Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[Battlegrinder]

1.Yes,i am amateur.And as a amateur i could say that one attack on the same target could be mistake,but few are enemy action.Unless all leaders were real idiots,but i do not belive that Izrael gave command to idiots.

As it turns out, uncovering the true causes and history of an incident involves more than applying a mangled Ian Fleming quote and calling it a day.

2.None of them when they were allies.And South Korea and Poland never tried that.

That's a goalpost shift, you didn't specify that they had to be allies at the time (and I'm sure there was a friendly fire incident or two during WW2 or Korea).

BTW, what's the cutoff point for when we can no long aid an ally? What if they shoot down a plane, or bomb some troops, or knock out a tank, are those to bad as well, or it is only ships that's past the line, and why is that unacceptable but not the other stuff?

3.incident after which USA financed part of Israel budget all that years.If killing your country sailors led to gaving money to attacker,then kidnaping should lead to giving Iran money,too.

That's a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. One of our ships was attacked by Israel, and we latter provided them with military aid, but there is no casual link between those actions. The only money that changed hands as a direct result of the incident was the Israelis paying restitution to us.

4.Those fanatics do not perform suicidal actions.They send others to do so.They have enough faith to stomach death of enemy,including cyvilians,their soldiers,iranian cyvilians...but their deaths ? NOOOOO ,we are too important to die....
I fear,that you gave them too much credits.Chomeini would gladly die in such situation,but current leaders? they are too important for islam future!

It's far from unheard of for people in leadership, even those that considered themselves of great importance, to put themselves at extreme risk or even certain death to accomplish their wider goals. It's not exactly common, but rare is not the same as "categorically impossible".

 

[King Arts]

It's far from unheard of for people in leadership, even those that considered themselves of great importance, to put themselves at extreme risk or even certain death to accomplish their wider goals. It's not exactly common, but rare is not the same as "categorically impossible".

The same argument applies, to American leaders who support democracy, former Soviet premiers, and current Chinese premiers who support communism as well.

Iran is a nation state and it's relatively stable compared to other Muslim states. There is no good argument that it would use nukes except as a deterrent/defense against invasion by another nuclear power. So I doubt they would attack, America, Europe, or Israel.

 

[LordsFire]

There is no good argument that it would use nukes except as a deterrent/defense against invasion by another nuclear power.

Support this claim.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Support this claim.

Especially since religious fanatics aren't the most rational of people

 

[GoldRanger]

IDF said asking for major budget increase to enable potential strike on Iran

Request for billions of shekels comes as government prepares for possibility that talks to revive nuclear deal will fall apart; Netanyahu accused of neglecting issue

www.timesofisrael.com

The Israel Defense Forces is reportedly asking for a major budget increase worth billions of shekels so that it can properly prepare for a potential attack against Iran’s nuclear program.

The request was made during preliminary discussions on the budget that the new government will seek to pass in the coming months, the Kan public broadcaster reported Wednesday.

Those discussions took place as Israel began preparing for the possibility that indirect negotiations between the US and Iran in Vienna, aimed at reviving their multilateral nuclear agreement, will fall apart, Kan said.

 

[ATP]

And who, exactly, are they sending to do suicidal actions? What guarantee do we have that the people willing to do those suicidal actions aren't going to end up with the keys to the bombs?

Soviet example.In the beginning,they were ruled by fanatics like Lenin,Stalin and even Chruszczow,who backed only becouse in 1961 war mean genocided soviets and few burned american cities.If he must choose mutual anihilation or end of soviets,he would go for war.But in 1985 ,when they have such choice and could start war and burn USA and die,choosed end of soviet union.

The same was with Iran - Chomeini would go for mutual Israel-Iran anihilation,some of his followers,too,but those who rule now? yes,they claim how hate Israel..But - what they did ? they fought /and helped defeat/ ISIOS in Iran and Lebannon,and they fight proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Jemen.
What they did against Israel? when jews take over palestinian land in Jerosolime they fired some of their 150.000+ rockets they havee there,but not most and not better they have.
They are mostly barking there.Why? becouse clearly Saudis are more important enemy for them.And could not burn them in retaliation.

P.S since soviets lost about 10 H and 100+ small A warheads after 1993,i bet that at least some of them belong to Iran now.

 

[ATP]

As it turns out, uncovering the true causes and history of an incident involves more than applying a mangled Ian Fleming quote and calling it a day.



That's a goalpost shift, you didn't specify that they had to be allies at the time (and I'm sure there was a friendly fire incident or two during WW2 or Korea).

BTW, what's the cutoff point for when we can no long aid an ally? What if they shoot down a plane, or bomb some troops, or knock out a tank, are those to bad as well, or it is only ships that's past the line, and why is that unacceptable but not the other stuff?



That's a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. One of our ships was attacked by Israel, and we latter provided them with military aid, but there is no casual link between those actions. The only money that changed hands as a direct result of the incident was the Israelis paying restitution to us.



It's far from unheard of for people in leadership, even those that considered themselves of great importance, to put themselves at extreme risk or even certain death to accomplish their wider goals. It's not exactly common, but rare is not the same as "categorically impossible".

