It seems that things are falling nicely into place for military action against Iran, about time in my opinion. Iran has been a counterproductive troublemaker in this part of the globe for long enough. Iran has caused and does cause much more trouble than Saddam ever did. I’m not talking about the nuclear issue either, although that can’t be ignored. Rather their ongoing support for spreading Shi’a terror around the region.
From where I’m sitting right now, Iran is just on the other side of the Gulf of Oman. Apparently Condaleeza Rice was here a couple of weeks ago meeting with Sultan Qaboos. There is a US military base here.
Just wondering if I should expect overhead fireworks or not.
[quote=“Tert Card”]It seems that things are falling nicely into place for military action against Iran, about time in my opinion. Iran has been a counterproductive troublemaker in this part of the globe for long enough. Iran has caused and does cause much more trouble than Saddam ever did. I’m not talking about the nuclear issue either, although that can’t be ignored. Rather their ongoing support for spreading Shi’a terror around the region.
From where I’m sitting right now, Iran is just on the other side of the Gulf of Oman. Apparently Condaleeza Rice was here a couple of weeks ago meeting with Sultan Qaboos. There is a US military base here.
Just wondering if I should expect overhead fireworks or not.[/quote]
War is shit. Why would you say ‘falling nicely into place?’ Why would you want war? Are you a latent troublemaker?
What trouble has Iran caused in comparison to Saddam Hussein? Are there genocide issues? What are the issues they have caused? How do they spread shi’a terror?
Your post is poor. It supposes knowledge on the part of the reader. I have no understanding of the things you allude to. Engage the reader.
[quote=“TomHill”][quote=“Tert Card”]It seems that things are falling nicely into place for military action against Iran, about time in my opinion. Iran has been a counterproductive troublemaker in this part of the globe for long enough. Iran has caused and does cause much more trouble than Saddam ever did. I’m not talking about the nuclear issue either, although that can’t be ignored. Rather their ongoing support for spreading Shi’a terror around the region.
From where I’m sitting right now, Iran is just on the other side of the Gulf of Oman. Apparently Condaleeza Rice was here a couple of weeks ago meeting with Sultan Qaboos. There is a US military base here.
Just wondering if I should expect overhead fireworks or not.[/quote]
War is shit. Why would you say ‘falling nicely into place?’ Why would you want war? Are you a latent troublemaker?
What trouble has Iran caused in comparison to Saddam Hussein? Are there genocide issues? What are the issues they have caused? How do they spread shi’a terror?
Your post is poor. It supposes knowledge on the part of the reader. I have no understanding of the things you allude to. Engage the reader.[/quote]
a) Have you never heard of Hezbollah?
b) an element of tongue in cheek was there although I do admit war is a nasty business for all concerned, which is exactly why Iran should stop promoting it in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.
c) I realize fully that you’re trying to appear intelligent and prove a point here, now here’s mine; there are these things called “newspapers”, in them there’s another thing called an “international news section” or something thereabouts. Try reading them, you might learn something about Iran.
Now it’s very late in Taiwan so stop drinking and off you go to bed old man.
By supplying funds, arms, and training to Shi’a militias in Iraq anbd Hezbollah in Palestine, and to a lesser extent the primarily Sunni organizations Islamic Jihad and Hamas. You could also argue Iran exports Shi’a terrorism by building madrassas and mosques all over the world to counter the equally fanatic Wahhabi madrassas and mosques. And multiple Sunni government in the Middle East and Central Asia regularly accuse Iran of funding Shi’a separatist militias. But to be fair I think it is more likely they are funding resistance movements, given the bloody pogroms against the Shi’as we’ve seen in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last 30 years.
Here’s some good information on the Sunni-Shi’a battles in Pakistan and Iran’s role in the fighting:
[quote]Origins
Ostensibly a break-away faction of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), LeJ was founded in 1996 by an extremist triumvirate within SSP – namely Riaz Basra, Akram Lahori and Malik Ishaque. Inspired by the ideals of SSP’s founding leader Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, Basra and his followers accused the SSP leadership of not following the ideals of its slain leader. Another plausible reason for the emergence of LeJ was the rising violence of Sipah-e-Mohammed Pakistan (SMP), a Shi’a organization formed in 1994, ostensibly to target the leaders of SSP. Many top leaders of the SSP, including Israr-ul-Haq Qasmi and Zia ur-Rahman Farooqi were assassinated by SMP extremists in the following years. However it is widely believed that the split of 1996 was manufactured to protect the political integrity of SSP and enable the so-called breakaway faction to transform itself into a purely paramilitary-terrorist organization. In any case, events since 1996 have proved beyond doubt that the LeJ constitutes the armed wing of the SSP and is ultimately controlled by the leaders of that powerful and Saudi-backed sectarian organization.
