Israeli missile hits Iran, with blasts heard in centre of country [Post Updated #645]

Was Iran's attack on Israel with drones and ballistic missiles the right act?


  • Total voters
    15

Yossarian

Test Debutant
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Runs
13,898
Post of the Week
1
The papers and news channels are full of the desire by Israel to get the green light from the USA to launch an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities, that is if Israel cannot persuade the USA itself to take out these facilities.

The Israeli Prime Minister, egged on by his Defence Minister, has said to President Obama that Israel will not let the USA dictate to it and Israel will do what it thinks is best for itself.

The vast majority (if not virtually unanimous) of Congressmen, Senators and even Presidential hopefuls are fully backing the Israeli's in this regard, with some even more vocal than the Israeli's in their desire to launch these attacks.

There appears to be a general consensus that Israel is likely to launch the attack within the next few months at the latest, unless it gets guarantees from President Obama that the USA will do it before too long.

If such an attack does take place, as it appears to be likely, what will the consequences be for the region, for the relationship between the Gulf Arab states (who might not be averse to such an attack) and Iran, the attitudes of Muslims everywhere, and even the potential of dragging Russia and/or China into a confrontation with the USA, due to Russia's relationship and proximity to Iran, especially now with re-election of Putin, and China's need for Iranian oil.

Should we be worried?

Please discuss.
 
WW3........................ hope it does come and changes this status-quo of US and Israel bullying every living thing on earth...
 
WW3........................ hope it does come and changes this status-quo
WW3 ? .......In which case.....bend over, take down your pants and kiss your Ar$e goodbye, cause most of us, especially those Muslims living in the West, will be dust since we may be used as scapegoats by the survivors of WW3 - that is if there any!
 
Last edited:
Israel as usual are looking for the US to do their dirty work for them. They don't have the capability to take out Iran's nuclear weapons programme. Iran has over 80 different locations including underground bunkers which all analysts believe would be impossible to take out. Netanyahoo didn't comment on this at the AIPAC conference for this very reason.

The US this time are thinking very carefully about get inovlved in this war. They know the outcome for them could be a total disaster when their economy is in tatters. Any attack on Iran could lead to oil prices reaching $200 a barrel if not more. This could potentially send the US into a deep depression which they can't afford.

I think Israel will do something very sinister trying to force the US into a war. Let's hope it doesn't happen because the whole world will suffer the outcome of this.

As for WW3 its a possibility.
 
One small, but extremely important factor is being overlooked, ie what about the long term ?

Does anybody seriously think that, once attacked, Iranians will forget the whole thing and not male firther efforts in, say, 5...10...15...20..... years time ? Or will Israel and/or the USA repeat such attacks every few years ?

only way to stop is go the iraqi way.
 
Israel is taking the Iranian threat too seriously.

Iran would be stupid to launch a missile attack on Israel, because it would effectively also hurt the Palestinians.
 
With the US elections this year, Obama would be a fool to start another conflict. After this year, there are strong indications that it will happen.

Israel won't attack without US's say so. And US will get involved in case of an attack, so will NATO as Iran won't be as easy to subdue as Afghanistan and Iraq.


Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
WW3........................ hope it does come and changes this status-quo of US and Israel bullying every living thing on earth...

The exact opposite will happen just like in previous world wars. USA would absolutely love to have another world war to re-establish itself as the single dominant force for next few decades as well eradicating all competition.

So let's not get carried away :23:
 
only way to stop is go the iraqi way.

Iran is not Iraq.

Israel is taking the Iranian threat too seriously.

Iran would be stupid to launch a missile attack on Israel, because it would effectively also hurt the Palestinians.

I don't think they are. Imo the real reason is they want the US to attack Iran because they couldn't defeat Hezbollah in 2006 and this would be another way by cutting of their main funders and supporters.
 
I hope not and i dont think it will happen unless there something major happens like Iran attacking Israel first . Until then , we will probably only see foreign powers causing destabilization in Iran , causing problems for the governments , having their agents work against Iran 's interests , pitting Iran vs rest of Muslims ( Shia vs Sunni ) and Pakistan will be playing a major role here probably leading to more Shias being discriminated against .
 
Last edited:
With the US elections this year, Obama would be a fool to start another conflict. After this year, there are strong indications that it will happen.

Israel won't attack without US's say so. And US will get involved in case of an attack, so will NATO as Iran won't be as easy to subdue as Afghanistan and Iran.


