Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[King Arts]

The man ordered the execution of over 5000 political prisoners. "Not a terrorist" my ass.

I don’t care if they were rioters, political prisoners, or whatever that’s not what a terrorist is. Terrorists are non governmental groups that use violence against a government or civilians to further a political cause. Usually it is used disparagingly because the line between guerilla fighter and terrorist is blurred. But a governmental law enforcers police judges prosecutors aren’t terrorists. So stop trying to change words and definitions to suit your own interests.

 

[LordsFire]

I don’t care if they were rioters, political prisoners, or whatever that’s not what a terrorist is. Terrorists are non governmental groups that use violence against a government or civilians to further a political cause. Usually it is used disparagingly because the line between guerilla fighter and terrorist is blurred. But a governmental law enforcers police judges prosecutors aren’t terrorists. So stop trying to change words and definitions to suit your own interests.

Let's compromise and just call him a mass-murdering dictator.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The man ordered the execution of over 5000 political prisoners. "Not a terrorist" my ass.

By that standard all advocacy for punitive criminal sentencing is "terrorism". If I recall properly, the definition actually only applies to changing the current standards by way of fear. Maintaining the current status quo and coercion by means other than fear (including genocide of all opposition as the primary methodology) don't count.

Terrorists are non governmental groups that use violence against a government or civilians to further a political cause.

The absolute scope of the violence is irrelevant so long as the goal of it is forcing capitulation by fear of reprisal. If the violence is for the purpose of actively obliterating all dissenters, rather than intimidating them into compliance, then it's just waging war for your ideological or political aims.

And it's still terrorism if it's a government doing it against a different government, though there's an additional qualifier of it being sponsored irregulars or black operations to exclude demoralizing efforts in properly declared warfare.

 

[King Arts]

Let's compromise and just call him a mass-murdering dictator.

He is not a dictator because he isn’t the supreme autocrat. The head ayotollah you could call a dictator. Why is everyone who wants to advocate us being aggressive towards foreign nations so ignorant? This guy is as much a dictator as the leader of the NKDV or KGB was. Not at all Stalin was the dictator he is merely a servant of the dictator.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Ok, that is a little young, but just because they met at that age doesen't mean they actually started an affair then. It could have been a year or two later, or even later. What is France's age of consent.

There was none until french firemen were gang raping a 13 year old girl with claims of consent so the law passed consent at 15 years of age this year.

She met him while she was married.

 

[King Arts]

There was none until french firemen were gang raping a 13 year old girl with claims of consent so the law passed consent at 15 years of age this year.

She met him while she was married.

Ok then there is nothing wrong. But we still don’t know when their relationship actually started.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Ok then there is nothing wrong. But we still don’t know when their relationship actually started.

Try saying that when it's a 40 year old male teacher with a 15 year old girl.

 

[King Arts]

Try saying that when it's a 40 year old male teacher with a 15 year old girl.

If it is legal, and he ends up marrying her and she seems to function well in society enough to be the elected leader of France obviously she wasn’t manipulated or hurt in a way. It may be icky but if no harm was caused then it’s not anyone’s business except the couple and their family.

 

[Arch Dornan]

If it is legal, and he ends up marrying her and she seems to function well in society enough to be the elected leader of France obviously she wasn’t manipulated or hurt in a way. It may be icky but if no harm was caused then it’s not anyone’s business except the couple and their family.

People will judge no matter who's who.

 

[The Original Sixth]

I will point out that if the US wants to cripple Iran, we don't need a full-up war with them. We don't need to put a single soldier on the ground. Sink their navy, blow up their port infrastructure for exporting oil, blow up some key internal structure with air-strikes, and they're pretty much finished as a regional power for the near future.

Yes and that's always been an option, but as you imagine, that's not the first thing the US wants to go to. Thus far, the sanctions are doing a very good job of crushing their economy.

 

[The Original Sixth]

<pokes head in>
"Nope, not reading 54 forum pages."

