israel, you're a terrorist!

I'm pretty sure I know better.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
27 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And why is that, because Iran funds Hezbollah, who is fighting Israel? That doesn't make anybody terrorists but in the US government's eyes, if you say anything unflattering about Israel, you're a terrorist!

I'm pretty sure I know better.

The Armenian Secret Army, Japanese Red Army, countless Shia militia/terror groups during the US occupation of Iraq, Houthis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, various terror groups in Bahrain, and certain factions of the Taliban.

The first 2 in the list fell apart relatively early but Iran still aided them.  Besides from terror groups Iran has also been responsible for terror attacks being planned or having been done in Denmark, France, Thailand, Argentina, Kenya, India, and Albania.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

It's not about what i think or believe but about legal system of whole nation. It's up to them to reach level of tolerance which others have reached and it's not up to us. We can offer advice but we can not judge them by our standards. Not so long ago situation was the same worldwide and while West has learned to give rights to many groups of people, in some other aspects other nations are better. Should they impose their worldview?

What is humanity? Where is it? I see cruelty, lack of care for less fortunate people and all sorts of inhumane acts - all across the world. Of course it's about arrogance in belief that one's world view is better and that it gives them moral high ground to preach around.

 

What do you see that's better in a nation that follows strict religious or political rule?  It's called dictatorship in other words.  There is no free will for people to decide who should run their country, their laws are brutal and archaic, every NGO will tell you their Human Rights records are among the worst.  Now you might say this is what they believe in, but is it or is just the despots deciding?  Chopping heads off and treating women as second class citizens doesn't belong to the 21st century.

7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Again, it's not about how i feel and right of self determination on national level is something far greater than individual freedom in many nations. I do not hear outcries or demand made on them. I do not want to list world alliances now and those made and broken since end of WW2 but you would be surprised how differences find common language, regardless of issues. Gay people are not the only group which is deprived of every civilized treatment or rights, did you know that?

 

No they're not but at least the other groups don't get killed for what they are, at least not in western nations.

7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

To shorten this, there are many implications and considerations to take when talk about Iran war and that is precisely the reason why over decade (officially) of calls for war on Iran (cooked in Netanyahu's office) have not resulted in the war. There are smart generals in the US and i believe that they did consider every possibility. Many high ranking officers and former generals have spoken about this over the years and i do find them relevant as strategists.

There is good article on NY Times, about that warmongering which i mention, LINK.

All in all, Iran is too big to digest and Iranian people have learned to be hostile towards foreign influence, they are not driven by force which removed Saddam.

 

The bottom line is that every Middle Eastern country is subject to the political whims of the west and this has been happening since the Ottoman Empire fell.  Yep, even Iran.  If they don't ditch their archaic religious beliefs and laws ruling their countries they will never progress and until they don't get rid of the dictators enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the population they will remain religiously devoted and ignorant.  All their weapons are fabricated by mostly Americans, Jews, Europeans (including Russians) and Chinese.  They have no technology and are limited by what other countries have developed.  The whole region is backwards and don't stand a chance against western technology and especially against the military technology of the US who dedicates more money towards Defense than most countries have as GDP.

The only two things that would save Iran from being totally destroyed (in case of a war against the US) would be Russian intervention or pressure from the rest of the world and most importantly from their own public opinion to avoid a war, which is probably why Trump didn't attack Iran a couple of months ago (he probably wouldn't have invaded though).  Hopefully it never comes to that and up to now I only see belligerent activity from one direction, from the US/SA/Israeli's. Iran needs to be careful though because as I said, they wouldn't stand a chance if they are found to be provoking a war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
RoofGardener
14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That was the UN's wrongful opinion. Even the Syrians admit that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese land. The famers there pay taxes to Lebanon.

The reason why the UN chose to call it Syrian land is because UN resolution 425 ordered Israel out of all Lebanese land, which included Shebaa Farms. But if they called it "Syrian" land, then Israel was not to be held accountable by the UN for being in violation of # 425.

Clever UN, eh?

Like it made a big difference LOL. Israel disobeyed UN res 425 from 1978 to 2000, and it should never matter WHO owns the land, it is not Israeli land, and that alone makes then illegal occupiers.

NOTE: Sheba Farms does not abut Israel. It abuts Lebanon and Syria.