Just my two cents.

lol they havent subdued a tribal afghanistan

they annhialated a once powerful iraq who had proper military force and left it completely useless killed innocents...afghanistan will never go down without a fight when there is a warrior race still present there


back to op

israel would be stupid to attack a muslim country so openly while it is surrounded by other muslim countries
 
Last edited:
lol they havent subdued a tribal afghanistan

they annhialated a once powerful iraq who had proper military force and left it completely useless killed innocents...afghanistan will never go down without a fight when there is a warrior race still present there


back to op

israel would be stupid to attack a muslim country so openly while it is surrounded by other muslim countries

Muslims could not do much to stop attacks on Pakistan , Afghanistan , Palestine , Lebanon , Iraq and many other countries . I dont know what they can do for Iran given its large Shia population . I expect the Sunni majority Arab countries to help with the attacks than save Iranians from it .
 
For prince_pathan, Well most of the muslim countries don't like Iran due to the Shia Sunni issue, infact many of them will be happy that Iran is tamed, including top of the list KSA.

In my opinion, Iran apart from conventional weapons don't have any nuclear arsenal, they are just blocking the IAEA inspector so that their image of having nuclear weapons remain (or almost being there) intact. Israel is probably worried sick of Hezbollah and Hamas and through attacking Iran at least wants Hezbollah subdued, again my two cents.
 
Just finished watching Jon Stewart's show. It's all election related rhetoric. Not just in US but also in Israel and Iran. Nothing will happen. Once elections are over, it will all die down.
 
No, unless Republicans take over white house in November. Israel does not have balls to do it alone.
 
Iran need to be flexible and restructure their political system.
and also, improve their human rights record.
 
You hope a war comes?


Wow... what an idiot.

Son, wars are already here............Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kashmir, Palestine, proxy wars/insurgencies............... just open ur eyes
only poor and weak nations suffering, while the rich vultures bullying and sucking on the blood of poor

and read the whole sentence, maybe WW3 will tilt power spectrum to the east
 
Son, wars are already here............Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kashmir, Palestine, proxy wars/insurgencies............... just open ur eyes
only poor and weak nations suffering, while the rich vultures bullying and sucking on the blood of poor

and read the whole sentence, maybe WW3 will tilt power spectrum to the east

Yeah and I want these wars to END not more wars to begin!


It's easy for you to say "I want wars!" but when your son father or mother (God forbid!) dies in a war, I'll ask you what you think then.
 
Son, wars are already here............Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kashmir, Palestine, proxy wars/insurgencies............... just open ur eyes
only poor and weak nations suffering, while the rich vultures bullying and sucking on the blood of poor

and read the whole sentence, maybe WW3 will tilt power spectrum to the east

instead being a power hungry idiot fix your nafs and hope for the good of all humanity.. no people of any nation are enjoying these wars, all are suffering at different lengths
 
LethalSami is a certified troll and massive lol for the people who took his post seriously. :)))

2_1323973094v4vcG.gif
 
instead being a power hungry idiot fix your nafs and hope for the good of all humanity.. no people of any nation are enjoying these wars, all are suffering at different lengths

No one wants WW3.

But please do not be naive in the sense war is not omnipresent in the world. Whether it's through proxy, through currencies, through change of regime, the one common factor is USA. Who are USA to enforce their ideology on others?

Ask yousrelf why USA simply doesn't leave the MiddleEast? If the US did, I'd say 80% of the world's worries would be over.
 
I hope not and i dont think it will happen unless there something major happens like Iran attacking Israel first . Until then , we will probably only see foreign powers causing destabilization in Iran , causing problems for the governments , having their agents work against Iran 's interests , pitting Iran vs rest of Muslims ( Shia vs Sunni ) and Pakistan will be playing a major role here probably leading to more Shias being discriminated against .
Pakistan is the only Muslim country that is standing by Iran right now hence Iran is going gaga over Pakistan in the last few months.
 
Just finished watching Jon Stewart's show. It's all election related rhetoric. Not just in US but also in Israel and Iran. Nothing will happen. Once elections are over, it will all die down.
Iraq 82 & Syria 06 will diagree with your simple & naive comments. Dont just get all your information from Jon Stewart.
 
No one wants WW3.

But please do not be naive in the sense war is not omnipresent in the world. Whether it's through proxy, through currencies, through change of regime, the one common factor is USA. Who are USA to enforce their ideology on others?

