Is attack on Iran imminent?

MobBoss said:
Once again, a nuclear Iran poses a threat to many more nations that just the USA. Especially the ones in Europe that are within missile range....



Hmmm, I seem to recall that the Israeli airstrike on the Iraq nuclear facility was very precise.

The fact that it doesn't have them should be intrinsic in your point here? nm

Afraid that precision strikes can be precise and often are, but the few times they drop the ball result in large civillian casualties, and the odd civic building getting destroyed, the bombing Libya by America, in a country that wasn't at war with them is a case in point.

Sneak attack, nice :rolleyes:

You are of course without sin, and the fact that much of the Islamic world detests your politics is of course misguided, and has no basis in fact? Dear God :lol:

Little bit of advice, might be wise to look into the hate and prejudice you recieve( to be a little more unbiased) Doesn't exist in a vaccuum, people don't hate for no reason no matter how you might try to claim it does.
 
Cleric said:
The tables have turned ROFL :lol: !!!
says not the international physics competitions, and half of NASA. :p

Riesstiu IV said:
I know Iran didn't start the war. My original point is why you say Iran has killed 0 civilians since World War II?
Iran has killed enough Iranian civilians since the second world war. But I think you're missing his point.
 
BasketCase said:
Did you see any terrorists getting recruited by, for example, China's aggression against Tibet? Or China's threatened aggression against Taiwaan? Nope. And you probably never will.

[v]Terrorism is fueled by one thing, and one thing only:[/b] the existence of a free state whose government actually cares about its citizens.

Those two examples dont make any sense whatsoever.

Fristly China invasion of tibet was fought with insurgency backed by the US. A decade long one sided war. US were right but untimately futile resistance.

Second acts on international terrorism only came into promiance in the 1970s with Hijacks pioneered by the palistinians and attacks on civilian targets by cold war proxy terroist groups (red army brigades and Western back contras)

The VERY creation of modern international terrorism was the results Cold war style low level warfare.
 
FriendlyFire said:
Those two examples dont make any sense whatsoever.

Fristly China invasion of tibet was fought with insurgency backed by the US. A decade long one sided war. US were right but untimately futile resistance.

Second acts on international terrorism only came into promiance in the 1970s with Hijacks pioneered by the palistinians and attacks on civilian targets by cold war proxy terroist groups (red army brigades and Western back contras)

The VERY creation of modern international terrorism was the results Cold war style low level warfare.


Zionists were good at terrorism when Britain occupied palestine back in the days... look it up!
 
Is it imminent? I don't think so. Are there plans for it? More than likely; but keep in mind that the U.S. military has plans on the shelf for every possible contingency. One hopes though that rational diplomacy will find a solution to this issue.
 
Rik Meleet said:
This is revolting. No casualties?? Iranians aren't humans?

I was saying, no American casualties. You don't count enemy casualties against you in a war.
 
Red Stranger said:
I was saying, no American casualties. You don't count enemy casualties against you in a war.
Maybe you don't, but I do, and America should.
 
BasketCase said:
Did you see any terrorists getting recruited by, for example, China's aggression against Tibet? Or China's threatened aggression against Taiwaan? Nope. And you probably never will.

Terrorism is fueled by one thing, and one thing only: the existence of a free state whose government actually cares about its citizens.
And that, unfortunately, is the West's Achilles' heel. The way Western society goes on about its caring nature provides just the thing for terrorists to exploit.

There were once terrorists in China. Tibetan and Xinjiang separatists, to be precise. (Never any Taiwanese, they're too rich and well-armed to need to go that route.) China pulled out all the stops to crack down on these goons. Basically it's: "You try that again and I'll show you and your people what the true meaning of the word Pain is."

Of course, the big stick is also tempered with a carrot, in the form of livelihood opportunities and economic progress, as long as one behaves. A couple decades down the line, we can all see the results - no terrorist activity here whatsoever.
 
And that, unfortunately, is the West's Achilles' heel. The way Western society goes on about its caring nature provides just the thing for terrorists to exploit.

There were once terrorists in China. Tibetan and Xinjiang separatists, to be precise. (Never any Taiwanese, they're too rich and well-armed to need to go that route.) China pulled out all the stops to crack down on these goons. Basically it's: "You try that again and I'll show you and your people what the true meaning of the word Pain is."

Of course, the big stick is also tempered with a carrot, in the form of livelihood opportunities and economic progress, as long as one behaves. A couple decades down the line, we can all see the results - no terrorist activity here whatsoever.

Isnt that because the terrorist won in china and are currently ruling the country?
 
Even if we do anything militarily, we won't invade them and topple their government; we simply don't have the manpower nor the support at home to do so.
 
Sims2789 said:
Even if we do anything militarily, we won't invade them and topple their government; we simply don't have the manpower nor the support at home to do so.