 

Umm... no.. not really @Earl.Of.Trumps

The farmers did indeed pay taxes to Lebanon. But that was because they didn't live on the Shebaa Farms. They lived in the nearby village of Shebaa, which was - without question - within the Lebanon borders. However, the Shebaa Farm lands where Syrian. Probably.

There has been confusion about who's territory it is since the 1920's, with various historians and social cartographers weighing in on different sides. To quote wikipedia... "on the eve of the 1967 war, the territory was under Syrian control...". 

So Israel took it from the Syrians, and not from Lebanon. It was nothing to do with resolution 425, which happened 11 years afterwards. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms#Territorial_dispute

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
10 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Essentially all of that is just wrong and completely emotionally driven.

Israel has fought mostly if not exclusively defensive wars, it really comes down to the definition one wants to use, along with having decent relations with half of its immediate neighbors for the past few decades.

 

You call it emotionally driven, I call them facts.  Has Israel not conducted pre-emptive attacks?  Has Israel not invaded surrounding countries?  Has Israel not invaded and occupied parts of Syria and the West Bank.  You'll say there are reasons for the attacks and invasions but the occupation of the Golan Hts and Palestinian lands is condemned internationally, so who's wrong?

11 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Out of the wars you mentioned America being involved in the only two that could be called into question is Iraq and Syria.  While Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction Saddam did do everything in his power to make it look like he did or was developing them.  Saddam was also violating the disarmament agreement that ended the first gulf war and was warned repeatedly for years that continued violation of it would result in military action taken against Iraq.  As for Syria America did have to enter to help fight ISIS.  Syria, Russia, and Iran were more interested in keeping Assad in power then in defeating ISIS meaning they fought who ever the greatest threat was at the time which caused them to fluctuate between focusing on ISIS and the various rebel groups.  Also without America entering into Syria Iran would of had a much large presence within Syria which would of drastically increased the chance of Israel taking even more extreme measures then what they are taking now.

 

Where do you get your info from, Breibart?  Saddam didn't have WMD remember?  Those same weapons he was accused of having given to him by Rumsfeld to fight Iran.  Listen to General Clark's video when told they were about to invade Iraq, nobody even knew why.

As for ISIS, the majority of damage was done by the Russian bombings and Kurdish ground troops, not the US.  CIA operatives and US special operations troops were involved in training and armed nearly 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year since 2012. 

11 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Saudi Arabia had got involved militarily in Yemen after the Houthis hearing only a rumor of Saudi Arabia planning to get involved threatened to invade Saudi Arabia and overthrow the Saudi government.  After that threat Saudi Arabia decided to accept the request for military support from the internationally recognized Yemeni government.  Not really the invasion you make it out to be.  

Certain wealthy individuals within Saudi Arabia did help fund ISIS, wealthy individuals is not the government unlike the Iranian government which does directly fund terror groups, but funding isn't what created ISIS.  What created ISIS was the Shia lead Iraq government, specifically al Maliki who had the backing of Iran when he first started, deciding to purge the government and military leadership of any and all Sunnis essentially disenfranchising approximately 20% of the population which lead to the Sunnis revolting and ISIS to establish itself and become a prominent group during the chaos.  

 

Invade Saudi Arabia!? :lol: It was an Arab Spring uprise to rid themselves of Saudi Arabian Sunni authoritarian puppet Govts (including the previous one) in a country with a large Shia population being discriminated against.  Actually even the Sunni population eventually joined in to fight the corrupt and rich dictatorship.  Just because Saudi Arabia hides behind 'private' funding doesn't fool anybody.  Similar to all the 'privately funded' mosques they were sending their preachers of hatred to instigate their 'followers' against western society. 

ISIS created by the Shia led Govt?! Where do you get this info from?  ISIS was created from a splinter group out of Al Queda.  Al Baghdadi was their leader and a Sunni.

12 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

 

As for what you call innocuous and feeble reasons you completely ignore that Iran is an actual state sponsor of terrorism.  Unlike Saudi Arabia and other gulf states where individual citizens fund Sunni terror groups, of which some of these Sunni terror groups also receive funding from individuals in Europe and America, Iran as state policy funds terror and separatist groups throughout the region and world.  Some of the groups Iran has funded has included the Armenian secret army which was meant to destabilize Turkey before the Armenian secret army fell apart, the Japanese Red army which were communist terrorist who plotted attacks against American interests across far east Asia, various factions of the Taliban which for some reason most people treat as a monolithic group of people instead of multiple factions with various degrees of alignment of which Iran opposed some factions and backed/aided others, and countless Iraqi militias and terror groups among many other groups but I'm too lazy to list them all.  