Ask yousrelf why USA simply doesn't leave the MiddleEast? If the US did, I'd say 80% of the world's worries would be over.

im not denying anything.. war has been going on for thousands of years and needs to stop PERIOD. Whether it USA or the next superpower when USA is in shambles
 
WW3........................ hope it does come and changes this status-quo of US and Israel bullying every living thing on earth...

Son, wars are already here............Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kashmir, Palestine, proxy wars/insurgencies............... just open ur eyes
only poor and weak nations suffering, while the rich vultures bullying and sucking on the blood of poor

and read the whole sentence, maybe WW3 will tilt power spectrum to the east

:facepalm: at the overreaction.......either I failed to get the point across or u guys didn't get the point

let me clarify,

the point is there are bullies in this World (NATO+Israel+India etc.), and they are killing, oppressing, stealing natural resources etc from basically the poor and the helpless. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kashmir,Palestine etc. and God forbid Iran in near future)

now how do u stop em??? obviously it will have to happen thru a World-War......(and hopefully the right side wins and the bully gets defeated....

but who will defeat em (Russia+China??????)...what if they turn to bullyness themselves (i.e. Chechnia,Tibet,Taiwan etc.):danish

its the same old story of rich killing/looting the poor and nobody is held accountable (actually most of the time the poor gets portrayed as the evil ones by media/propaganda controlled by the rich countries)

im just depressed, and i feel the pain of those poor, emotionally if not physically

this World is so ****** up :altaf
 
With the US elections this year, Obama would be a fool to start another conflict. After this year, there are strong indications that it will happen.

Israel won't attack without US's say so. And US will get involved in case of an attack, so will NATO as Iran won't be as easy to subdue as Afghanistan and Iraq.


Just my two cents.

Afghanistan is subdued? Seriously brother? NATO and America are taking the beating of their lifetime in Afghanistan, so how can you say Afghanistan is subdued?
 
God forbid if Israel or USA attacked Iran then I would say it will be catastrophic for the whole World. If Iran have Nuclear Weapons it will surely use it on Israel and any other Country in the region helping them. Iran will have no option but to use the Nuclear weapons in their defense. Hope that such a situation don't arise because it will plunge the human race back into the dark times.
 
During World War Two we as a race managed to kill around 60 million of our fellow humans - 40 million civilians and 20 million 'soldiers' (many of whom were effectively civilians) - and this mostly came before the synthesis of nuclear weaponry. Not another one please.

In Blackadder Goes Forth, a hilarious situation comedy but also a fierce and poignant critique of warfare, we find pertinent advice:

Private Baldrick - 'Why did the war start?'
Captain Blackadder - 'Because it became too much effort not to have a war.'
 
Last edited:
lol at the comment of Israel wanting US to go to war with Iran so they could settle the score with Hezbollah :)))... ABSOLUTELY MAKES PERFECT SENSE :96: ..
 
Back to the main point of the OP.

Instead of railing and ranting against the USA, and how it wants this and that, the questions posed were on the basis of supposing an attack does take place, by Israel or by the USA, how worried should we be of the likely consequences, not just in the short term vis-a-vis any retaliation by Iran, but also in the long term.

In the short term, some commentators think that Iran is incapable of doing this and that, USA will keep the shipping lanes open, Saudi Arabia will make up for the shortfall in Iranian oil, etc etc.

That may be so, although I fear that if Iran does retaliate and somehow manages to inflict major damage on an USA facility in the middle east, then USA will go all out and launch a major offensive against Iran, or even worse if Iran manages to hit an Israeli city, say with a few missiles that get through the Israeli defences and cause a larges number of casualties, then conceivably, Israel will retaliate to the extent of possibly even using it's own nukes - and then all hell will break loose!

Even if the short term outcome is contained to a few skirmishes, the Iranian's are not likely to just sit back and accept the humiliation without doing nothing. Regimes might change, times might change, but there will be a deep down hurt in the Iranian people that will, at some point in the future, even in say 20 or 30 years time, as Iran's economy/industrial base improves, will lead to renewed efforts to acquire the nukes so that nobody could attack Iran again.

ie, any attack on Iran, by Israel or the USA, will only postpone the Iranians aquisition of nuclear weapons by a few years, and we will be back to where we are now except that the Iranians will be even more determined to get back at Israel/ the USA and even the Gulf Arab states.