In the years since 1996, LeJ has developed into a formidable terrorist organization; according to one estimate, until 2001 LeJ had been involved in at least 350 violent incidents. [1] However the organization has had to contend with severe setbacks. In 2002, more than 30 Lashkar-e-Jhangvi militants were killed in numerous shootouts that resulted in the deaths of senior leaders. These included Riaz Basra, who was killed along with three associates near Mailsi in Multan on May 14, and LeJ chief Asif Ramzi, who was slain with six accomplices near Allahwala Town in Karachi. The slayings of Basra and Ramzi dealt a severe blow to the foundation of LeJ and its mother organization, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan.
[…]
The LeJ differs from many of the other Islamic militant organizations in Pakistan insofar as it shuns media exposure and tries to operate as covertly as possible. Its only outlet to the outside world is occasional faxed messages accepting responsibility for terrorist outrages and through its publication Intiqam-i-Haq. [4] Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has focused most of its attention on Pakistan’s Shi’a minority and Iranian interests.
Some of the more prominent recent attacks on Shi’a s include a July 2003 suicide attack on a Shi’a mosque in Quetta, which resulted in the deaths of over 40 worshippers. A letter issued by the LeJ claimed responsibility for the carnage, indicating that the attack was a protest against Iran, Pakistani Shi’a s, President Pervez Musharraf and the United States. Eight months later, in March 2004, LeJ terrorists bombed another Shi’a mosque, this time slaughtering 47 worshippers. In similar attacks on the Hyderi mosque in May 7, and the Ali Raza mosque on May 31, suspected LeJ suicide bombers killed more than 40 worshipers.
Since the late 1980s a secret war has been taking place in major Pakistani cities, pitting the SSP/LeJ against the Iranian intelligence services and their local Pakistani agents, both Shi’a and Sunni. [5] This war intensified in February 1990 with the assassination of the SSP’s most influential founding leader, Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, allegedly carried out by Iranian intelligence agents. This assassination had many repercussions, the most important of which was the creation of LeJ in 1996.
In June 1994, as part of its campaign of revenge for the assassination of Jhangvi, SSP militants took this secret war into Iranian territory for the first time by bombing the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, killing 26 Iranian Shi’a worshipers. The Iranian authorities reflexively blamed the main Iranian opposition group, the Iraqi-based and formerly armed Mojahedin-e-Khalq for the atrocity, but the Iranian intelligence services drew their own conclusions and in subsequent years assassinated several leading members of SSP/LeJ. There is no indication as of yet that the intensity of this secret war between agents of a foreign power and Pakistani religious fanatics is diminishing. Indeed, in early 2005, a Pakistani Intelligence agency report submitted to the Interior Ministry indicated that LeJ cadres have bought weapons from arms smugglers in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and may be preparing suicide missions against Iranian and Shi’a targets in various cities of Pakistan.[/quote]
jamestown.org/terrorism/news/art … id=2369713
Now where is bob to tell us it’s all about Israel?
Tom, war is HELL. Shit is shit. And if you don’t start shit, there won’t be shit. I shit you not. So Iran best cut the shit or they’re in for a world of shit. If they pull some shit it will rain shit on them.
This is some serious shit.
[quote=“Tert Card”][quote=“TomHill”][quote=“Tert Card”]It seems that things are falling nicely into place for military action against Iran, about time in my opinion. Iran has been a counterproductive troublemaker in this part of the globe for long enough. Iran has caused and does cause much more trouble than Saddam ever did. I’m not talking about the nuclear issue either, although that can’t be ignored. Rather their ongoing support for spreading Shi’a terror around the region.
From where I’m sitting right now, Iran is just on the other side of the Gulf of Oman. Apparently Condaleeza Rice was here a couple of weeks ago meeting with Sultan Qaboos. There is a US military base here.
Just wondering if I should expect overhead fireworks or not.[/quote]
War is shit. Why would you say ‘falling nicely into place?’ Why would you want war? Are you a latent troublemaker?
What trouble has Iran caused in comparison to Saddam Hussein? Are there genocide issues? What are the issues they have caused? How do they spread shi’a terror?