Ultimately it would be better to nip the problem with Iran in the bud now while it would remain largely a regional problem instead of waiting for it to grow even larger and more destructive.

You're being gullible.  You're just peddling the lies from your Govt because Saudi Arabia is an ally financially and politically.  It also helps establish a buffer between Sunni Arab States and Israel.  Both Iran and SA are authoritarian dictatorships who sponsor terrorism but by all means, feel free to gulp up and believe what Fox News peddles to the American public. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Not sure about tens of thousands of troops dying.  Look at how the US has Iran en-capsuled.

image.png.8d90445ae4291900ce9533eb1718298f.png

US troops would come poring in from every angle, by sea, land and air and they'd be in Tehran before Ali Khamenei would finish saying Allahu Akbar.  You're right, it's silly to question the military power of nations such as the US and Russia which is why I pointed that out to you.  The world needs to try to diminish the power and expense these nations subsidise their military with, not try to match them.

 

Hmm.. dunno @Black Red Devil. The flags look impressive, but the USA actually has very few troops in Afghanistan or Pakistan.. or Iraq, for that matter. It seems unlikely that Iraq would permit the US to stage hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, aircraft etc in its territory. Ditto Saudi Arabia, Armenia, let alone Pakistan. 

The terrain in Iran is mountainous. It resembles Afghanistan, but the USA only had a few thousand troops in that conflict. What they DID have was a large native force (the Northern Alliance) to do most of the fighting, The USA primarily had special forces as military advisors and forward air controllers. (and they used a huge amount of air power to support the Northern Alliance). 

There are NO friendly forces in Iran; no equivalent of the Northern Alliance. If the USA attempted to go in as it did in Iraq, everybodies hand would be against them. The terrain does not really favour tanks. It would be mountain fighting against an entrenched force. 

It might be able to do a limited incursion of the coastal towns and cities, using a forced maritime landing, but the idea of it pushing inland to take Tehran - for example - is wishful thinking. It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to do that, and they would take massive casualties. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

You call it emotionally driven, I call them facts.  Has Israel not conducted pre-emptive attacks?  Has Israel not invaded surrounding countries?  Has Israel not invaded and occupied parts of Syria and the West Bank.  You'll say there are reasons for the attacks and invasions but the occupation of the Golan Hts and Palestinian lands is condemned internationally, so who's wrong?

Well, they have made ONE pre-emptive attack; that was the 1967 war, and Egypt was massively mobilising against them. One attack in 60 years hardly seems like a habit :D 

There's a curious outcome from their invasion of the West Bank. I assume you know that - prior to 1967 - Jordan had not only invaded the West Bank, but had annexed it into Jordan. All of the residents of the West Bank became Jordanian citizens. The idea of a separate Palestinian nationality was crushed for all time, or so it seemed. And this was in accordance with PLO strategy; they didn't WANT a 'Palestinian State', they wanted the Levant to become Jordanian and Syrian. Recall that the letters "PLO" stand for the PALESTINE Liberation Organisation, not the PALESTINIAN Liberation Organisation. 

By invading - but not annexing - the West Bank, Israel effectively re-ignited the dream of a Palestinian state. Jordan - in a fit of pique - withdrew the Jordanian citizenship of all of the "Palestinians" (including those settled in Jordan, rather cruelly). For the first time EVER, the seeds had been set for a future Palestinian state. And all because of Israel ! 

Whoda Thunkit ? 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

What do you see that's better in a nation that follows strict religious or political rule?  It's called dictatorship in other words.  There is no free will for people to decide who should run their country, their laws are brutal and archaic, every NGO will tell you their Human Rights records are among the worst.  Now you might say this is what they believe in, but is it or is just the despots deciding?  Chopping heads off and treating women as second class citizens doesn't belong to the 21st century.

Human right records. OK. But let me ask you, human rights from who's perspective? Head chopping is Saudi thing, you've mistaken. In Iran, when someone kills other man's child that father can ask for death sentence for revenge.

In many cases, because offenders were teenagers or young people - mothers and fathers of murdered child have forgiven the offender and state always respects that decision. LINK

When that happens in country which is Western favorite, Saudi Arabia then tell me how Iran is ''chopping heads, has despots, brutality''. Are you even serious? When did mother of murdered kid save life of her child's murderer elsewhere? Would state allow it? No, of course that state would not allow it because ''law'' overrules humanity. There are many examples all around so called free world.