Imo, the Iranians should simply go to the UN and announce that they are prepared to let the IAEA, and even the USA, to come and inspect it's facilities and even install monitoring devices as long as Israel is required to do the same..
This will, at a stroke, turn the tables on the Israeli's and will even make the American public view Israel in a different light if the Israeli's refuse. At the end of the day, nobody wants war, and the American's certainly don't want to fight wars and have their soldiers die, for the sake of someone else.
 
Israel will attack the Iranian facilities once they feel the nuclear programme gets to a critical stage.

They don't care about American permission, they never gave America any warning when they attacked Lebanon or Iraq's facilities in the 80s so why would they this time ?

And really I dont it will result in world war as some suggest.
All the Arab armies put together are no match for Israels Military. Its a sad fact we have to accept.
 
WW3........................ hope it does come and changes this status-quo of US and Israel bullying every living thing on earth...

I dont think China and Russia will start WW3 over Iran.
 
Afghanistan is subdued? Seriously brother? NATO and America are taking the beating of their lifetime in Afghanistan, so how can you say Afghanistan is subdued?

So you call that beating of their life time? Seriosuly wake up, USA didnt even need couple of days to invade Afghanistan. If your difinition of winning is to kill every Afghani then they could have done that also.
 
Muslims could not do much to stop attacks on Pakistan , Afghanistan , Palestine , Lebanon , Iraq and many other countries . I dont know what they can do for Iran given its large Shia population . I expect the Sunni majority Arab countries to help with the attacks than save Iranians from it .

This.
 
Israel have attacked potential nuclear facilities before, in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007. They have said they would attack Iran even without the US's support. As for an Iranian response:

"Iran's ability to strike back directly against Israel is limited," says Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

"Its antiquated air force is totally outclassed by the Israelis and it has only a limited number of ballistic missiles that could reach Israel."


Iran's air force, which includes Mig-29s, is not seen as a match for its Israeli or US counterparts
Mr Fitzpatrick says Iran's missile arsenal includes "a modified version of the Shahab-3, the Ghadr-1, which has a range of 1,600km (995 miles), but Iran only has about six transporter-erector launchers for the missile".

"Iran's new solid-fuelled missile, the Sajjil-2, can also reach Israel, but it is not yet fully operational," he adds.

But, Mr Fitzpatrick argues that "both of these missiles are too inaccurate to have any effect against military targets when armed with conventional weapons".

"Nor are they a very effective way to deliver chemical or biological weapons, and Iran does not have nuclear weapons."

In summary, he believes that "an Iranian missile strike would be only a symbolic gesture".

Mr Fitzpatrick believes Iran is more likely to respond against Israel "asymmetrically, and through proxies". Its ally, the Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, has more than 10,000 rocket launchers in southern Lebanon, many of them supplied by Iran.

"These are mostly 25km-range (16-mile) Katyushas, but also Fahr-3 (45km; 28 miles), Fajr-5 (75km; 47 miles), Zelzal-2 (200km; 124 miles) and potentially Fateh-110 (200km) plus about 10 Scud-D missiles that can pack a 750kg (1,653lb) payload and hit all of Israel."

He says that the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, could also attack Israel with shorter-range rockets.

The great danger here is of a more extensive conflict breaking out either between Israel and Hezbollah, or Israel and Hamas.

With so much instability in the Middle East - not least because of the Syria crisis - there is a very real risk of an Israeli strike sparking a much broader regional conflagration.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me: "If they respond too little, they could lose face, and if they respond too much, they could lose their heads."

"Iran will want to respond enough to inflame the regional security environment and negatively impact the global economy - in order to bring down international condemnation of the US or Israel - but stop short of doing anything that could invite massive reprisals from the United States."

"Frankly," Mr Sadjadpour says, "I'm not sure how they do that. If Iran tries to destabilise world energy supplies - whether launching missiles into Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern province or attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz - the US isn't going to stand aside idly."

In the wake of any attack on its facilities, Iran might well, of course, go to the UN to seek some kind of diplomatic redress. This highlights a crucial set of legal questions relating to any military operation.
 
:)) Do people truly believe Israel would attack Iran?

If Israel was serous about an attack on Iran it would have already attacked several years ago. This tough talk is being going on for years and it would continue to go on for years to come. Both the countries are run be slick politicians who use one another for political support in their own country. Israel would never attack Iran without the full support of the US which they will not get anytime soon and Iran would never put itself in a position to be attacked.
 