You're right, but the question is if your president knows that.
 
Nobody said:
Isnt that because the terrorist won in china and are currently ruling the country?
:lol: Good one.

However, it would be wrong to label them as terrorists. Particularly nasty guerillas would be as far as I would go. Because in fairness they never resorted to terror tactics even in their darkest days, only assassination. And their enemies were doing it to them too at the time. It was a fair fight.

Anyway back on topic, the saber rattling between the US and Iran does give one a sense of deja vu, like it's 2003 all over again, only with a different target. I certainly hope the worst doesn't come to pass. :(
 
Neomega said:
Zionists were good at terrorism when Britain occupied palestine back in the days... look it up!

Tha Palistine hotel bombing ? In 1953 ? The first truely modern terrorist act which was calculated for maxium impact was widely credited and accepted as such.

The pioneering or evolution really took of in the 1970s when interbational terrorism was a "real" threat. hijackings, hostage taking, bombings and bombing.
Iam thinking along the lines of

- First Hostage event (Iran embassey)
- First Hijacked plane (Palstine)
- First kidnapping (berlin olympics)
- First plane bombing (lockabee)

etc etc which truely ushered in terrorism as we know it today.
 
Dann said:
And that, unfortunately, is the West's Achilles' heel. The way Western society goes on about its caring nature provides just the thing for terrorists to exploit.
.

Chinas "Achilles' heel" would be rampet corruption :D
 
Sidhe said:
The fact that it doesn't have them should be intrinsic in your point here? nm

Are you going to deny they are trying to develop them right now?

Afraid that precision strikes can be precise and often are, but the few times they drop the ball result in large civillian casualties, and the odd civic building getting destroyed, the bombing Libya by America, in a country that wasn't at war with them is a case in point.

Libya didnt result in large civilian casualties. Please be precise in what you are talking about.

Sneak attack, nice :rolleyes:

You mean to tell me Iraq didnt realize Isreal would attack if they pursued a nuclear program. They were warned...repeatedly not to do it..but they did anyway. Sneaky? Yes, but also pre-warned that it was going to happen too.

You are of course without sin, and the fact that much of the Islamic world detests your politics is of course misguided, and has no basis in fact? Dear God :lol:

Once again, it is a lot more than just the politics that are detested. Do you think they would hate us any less if Kerry were in office?:rolleyes: Hardly.
 
FriendlyFire said:
Tha Palistine hotel bombing ? In 1953 ? The first truely modern terrorist act which was calculated for maxium impact was widely credited and accepted as such.

The pioneering or evolution really took of in the 1970s when interbational terrorism was a "real" threat. hijackings, hostage taking, bombings and bombing.
Iam thinking along the lines of

- First Hostage event (Iran embassey)
- First Hijacked plane (Palstine)
- First kidnapping (berlin olympics)
- First plane bombing (lockabee)

etc etc which truely ushered in terrorism as we know it today.

Nope... read read... be amazed, the inventors have become the victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah


:eek:

statement by the Lehi, anti-British mandate group: (copied from wikipedia)

Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle.
...
We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: Obliterate - until destruction.[1] We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.
But primarily terror is part of our political battle under present conditions and its role is large and great.

* It demonstrates, in clear language, to those who listen throughout the world and to our despondent brothers outside the gates of this country of our battle against the true terrorist who hides behind his piles of papers and the laws he has legislated.
* It is not directed against people, it is directed against representatives. Therefore it is effective.
* If it also shakes the Yishuv from their complacency, good and well.

Only so will the battle for liberation begin.
 
BasketCase said:
Terrorism is fueled by one thing, and one thing only: the existence of a free state whose government actually cares about its citizens.

Is this true ? I really doubt it.

As for the topic, I don`t think the attack is imminent. This article looks ridiculous. Using nuke on Iran ? I don`t really believe ? Would America risk their reputation ?

Nevertheless, if America really does use nuke then how ironic, using nuke to stop Iran possesing nuke. Then, America have no right whatsoever to have nuke since they are the one use it against their enemies. So who`s worse, Iran or America ?
 
AL_DA_GREAT said:
the Americans should stop colonizing the world. They aren't some type of world police thats the UN's job.

Rofl. The UN as world police? World Keystone Cops is more like it. Or maybe World New Orleans police...you know...the ones that were caught looting the people they were supposed to protect?

Since when was the UN good at anything?
 
America/Britain hasn't historically been good at policing the World. Our methods actually caused more harm in the long run. Smashing things up is so much easier.

Until the UN gets serious with it's gangsta members, the US and Britain, it won't have the credibility that it needs to deal with a country such as Iran.

The fact that the UN's head office in is NY doesn't mean that the USA and UN are synonymous, that's only true in Civ.

I feel a flippant and irrational comment coming my way very soon.
 
Top Bottom