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

No they're not but at least the other groups don't get killed for what they are, at least not in western nations.

There are many who get killed, prosecuted, expelled... But they have no media behind their backs and sometimes it's about hundreds of thousands of people, just like in Myanmar. Again, let others make their politics - brutality against gay people will backfire on them, as will any other evil.

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

The bottom line is that every Middle Eastern country is subject to the political whims of the west and this has been happening since the Ottoman Empire fell. 

That is true for most part but not every ME country. Syria was not the one, and there are numerous evidences for Western intervention in order to break it up, LINK.

Is this the democracy which those divine Western saints are bringing :

 

Does the cost and brutality which comes from intervention play any part in logic of superior people's?

Iran is sovereign country since 1979.

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

The whole region is backwards and don't stand a chance against western technology and especially against the military technology of the US who dedicates more money towards Defense than most countries have as GDP.

So what you are basically saying is that this is the same time like it was when British Empire was holding whole world under it's foot? Why didn't Vietnam feel some democracy? Why didn't North Korea? And why numerous other countries endured the pressure? Because by preaching of values West has almost deprived them self of the 'luxury' of taking by force. With imperialistic history of Western ''moral superior'' nations i really find my self amused by your reply.

Same pattern which we have seen all over ME was also happening in South America, then also few tries of military coup by Western favorite democrat of Venezuela, Guaido who BTW is no where to be seen, preparing something new or what? All endorsed by we all know who.

So what you are saying is that if someone is inferior in weaponry they must follow others leadership? Condoleza Rice and numerous of other figures openly called for ''new Middle East'' and infamously said ''you are with us or against us'' - all in favor of Israeli desires - policy which has left ME in ruins. So who is backwards, can you answer that question? Or let me rephrase, who is more backwards then the other?

I am not deluded (not saying that you are) with anyone's rhetoric, wherever it comes from. One can not understand situation without taking into account history, period of at least 150 years back and applying it to whichever region is in question.

War on terror increased terror. War on drugs increased drugs. All legacy of the West. So speaking about backwardness... There are many doors to knock on my friend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. dunno @Black Red Devil. The flags look impressive, but the USA actually has very few troops in Afghanistan or Pakistan.. or Iraq, for that matter. It seems unlikely that Iraq would permit the US to stage hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, aircraft etc in its territory. Ditto Saudi Arabia, Armenia, let alone Pakistan. 

The terrain in Iran is mountainous. It resembles Afghanistan, but the USA only had a few thousand troops in that conflict. What they DID have was a large native force (the Northern Alliance) to do most of the fighting, The USA primarily had special forces as military advisors and forward air controllers. (and they used a huge amount of air power to support the Northern Alliance). 

There are NO friendly forces in Iran; no equivalent of the Northern Alliance. If the USA attempted to go in as it did in Iraq, everybodies hand would be against them. The terrain does not really favour tanks. It would be mountain fighting against an entrenched force. 

It might be able to do a limited incursion of the coastal towns and cities, using a forced maritime landing, but the idea of it pushing inland to take Tehran - for example - is wishful thinking. It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to do that, and they would take massive casualties. 

Having bases in surrounding countries allows the US to have intel in proximity of the enemy.  It's not only about deploying thousands of troops.  They would have 24 hour surveillance and be able to monitor all of Iran's troop movements before deciding how and when to strike.  It's not 1945 anymore where Rommel and Montgomery fight tank battles in the desert.  They would probably take out most of the communication facilities and anti-aircraft sites within the first 24hours and most aircraft within 48 hours.  Then they would probably drop the MOAB's.  Iran would be a wreck before the US even had boots on the ground. 

As reality stands the three Superpowers have weapons that could allow them to invade nowadays any other country in the world, successfully.  When a country spends half a trillion $ on their Defense budget you can be sure they have sophisticated weaponry that allows them not to get caught up in tank battles in mountainous regions. Obviously I'm talking about a full on conventional war between the US and Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, they have made ONE pre-emptive attack; that was the 1967 war, and Egypt was massively mobilising against them. One attack in 60 years hardly seems like a habit :D 

There's a curious outcome from their invasion of the West Bank. I assume you know that - prior to 1967 - Jordan had not only invaded the West Bank, but had annexed it into Jordan. All of the residents of the West Bank became Jordanian citizens. The idea of a separate Palestinian nationality was crushed for all time, or so it seemed. And this was in accordance with PLO strategy; they didn't WANT a 'Palestinian State', they wanted the Levant to become Jordanian and Syrian. Recall that the letters "PLO" stand for the PALESTINE Liberation Organisation, not the PALESTINIAN Liberation Organisation. 