Last edited:
iran getting nuclear weapons is dangerous full stop, a country where alot of people praise ayotullah humani who was a human devil is dangerous, especially people who follow his sick idealogy.

i personally dont want iran to get nuclear weapons, on the other hand i dont want isreal to kill innocent muslims.

its happaning though, just when....
 
So you call that beating of their life time? Seriosuly wake up, USA didnt even need couple of days to invade Afghanistan. If your difinition of winning is to kill every Afghani then they could have done that also.
Exactly. Some people need to wake up. Just compare the amount of Afghans killed to the amount of US soldiers killed & you will know who got the beating of their lifetime!
 
Israel have attacked potential nuclear facilities before, in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007. They have said they would attack Iran even without the US's support. As for an Iranian response:
As I've said in an earlier post, all those saying that Iran cannot/will not do very much in terms of retaliation are overlooking a vital factor, namely the long term consequences of such an attack.

We have recently seen, in the Balkans, after the breakup of Yugoslavia, how age old conflicts are used to create justifications for new wars, new hatreds and new atrocities.

Any attack on Iran by Israel (or even by the USA) will lay the foundations for future Iranian leaders to use such events to rally support for themselves and possibly even take revenge.

So if Israel wishes to keep, forever, Iran as a potential enemy waiting for the right leader to come along and take revenge, then it's a very short-sighted view and it's leaders are only interested in the here and now, and don't seem to care about its generations to come.

What is even more puzzling is the fact that since Israel already has a large arsenal of nukes, along with the knowledge that any attack upon it by Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would bring very largescale retribution and total annihilation of any Iranian regime that launches such an attack, thus making it extremely unlikely that Iran would ever launch a first-strike, why the Israeli's are hell-bent on starting a war instead of pushing for a peaceful resolution.

As for those Gulf Arab States leaders secretly hoping that Israel does attack Iran, they will be in for a very nasty shock if that does happen. Any such conflict is bound to suck the Gulf Arab States into it, and in the ensuing chaos, those Arab Kings, Princes, Sheikhs and Sultans will suddenly find that they are the ones who end up losing their Palaces as well as their heads.
 
Pakistan is the only Muslim country that is standing by Iran right now hence Iran is going gaga over Pakistan in the last few months.

Yeah but you cannot deny the US provides foreign aid to keep the government , army and basically the country running . Saudis have been funding the madressahs all these years . You dont think they can " use " it in a way to put pressure on Pakistan ? Even if the government decides to side with Iran , you think the Army will allow it ? Before you know it , you will be seeing General Kiyani having meetings with all the higher ups .
 
Republicans? Obama aint no better. Look at amount of drone strikes in Pak under Bush & Obama. Pakistanis should be loving Bush!

President Obama did not start those wars. He inherited those wars from Republican administration and Pakistan have been playing double game with USA. President Obama is also reducing the size of US military.
 
WW3........................ hope it does come and changes this status-quo of US and Israel bullying every living thing on earth...

If Israel attacks Iran, it will not be WW3. Nothing will change. There will be some empty threats by Russia or China or US etc... China will not get itself into any war like situation. They are not stupid to waste their money on a meaningless war. They might offer some diplomatic help to Iran. Same for Russia. They are not in a position to wage any war with a major military power.

There will be a few tense days for all major powers... :afridi
 
Last edited:
We need to remind ourselves of the 3 most powerful lobbies in the USA.

  • Jewish Lobby
  • Religious Lobby
  • Gun lobby

A candidate wishing to be president of the USA must garner support from at least 2 of the above.

Anyone recall Obama’s speech to the Jewish lobby prior to the 2008 US elections? It was talk of Iran, Iran, Nuclear, Nuclear, Prevent, and Prevent.

Obama was elected President. We didn’t hear a peep on Iran other than sanctions.

Guess what, US Elections are around the corner, and hey presto, Iran is talk of the town again.

The finest example of sabre rattling cloaked in sycophancy you will ever see.

USA is broke; it cannot afford another war, certainly not after the Iraq fiasco.

If Israel attacks Iran, solely, then not only will it be illegal, but suicidal.

You cannot fight what you cannot see.

The assumption is Iran has no nukes.

Wage war on an assumption?

It will cost Israel dearly, and Israel know it.
 