Your post is poor. It supposes knowledge on the part of the reader. I have no understanding of the things you allude to. Engage the reader.[/quote]
a) Have you never heard of Hezbollah?
b) an element of tongue in cheek was there although I do admit war is a nasty business for all concerned, which is exactly why Iran should stop promoting it in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.
c) I realize fully that you’re trying to appear intelligent and prove a point here, now here’s mine; there are these things called “newspapers”, in them there’s another thing called an “international news section” or something thereabouts. Try reading them, you might learn something about Iran.
Now it’s very late in Taiwan so stop drinking and off you go to bed old man.[/quote]
One is expected to have a pre-requisite amount of knowledge to enter into a thread, is that correct now? One expects one’s readers to understand what one is blathering on about without having to explain oneself, is that correct now?
Thanks to Gao_bo_han for their links and information.
Sorry I’m not a freakin expert on the war in Iran.
By the way, dude, I live in London, didn’t you know that? There is a search function, and in it you can enter my name, and find out that I moved to London. There is a time difference between here and where you are, matey, and it was MUCH earlier in London, so NO I wasn’t drinking. And NO, I wasn’t trying to make myself look smart, I was trying to point out the inadequacies of your thread. How on God’s green earth could one engage with your thread unless one had the same amount of knowledge as you? Argue with the mirror much?
Tom doesn’t ever try to appear intelligent. Intelligence is for fools and pseudo-intellectuals. I know, nothing, and will always happily agree to that.
Oh yeah, and newspapers. Don’t get me started on those things. If you are gonna go and BUY your opinions, well then…
[quote=“TomHill”][quote=“Tert Card”][quote=“TomHill”][quote=“Tert Card”]It seems that things are falling nicely into place for military action against Iran, about time in my opinion. Iran has been a counterproductive troublemaker in this part of the globe for long enough. Iran has caused and does cause much more trouble than Saddam ever did. I’m not talking about the nuclear issue either, although that can’t be ignored. Rather their ongoing support for spreading Shi’a terror around the region.
From where I’m sitting right now, Iran is just on the other side of the Gulf of Oman. Apparently Condaleeza Rice was here a couple of weeks ago meeting with Sultan Qaboos. There is a US military base here.
Just wondering if I should expect overhead fireworks or not.[/quote]
War is shit. Why would you say ‘falling nicely into place?’ Why would you want war? Are you a latent troublemaker?
What trouble has Iran caused in comparison to Saddam Hussein? Are there genocide issues? What are the issues they have caused? How do they spread shi’a terror?
Your post is poor. It supposes knowledge on the part of the reader. I have no understanding of the things you allude to. Engage the reader.[/quote]
a) Have you never heard of Hezbollah?
b) an element of tongue in cheek was there although I do admit war is a nasty business for all concerned, which is exactly why Iran should stop promoting it in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.
c) I realize fully that you’re trying to appear intelligent and prove a point here, now here’s mine; there are these things called “newspapers”, in them there’s another thing called an “international news section” or something thereabouts. Try reading them, you might learn something about Iran.
Now it’s very late in Taiwan so stop drinking and off you go to bed old man.[/quote]
One is expected to have a pre-requisite amount of knowledge to enter into a thread, is that correct now? One expects one’s readers to understand what one is blathering on about without having to explain oneself, is that correct now?
Thanks to Gao_bo_han for their links and information.
Sorry I’m not a freakin expert on the war in Iran.
By the way, dude, I live in London, didn’t you know that? There is a search function, and in it you can enter my name, and find out that I moved to London. There is a time difference between here and where you are, matey, and it was MUCH earlier in London, so NO I wasn’t drinking. And NO, I wasn’t trying to make myself look smart, I was trying to point out the inadequacies of your thread. How on God’s green earth could one engage with your thread unless one had the same amount of knowledge as you? Argue with the mirror much?
Tom doesn’t ever try to appear intelligent. Intelligence is for fools and pseudo-intellectuals. I know, nothing, and will always happily agree to that.
Oh yeah, and newspapers. Don’t get me started on those things. If you are gonna go and BUY your opinions, well then…
-
using the term “dude” ? having a mid-life crisis luvie?
-
you, really, abuse, commas, dude,
-
before you spout off, if you have personal issues with print journalism, at least watch TV
[/quote]
So thats why you didn’t provide any evidence. You can’t use the quote function.