By invading - but not annexing - the West Bank, Israel effectively re-ignited the dream of a Palestinian state. Jordan - in a fit of pique - withdrew the Jordanian citizenship of all of the "Palestinians" (including those settled in Jordan, rather cruelly). For the first time EVER, the seeds had been set for a future Palestinian state. And all because of Israel ! 

Whoda Thunkit ? 

How about 1956 and also they were about to do the same in Yom Kippur but were stopped by Kissinger? 

As for the story about the Palestinians, you want to know something else?  Jews (mainly Ashkenazi) and Palestinians are genetically the closest related.  It's religion that keeps them apart.

Share this post


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

Human right records. OK. But let me ask you, human rights from who's perspective? Head chopping is Saudi thing, you've mistaken. In Iran, when someone kills other man's child that father can ask for death sentence for revenge.

In many cases, because offenders were teenagers or young people - mothers and fathers of murdered child have forgiven the offender and state always respects that decision. LINK

When that happens in country which is Western favorite, Saudi Arabia then tell me how Iran is ''chopping heads, has despots, brutality''. Are you even serious? When did mother of murdered kid save life of her child's murderer elsewhere? Would state allow it? No, of course that state would not allow it because ''law'' overrules humanity. There are many examples all around so called free world.

There are many who get killed, prosecuted, expelled... But they have no media behind their backs and sometimes it's about hundreds of thousands of people, just like in Myanmar. Again, let others make their politics - brutality against gay people will backfire on them, as will any other evil.

That is true for most part but not every ME country. Syria was not the one, and there are numerous evidences for Western intervention in order to break it up, LINK.

Is this the democracy which those divine Western saints are bringing :

 

Does the cost and brutality which comes from intervention play any part in logic of superior people's?

Iran is sovereign country since 1979.

So what you are basically saying is that this is the same time like it was when British Empire was holding whole world under it's foot? Why didn't Vietnam feel some democracy? Why didn't North Korea? And why numerous other countries endured the pressure? Because by preaching of values West has almost deprived them self of the 'luxury' of taking by force. With imperialistic history of Western ''moral superior'' nations i really find my self amused by your reply.

Same pattern which we have seen all over ME was also happening in South America, then also few tries of military coup by Western favorite democrat of Venezuela, Guaido who BTW is no where to be seen, preparing something new or what? All endorsed by we all know who.

So what you are saying is that if someone is inferior in weaponry they must follow others leadership? Condoleza Rice and numerous of other figures openly called for ''new Middle East'' and infamously said ''you are with us or against us'' - all in favor of Israeli desires - policy which has left ME in ruins. So who is backwards, can you answer that question? Or let me rephrase, who is more backwards then the other?

I am not deluded (not saying that you are) with anyone's rhetoric, wherever it comes from. One can not understand situation without taking into account history, period of at least 150 years back and applying it to whichever region is in question.

War on terror increased terror. War on drugs increased drugs. All legacy of the West. So speaking about backwardness... There are many doors to knock on my friend.

So to summarise your whole argument (I think) what you're saying is because no other country is perfect we shouldn't pick on Iran because their beliefs are their beliefs and before we judge them we should look at ourselves.  Right, OK. 

So this is what Iran is guilty of according to Human Rights (NGO's, UN..) link

The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists, writers, and NGOs. The United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission[1] have condemned prior and ongoing abuses in Iran in published critiques and several resolutions. The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments that follow the Islamic Republic's constitution and law, and for actions by state actors that do not, such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians.[2] Capital punishment in Iran remains a matter of international concern.

Restrictions and punishments in the Islamic Republic of Iran which violate international human rights norms include harsh penalties for crimes, punishment of victimless crimes such as fornication and homosexuality, execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on freedom of religion and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion).

Iran's even worse than SA in the executions department.