Exactly. Some people need to wake up. Just compare the amount of Afghans killed to the amount of US soldiers killed & you will know who got the beating of their lifetime!

Exactly...

What US did to Afghanistan is brutal whipping.. They attacked Afghanistan in no time and kicked out Taliban who did not put up much fight... They had to run away to remote mountains and fight here and there blowing up markets and killing their own people...

US bombed Afghanistan to stone age... US might not have gotten the desired results from the war. Their dream of having Karzai run a democratically elected Govt might not succeed. But they won the war in no time. It was like Mike Tyson attacking Mahatma Gandhi :sami
 
Last edited:
Exactly...

What US did to Afghanistan is brutal whipping.. They attacked Afghanistan in no time and kicked out Taliban who did not put up much fight... They had to run away to remote mountains and fight here and there blowing up markets and killing their own people...

US bombed Afghanistan to stone age... US might not have gotten the desired results from the war. Their dream of having Karzai run a democratically elected Govt might not succeed. But they won the war in no time. It was like Mike Tyson attacking Mahatma Gandhi :sami
Did they?
It depends upon your definition of winning.

The Soviet Union thought that they had 'won' in Afganistan just because they had invaded it, taken control of the major towns and cities and installed a puppet government. But we all know the result of that 'win'.

Similarly, yes, the USA, along with its allies, have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, taken control of the major towns and cities and installed a puppet goverments.
But, apart from the hundreds of thousands Afghani's and Iraq's killed or maimed, the following is a breakdown of the latest count of dead or wounded American's and Allied soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

American Fatalities (Afghanistan) : 1,909
American's Wounded (Afghanistan): 15,322
Other Allies Fatalities (Afghanistan): 1,005
Other Allies Wounded (Afghanistan): ?????

American Fatalities (Iraq) : 4,486
American's Wounded (Iraq) : 32,233
Other Allies Fatalities (Iraq) : > 500
Other Allies Wounded (Iraq) : ?????

Estimated Civilian Deaths
- excluding insurgents (Iraq): 128,000

Estimated Civilian Deaths
- excluding insurgents (Afghanistan): 75,000

Estimated Civilian Wounded
- excluding insurgents (Iraq): Many 100,000's

Estimated Civilian Wounded
- excluding insurgents (Afghanistan): Many 100,000's

Do you call that 'winning' ?

If you do, then you are seriously sick.

No-one, absolutely no-one has won. Just ask those still alive but maimed and the relatives of the dead and wounded of all sides.
 
Exactly...

What US did to Afghanistan is brutal whipping.. They attacked Afghanistan in no time and kicked out Taliban who did not put up much fight... They had to run away to remote mountains and fight here and there blowing up markets and killing their own people...

US bombed Afghanistan to stone age... US might not have gotten the desired results from the war. Their dream of having Karzai run a democratically elected Govt might not succeed. But they won the war in no time. It was like Mike Tyson attacking Mahatma Gandhi :sami

Usually i refrain to comment on such thread, but i could not resist. so bombing mountain is equivalent to sending a country to stone age. A country which was probably living in stone age prior to US bombing. I should not even reply to your comment, knowing that you have absolutely no knowledge regarding Afghanistan, but it is just funny, so i had to.

lol Bombing Afghanistan to Stone age....how old is you kid?
 
Imo, the Iranians should simply go to the UN and announce that they are prepared to let the IAEA, and even the USA, to come and inspect it's facilities and even install monitoring devices as long as Israel is required to do the same..

That should be the foremost method of any country who is not part of universal gang. Diplomacy at world/UN level with strong anti-western media support is the way to go, at least for 'evil' muslim countries.

iran getting nuclear weapons is dangerous full stop, a country where alot of people praise ayotullah humani who was a human devil is dangerous, especially people who follow his sick idealogy.

Right, the same way USA keeping N-weapons is proven dangerous, a country where lot of mac eating dumb people praise and vote non-human devils like Truman, Bush, Chiney etc, and yes they follow sick idealogy form the likes of FOX...
 
Exactly...

What US did to Afghanistan is brutal whipping.. They attacked Afghanistan in no time and kicked out Taliban who did not put up much fight... They had to run away to remote mountains and fight here and there blowing up markets and killing their own people...