I’m 33, hardly mid-life. LuVVie has two v’s. Comma’s are a question of style.
I enjoy the BBC world service.
Now why EXACTLY do you think a war is coming?
[quote=“TomHill”]So thats why you didn’t provide any evidence. You can’t use the quote function.
I’m 33, hardly mid-life. LuVVie has two v’s. Comma’s are a question of style.
I enjoy the BBC world service.
Now why EXACTLY do you think a war is coming?[/quote]
Because, ironically, the leadership of both countries need, and want it to happen… a foreign enemy is a powerful diversion to domestic failings.
[quote=“Tert Card”][quote=“TomHill”]So thats why you didn’t provide any evidence. You can’t use the quote function.
I’m 33, hardly mid-life. LuVVie has two v’s. Comma’s are a question of style.
I enjoy the BBC world service.
Now why EXACTLY do you think a war is coming?[/quote]
Because, ironically, the leadership of both countries need, and want it to happen… a foreign enemy is a powerful diversion to domestic failings.[/quote]
Hezbollahs actions: smokescreen, agreed.
Irans actions, I’m not so sure about. Aren’t they pushing for more power on the international stage? Surely they have seen that a war would involve the West, and that it wouldn’t go well.
The situation in Pakistan is that in many places, a Shi’i minority is being persecuted by the Sunni majority. We are talking about popular actions like bombings here. The Christian minority is similarly targeted. No, the violence isn’t on both sides (in Pakistan) because minority groups are terrified of starting anything. (Christians were lynched a few years ago when a bishop had the nerve to complain about discrimination against them.)
In Saudi Arabia, a Shi’i minority has been struggling for all kinds of basic rights, only to have all this rolled back in the wake of 9-11. In view of this, why shouldn’t Iran or Iraq support the Shi’is of Saudi Arabia? Does the Saudi monarchy enjoy some sort of inherent right to exist?
Syria is the reverse of that–an Alawi (secular folk-Shi’i, more or less) government trying to hold the lid on Sunni populism through appeals to nationalism, self-interest (i.e., “look what democracy brought Iraq”), and failing that, secret police.
In geographic Syro-Palestine, Shi’is are one of many fractuous identity groups competing for power and resources in an arena which discourages tactics of moderation and compromise. I wish they could all have their own states, economic prosperity, dignity, etc., but this seems unrealistic–leaving us to decide which group we like better, or hate worse.
I know you were directing your comments to Tert Offensive over there, but I’ll answer anyways.
I actually don’t know war with Iran is a foregone conclusion. But I suppose some reasons for going to war with Iran may be:
-
It is a major financial and ideological supporter of a variety of terrorist organizations all across the world.
-
It promotes anti-Westernism and anti-Zionism as state ideologies.
-
It is actively developing nuclear weapons.
-
There is a strong messianic culture in Iran not present in any other part of the Muslim world, not even in Shi’a Iraq. When Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran prior to being elected president, he was known for holding stump speeches all over the city urging citizens to support widening the roads for the Mahdi’s return, which he predicted would be within a few years. Well they did widen the roads, even at the cost demolishing some minor Shi’a shrines, if you can believe that. It is good to see the man put his Ph.D in civil engineering to good use (seriously, he’s got one). Now generally speaking it is inadvisable to combine messianic beliefs and nuclear weapons. See point 3.
-
Our troops are already in the area, right next door in fact.
-
Iran is not only bolstering Iraqis Shi’a militias but starting to join the fighting in Iraq directly. We have already captured and/or killed several Iranian paramilitaries and military regulars.
For some humor here’s some remarks by Ahmadinejad regarding his Madhi reference-laden speech to the UN:
[quote]Prague, 29 November 2005 (RFE/RL) – According the report by baztab.com, President Ahmadinejad made the comments in a meeting with one of Iran’s leading clerics, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli.
Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.
“He said when you began with the words ‘in the name of God,’ I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech],” Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. “I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink.”
Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.[/quote]
rferl.org/featuresarticle/20 … 47a4a.html
Well I’m sure it’s all in good fun. Oh wait, crazy and nuclear don’t go well together. Nevermind. See point 3.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]The situation in Pakistan is that in many places, a Shi’i minority is being persecuted by the Sunni majority. We are talking about popular actions like bombings here. The Christian minority is similarly targeted. No, the violence isn’t on both sides (in Pakistan) because minority groups are terrified of starting anything. (Christians were lynched a few years ago when a bishop had the nerve to complain about discrimination against them.)