What I'd like to see is the US and other free countries really support the Iranian protestors against the theocracy.

Likely to happen....hell no.

But if that did happen...what would be the consequences...
IF successful?
IF not?

Why should the US do that?

Iranians are NOT Americans. They do not have our sense of personal freedoms or rights that we take for granted. Even if they want regime change, there is no guarantee that what they replace the current leadership is any less religious or less authoritarian than the last. The only thing it would guarantee is that America will topple any power that is not a nuclear armed state and you better arm yourself with nukes or the USA is going to take out your elite class if it strikes them.

If it were successful (and it wouldn't be--the cost is far too high), then you would have conflicts stirred up by Saudi Arabia and Israel within Iran's borders. Saudi Arabia has no qualms about giving power to terror cells. Israel would probably not shy away from encouraging the other ethnic minority groups within Iran to break free or otherwise form their own militia groups. Why? Because neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel have any assurance that the New Iran will be any nicer than Old Iran.

If not--which is the most likely case, the US either looks like an asshole who destroyed Iran's infrastructure--thereby making life even worse in Iran for the lower classes or it sends tens of thousands of young men to die in the meatgrinder that is an invasion of Iran.

 

[GoldRanger]

Iranian oil tanker is on the way to Lebanon, to relieve their dried up oil supply. Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, threatened Israel and America with a severe reaction if the tanker is hampered, and claimed he considers the tanker "an extension of sovereign Lebanese soil".

This is how this is framed in Shiite circles (watermark in Hebrew is from the Telegram channel I pulled it off):

 

[ATP]

Iranian oil tanker is on the way to Lebanon, to relieve their dried up oil supply. Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, threatened Israel and America with a severe reaction if the tanker is hampered, and claimed he considers the tanker "an extension of sovereign Lebanese soil".

This is how this is framed in Shiite circles (watermark in Hebrew is from the Telegram channel I pulled it off):

So ? if USA and Israel2.0 have right to receiving tankers,Lebanon had it right,too.
Good,that current woke USA would do nothing.We do not need another failed invasion,like in Afganistan.And since Israel 2.0 is now Putin ally,they would do nothing,too.

 

[Marduk]

So ? if USA and Israel2.0 have right to receiving tankers,Lebanon had it right,too.
Good,that current woke USA would do nothing.We do not need another failed invasion,like in Afganistan.And since Israel 2.0 is now Putin ally,they would do nothing,too.

That's the thing. They do. But USA also has a right to not do business with Lebanon. That's the sanction threat.

 

[King Arts]

That's the thing. They do. But USA also has a right to not do business with Lebanon. That's the sanction threat.

Sanctions are more than us choosing to not do business with someone. It's violating the free market by using coercion to force other nations/people to not do business with someone.

 

[Marduk]

Sanctions are more than us choosing to not do business with someone. It's violating the free market by using coercion to force other nations/people to not do business with someone.

International free market is a myth. International markets are highly managed, tinkered, and regularly modified by laws, politics and behind the scenes deals. This is just one of very many ways to do that.

 

[GoldRanger]

Sanctions are more than us choosing to not do business with someone. It's violating the free market by using coercion to force other nations/people to not do business with someone.

Ah, so you support the states that outlawed BDS activity? Or when it's done to people you don't like it's fine?

 

[King Arts]

Ah, so you support the states that outlawed BDS activity? Or when it's done to people you don't like it's fine?

Stopping people from arguing against Israel is a violation of free speech. But I am against any boycott of Israel.

 

[GoldRanger]

Stopping people from arguing against Israel is a violation of free speech. But I am against any boycott of Israel.

BDS more than "argues", it's a political group funded by various countries that tries to leverage political pressure on big businesses and countries alike.

 

[ATP]

That's the thing. They do. But USA also has a right to not do business with Lebanon. That's the sanction threat.

So USA could not made business.Iran is no USA.And after Biden deal with Putin,every sanction made by him would be joke.