US bombed Afghanistan to stone age... US might not have gotten the desired results from the war. Their dream of having Karzai run a democratically elected Govt might not succeed. But they won the war in no time. It was like Mike Tyson attacking Mahatma Gandhi :sami

What a naive post, doesn't deserve a worthy reply.

US dreaming of a "democratically" elected government,:))) shows the knowledge of this poster.
 
World War 3 will be very bad for Muslims especially Muslims based in western countries
 
Afghanistan is subdued? Seriously brother? NATO and America are taking the beating of their lifetime in Afghanistan, so how can you say Afghanistan is subdued?

a few deaths every few weeks doesnt mean a beating of a lifetime

the beating of a lifetime is what the soviets got in afganistan 20 years ago. current 'resistance' is a shame compared to that
 
a few deaths every few weeks doesnt mean a beating of a lifetime

the beating of a lifetime is what the soviets got in afganistan 20 years ago. current 'resistance' is a shame compared to that

The soviets didn't really get a 'beating' in Afghanistan either. It was a combination of a crappy economy and a lack of motivation to really go all out. The Soviet Union, a country that kept the greatest and probably the only true civilizational power in the US crapping bricks for half a century could have simply flattened Afghanistan or for that matter, all of Central Asia and Pakistan in a matter of days had they decided to go all out and utilize all their military resources. Could the Pakistan Air Force with 44 F-16s and 300 odd Chinese copies of Mig-19s and a bunch of mule riding Mullahs with Stingers really have posed any threat to the full military might of the Soviet Union had they decided to go all out? The only reason they got beat was because they had enormous social and economic issues on a domestic level which drained them of any will or motivation to prolong the Afghan conflict.

As for those saying that Afghanistan can't be occupied and things of that nature, for a country that is proclaimed to be the graveyard of empires, it sure spends a lot of time under occupation by one empire or another at any given point in time. I'm a Pakhtun myself and naturally, I sympathize with the people of Afghanistan but when they decide to bring their problems across the border (prior to the mass immigration of Afghans, the gun culture in Khyber was virtually non existent beyond FATA and heroin was as alien a concept to Pakistan back then as Cocaine is today), my sympathy turns to acrimony. To claim that the US is 'getting the beating of a lifetime' is absolutely ludicrous when they basically just got up one day, sent a few hundred thousand troops to Afghanistan, walked over the resistance and today they essentially control the country. If they were really getting such a beating, they wouldn't be comfortably sat there with a couple hundred military bases and absolute control over the fate of the country.
 
Sipah-e-Sahaba would aid the Israelis in attacking Iran, as well as plenty of extremist Sunni terrorist outfits who hate Iran and Shi'as.
 
Sipah-e-Sahaba would aid the Israelis in attacking Iran, as well as plenty of extremist Sunni terrorist outfits who hate Iran and Shi'as.
I would never again say a word against Israel and whatever they get up to in Palestine if they can rid my country of all the Sipahs, Lashkars and Tehreeks.
 
I hope they don't beacuse it actually will be WW3
Iran's allies:China, Russia, Germany, France so yeah won't end well
 
I hope they don't beacuse it actually will be WW3
Iran's allies:China, Russia, Germany, France so yeah won't end well

Germany and France are Iranian allies? An attack on Iran will start a world war where China and Russia will fight for Iran? There I was thinking 'I' was excessive in my use of Hashish.
 
....... To claim that the US is 'getting the beating of a lifetime' is absolutely ludicrous when they basically just got up one day, sent a few hundred thousand troops to Afghanistan, walked over the resistance and today they essentially control the country. If they were really getting such a beating, they wouldn't be comfortably sat there with a couple hundred military bases and absolute control over the fate of the country.
'comfortably sat there with a couple hundred military bases and absolute control over the fate of the country' ?

Have you seen/read my post above, showing the latest estimates of dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If you have read it, then you will see that the USA has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 15,000 wounded in Aghanistan.

If you think that is 'comfortably sat' then I suggest you go and ask some of those 15,000+ wounded/maimed, or the families of the 1,909 dead if they are 'comfortable' about it.

To talk about war and conflict, and the suffering it creates on all sides, in terms of 'comfortable' is probably the most stupidest statement of all time!
 
'comfortably sat there with a couple hundred military bases and absolute control over the fate of the country' ?

Have you seen/read my post above, showing the latest estimates of dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If you have read it, then you will see that the USA has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 15,000 wounded in Aghanistan.