In Saudi Arabia, a Shi’i minority has been struggling for all kinds of basic rights, only to have all this rolled back in the wake of 9-11. In view of this, why shouldn’t Iran or Iraq support the Shi’is of Saudi Arabia? Does the Saudi monarchy enjoy some sort of inherent right to exist?
[/quote]
Were these comments directly toward me? I said:
Agree on all your points.
Oh, really? Let me guess. You were also convinced Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction arsenal in 2003.
I won’t bother asking for any evidence of your assertion. I’ve been down that fruitless path too many times here before with Forumosa’s other resident war mongers, some of whom continue to assert Iraq does have a WMD arsenal but it just hasn’t been found yet.
It just makes you wonder how intelligent people can repeat past mistakes almost identically and somehow expect different results. Fanaticism has to be the answer for such a meltdown in the critical thinking abilities of obviously otherwise capable people.
Oh, really? Let me guess. You were also convinced Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction arsenal in 2003.
I won’t bother asking for any evidence of your assertion. I’ve been down that fruitless path too many times here before with Forumosa’s other resident war mongers, some of whom continue to assert Iraq does have a WMD arsenal but it just hasn’t been found yet.
It just makes you wonder how intelligent people can repeat past mistakes almost identically and somehow expect different results. Fanaticism has to be the answer for such a meltdown in the critical thinking abilities of obviously otherwise capable people.[/quote]
Well as certain Washington insiders sardonically said: We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; we have the receipts.
I was not convinced he had nuclear weapons, nor did I particularly care. I do not think he was ever an imminent threat to the US. While my feelings about the war have changed over time, when it started I was completely opposed and march in the streets when the bombs started dropping on Baghdad. Some of my fellow protestors were arrested.
Regarding Iran…well by their own admission they are actively developing nuclear technology. They say they are doing so for purely peaceful purposes, but I do not believe them. Do you?
Note that I am not endorsing invading Iran. I was just trying to think of some possible reasons a war with Iran may occur.
And for those of you who disdain protestors: fuck you. The right to assemble and protest our government’s action is a founding principle of our nation and one of the primary divisions between a true democracy and a totalitarian government.
[quote=“Tert Card”]
Because, ironically, the leadership of both countries need, and want it to happen… a foreign enemy is a powerful diversion to domestic failings.[/quote]
Duh. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979.
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Tert Card”]
Because, ironically, the leadership of both countries need, and want it to happen… a foreign enemy is a powerful diversion to domestic failings.[/quote]
Duh. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979.[/quote]
Yes, and that is why it was acceptable to sell weapons/planes/tanks to Iraq. Saddam was an ambitious secular dictator with a passionate hatred for Khomeini that served as a useful proxy agent to attack our Iranian enemy. I have no problem with any of that. But surprise surprise when he couldn’t manage to conquer Iran he set his sights on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, our so called “allies”. No no can’t have him conquering those countries and nationalizing their oil fields (and cheating us out of our profits)…so the demonization of our former “ally” began. Then in 2003 the demonization campaign started all over again and suddenly we’re oh so concerned that he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians that we and the Europeans sold to him? Bah.
But back to your point. Iran has been at war with us, but we haven’t really been at war with them except by bolstering Saddam in the 80s. So…should we return to the “Death to America” favor and make “Death to Iran” a reality?
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Tert Card”]
Because, ironically, the leadership of both countries need, and want it to happen… a foreign enemy is a powerful diversion to domestic failings.[/quote]
Duh. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979.[/quote]So why wasn’t Reagan impeached for selling weapons to the enemy?
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Tert Card”]
Because, ironically, the leadership of both countries need, and want it to happen… a foreign enemy is a powerful diversion to domestic failings.[/quote]
Duh. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979.[/quote]So why wasn’t Reagan impeached for selling weapons to the enemy?[/quote]
Work on your reading comprehension skills. 
I didn’t say the US has been at war with Iran.
Oy vey! Now she’s sounding like Bubba back in 1998…no, wait! He was talking about Iraq.
[quote]
Clinton says Iran a danger to US, Israel
AP, NEW YORK
Saturday, Feb 03, 2007
Calling Iran a danger to the US and one of Israel’s greatest threats, US Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation.
“US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”[/quote]
taipeitimes.com/News/world/a … 2003347514
President Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
[quote]Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.[/quote]