Executions in Iran and Saudi Arabia (2010–2017)

Year

 

    Saudi Arabia

 

      Iran

 

2010

27

552

2011

82

634

2012

79

544

2013

79

704

2014

90

743

2015

158

977

2016

154

567

2017

146

507

 

This is what Amnesty I'nal says, link

The human rights situation in Iran severely deteriorated. The authorities suppressed the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as well as freedom of religion and belief, and imprisoned hundreds of people who voiced dissent. Trials were systematically unfair. Torture and other ill-treatment were widespread and committed with impunity. Floggings, amputations and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments were carried out. The authorities sanctioned pervasive discrimination and violence based on gender, political opinion, religious belief, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Executions took place, sometimes in public, and thousands remained on death row. They included people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.

Talking about 'acts' from the authorities against their own citizens, do you find any of these things listed above occurring in western nations?  If so, name one or name what western nations are doing wrong that Iran lawfully does better?  Don't give me confusing long spills and go off on a tangent on other things, just answer these questions.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
15 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

How about 1956 and also they were about to do the same in Yom Kippur but were stopped by Kissinger? 

As for the story about the Palestinians, you want to know something else?  Jews (mainly Ashkenazi) and Palestinians are genetically the closest related.  It's religion that keeps them apart.

Ooooooh yes.. I'd forgotten all about Seuz. Mind you... the Egyptians where blockading the Straights of Tiran against Israeli shipping, itself an act of war by international standards.

As for Yom Kippur, I'm amazed you cite that as an example. I'm assuming you where referring to the counter-attack into Syria ? Firstly, might I remind you that Syria made a surprise attack on Israel, on the holiest holiday in its calendar. Israel eventually drove the attack back, and crossed the previous border into Syria proper. 

I'm not sure where you get Kissinger from ? Israel stopped its advance into Syria due to a UN mandated cease-fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm... no.. not really @Earl.Of.Trumps

The farmers did indeed pay taxes to Lebanon. But that was because they didn't live on the Shebaa Farms. They lived in the nearby village of Shebaa, which was - without question - within the Lebanon borders. However, the Shebaa Farm lands where Syrian. Probably.

There has been confusion about who's territory it is since the 1920's, with various historians and social cartographers weighing in on different sides. To quote wikipedia... "on the eve of the 1967 war, the territory was under Syrian control...". 

So Israel took it from the Syrians, and not from Lebanon. It was nothing to do with resolution 425, which happened 11 years afterwards. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms#Territorial_dispute

 

Of course it had nothing to do with #425 *then*, I understand. What it has to do with is the UN's agreeing that Israel is out of bounds of #425 *now*.

I can recall when the UN made the stunning announcement. It may very well be confusing, including two French surveys that declared it Lebanese in one and Syrian in another. Ohhh, those mon amis lol. 

But it seems obvious that if Shebba Farms region has a Lebanese town named Shebba at one end, that likely the land is Lebanese.

I believe that if Syria and Lebanon agree on Shebaa being Lebanese by its long history (context) then the UN should just butt out of it. My opinion.

RoofGardener, you should pay attention to this example of Israeli land grabbing. I have maintained for a long while that Israel - in 1967 most poignantly, were land grabbing revered biblical lands. Israel claimed 1967 was a preemptive strike and has always had a story as to why they grabbed Golan, as an example. They say it was because Syria would have a superior position to launch attacks against Israel so they usurped it. uh huh.

Anyway, look at the lands taken in '67: Golan, Shebaa Farms, West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Gaza, East Jerusalem, Sinai. 
All of these properties are mentioned in the bible. Amazing that, eh? But is this proof of anything? Like I say Israel has an excuse for all acts of aggression and land seizures, except the one, Shebaa Farms.

Shebaa Farms does not border Israel, and is just as its name suggests, all farm land. There were no "terrorists" in Shebba, nor was there any military presence conducting war on Israel. So why did Israel snatch it up? And what *right* did they have to snatch it up?

Uh huh. the electric koolaid acid test.

1967 was nothing but a pure act of aggression to seize revered Jewish biblical lands, as per the long standing Zionist plan. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

There is an interesting article on the Imperial Wireless and Telegraphy website. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49551362

It basically takes 18 paragraphs to say "..we have no idea what is going to happen..".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
19 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

1967 was nothing but a pure act of aggression to seize revered Jewish biblical lands, as per the long standing Zionist plan. 

Hmm.. if that is true, then why Shebba Farms ? I don't recall that being mentioned in the Tanhak ? 

Oh.. unless they got it muddled up with Yemen, and the Queen of Sheba ? :P 

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.