1.Not Fleming,GRU.Once of twice is accident,three is enemy action.

2.USA bombed polish 1th armored dyvision during WW2 killing 100+ soldiers,and later gave us to soviets.But we never attacked USA,which sold us to soviets.Did our military budget is financed by USA? no,we buy american tanks instead of better South Koreans.Which never betrayed or attack us.

3.Israel attacked USA warship,killed sailors,and USA is providing part of it military budget since then.For what? for getting all muslim stated hate,which 50 years ago supported USA.
Apparently,since USA never did it for Poland which never betrayed or attacked USA,you need attack USA to be financed by them.If you are loyal ally,like Poland,they would betray you.

4.I already answered that for @Morphic Tide .

 

[Husky_Khan]

Protests are still going on in Iran... Media from Day Three of it yesterday...

 

[Zachowon]

Huh

 

[LordsFire]

This isn't the first time things like this have happened in Iran. Almost certainly won't be the last.

 

[ATP]

This isn't the first time things like this have happened in Iran. Almost certainly won't be the last.

They have their own culture which existed before islam,and they would not forget that.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Protests are still going on in Iran... Media from Day Three of it yesterday...

You have to admire their optimism in thinking the Iranian Republic gives two shits about people protesting in other countries. It just means that they don't have to waste the ammunition in shooting them.

 

[GoldRanger]

You have to admire their optimism in thinking the Iranian Republic gives two shits about people protesting in other countries. It just means that they don't have to waste the ammunition in shooting them.

Khuzestan is not "another country", it's an Iranian province, mostly populated by Arabs. Iranians generally look down on Arabs.

 

[Cherico]

Khuzestan is not "another country", it's an Iranian province, mostly populated by Arabs. Iranians generally look down on Arabs.

Looks at Persian histostory looks at Arab history.

I see Irans point....

 

[GoldRanger]

Looks at Persian histostory looks at Arab history.

I see Irans point....

Well... I understand what you're saying, but racism is still racism.

 

[LordsFire]

Khuzestan is not "another country", it's an Iranian province, mostly populated by Arabs. Iranians generally look down on Arabs.

And Arabs generally look down on Iranians. And everyone else for that matter.

 

[Bacle]

And Arabs generally look down on Iranians. And everyone else for that matter.

Never let anyone forget it was Arabs who created the slave trade that ended up spreading to Europe and the rest of the Western world.

 

[Battlegrinder]

1.Not Fleming,GRU.Once of twice is accident,three is enemy action.

Nope, the quote originates from Fleming.

A quote from Goldfinger

2.USA bombed polish 1th armored dyvision during WW2 killing 100+ soldiers,and later gave us to soviets.But we never attacked USA,which sold us to soviets.Did our military budget is financed by USA? no,we buy american tanks instead of better South Koreans.Which never betrayed or attack us.

3.Israel attacked USA warship,killed sailors,and USA is providing part of it military budget since then.For what? for getting all muslim stated hate,which 50 years ago supported USA.
Apparently,since USA never did it for Poland which never betrayed or attacked USA,you need attack USA to be financed by them.If you are loyal ally,like Poland,they would betray you.

Can you restate that in English, please?

 

[ATP]

Nope, the quote originates from Fleming.

A quote from Goldfinger



Can you restate that in English, please?

1.It is also GRU.At least Wiktor Suworow,who served there and run to England,claim so.

2.Yes,massa.During WW2 american accidentally bombed polish 1th armored dyvision,but we never accidentally attacked them
Later USA gave us for free to soviets.
After 1991 USA do not pay for that,and financing our military budget,like they do with Israel,would be right thing.
Now,we are buing american Abrams instead of better South Korean K2 tanks.Considering how USA treated us,we should buy from anybody but not them/or Russians&germans/.

3.Israel attacked american ship,and also spied on USA.Which free Poland do not.And part of Israel military budget is financed by USA.Result - muslim countries which supported USA 60 years ago now hate that country.USA paid/and still pay/ for getting new enemies.

So,if country which was loyal ally/Poland/ was betrayed for nothing,and country which attacked USA is financed,that,logically,if you want USA support attack their warship,and if you want be tossed to your enemies be loyal american ally.
That what logic dictate.

BUT,BACK TO TOPIC.
Iran is ruled by party who made revolution - but almost 50 years ago.Fanatics who would die with their country to kill all jews are gone,their leaders would not start war which would kill them.
Who do they fought lately unprovoked ? Saudis in Jemen and ISIS in both Syria and Lebannon.Only reason why Lebannon was not overtaken by ISIS is Hesbollach militia there.
Israel they start attacking only after they steal more palestinian land.and used no more then 15% of their rockets doing so.

So,Saudis have reason to fear Iran,Turkey maybe too,but Israel is kind of bogeyman for them,which they use to put fear into iranian people and keep control over them.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Chants of "Death to the Islamic Republic" videotaped taking place in Tehran.



Also they are shooting demonstrators in Khuzestan now.