If you think that is 'comfortably sat' then I suggest you go and ask some of those 15,000+ wounded/maimed, or the families of the 1,909 dead if they are 'comfortable' about it.

To talk about war and conflict, and the suffering it creates on all sides, in terms of 'comfortable' is probably the most stupidest statement of all time!
If you offer any general in the world 180 fatalities a year in return for absolute control over a country with bases all over and his troops running the show, he would take it in about half a millisecond. 2000 fatalities over 11 years is nothing. Pakistani forces are concentrated in an area less than 1/10th of Afghanistan and we've lost twice as many soldiers to go along with 34000 civilian casualties.
 
If you offer any general in the world 180 fatalities a year in return for absolute control over a country with bases all over and his troops running the show, he would take it in about half a millisecond. 2000 fatalities over 11 years is nothing. Pakistani forces are concentrated in an area less than 1/10th of Afghanistan and we've lost twice as many soldiers to go along with 34000 civilian casualties.
Sure, as long as the general, or one of his kids, is not one of the 180 fatalities a year. :facepalm:

You're making it sound as if it's a competion of who can suffer the most casualties and be 'comfortable' about it : "We've lost more, in an area 1/10th the size...."

I'll be you would'nt want to be one of those 180 casualties per year that a general would take in about 'half a second'

As long as it's someone else who is doing the dying, the armchair generals can be 'comfortable' about it ! :snack:
 
Sure, as long as the general, or one of his kids, is not one of the 180 fatalities a year. :facepalm:

You're making it sound as if it's a competion of who can suffer the most casualties and be 'comfortable' about it : "We've lost more, in an area 1/10th the size...."

I'll be you would'nt want to be one of those 180 casualties per year that a general would take in about 'half a second'

As long as it's someone else who is doing the dying, the armchair generals can be 'comfortable' about it ! :snack:

That's how war works. No one forced anyone to start a war nor does anyone force anyone else to join the military but once you're in it, you do what you're told. Sure, I wouldn't want to be one of 180 a year, that's why I didn't volunteer to join the military but wars are an unavoidable part of human existence and in that context, 180 casualties a year is any general's dream come true.
 
That's how war works. No one forced anyone to start a war nor does anyone force anyone else to join the military but once you're in it, you do what you're told. Sure, I wouldn't want to be one of 180 a year, that's why I didn't volunteer to join the military but wars are an unavoidable part of human existence and in that context, 180 casualties a year is any general's dream come true.
Sure, most are not forced to join.

But

It's the armchair generals, who don't wish to volunteer but are happy to advocate wars, that ultimately bear the responsibily for the dead, maimed and 'Collateral damage'.

Soldiers don't start wars. They just do the dying on behalf of those that are happy to sit back and claim that wars are unavoidable and simply a part of human existence.
 
Sure, most are not forced to join.

But

It's the armchair generals, who don't wish to volunteer but are happy to advocate wars, that ultimately bear the responsibily for the dead, maimed and 'Collateral damage'.

Soldiers don't start wars. They just do the dying on behalf of those that are happy to sit back and claim that wars are unavoidable and simply a part of human existence.
The only people who have the power to start wars usually tend to have a stake in said wars. Having said that, war is an ugly business and anyone who advocates wars is an idiot.
 
A death is a death but it is true the casualties are nothing compared to Past American wars.

Vietnam - 58,000 deaths
Korean war - 35,000 deaths
World war 2 - 400,000 deaths ( over 400 every day during the war)


To control most parts of the country with the casualties they suffered they would have taken it before they started the mission.
Does not mean it is justified, does not mean the deaths that do occur do not matter.
 
A death is a death but it is true the casualties are nothing compared to Past American wars.

Vietnam - 58,000 deaths
Korean war - 35,000 deaths
World war 2 - 400,000 deaths ( over 400 every day during the war)


To control most parts of the country with the casualties they suffered they would have taken it before they started the mission.
Does not mean it is justified, does not mean the deaths that do occur do not matter.
As I said earlier, even 1 death matters, especially if it is that of a loved one.

The ones that are only interested in what number of casualties is 'acceptable' and what is too much, tend to make sure that one of those 'acceptable' casualties will not be their own son or daughter but someone else's.
 
war is the de-evolution of humanity anyway.. we should be past the point of war by now but for some reason we keep coming back..
 
The smartest option for Iran, in the event of an Israeli or US strike, would be to simply play the victim and move their nuclear program to a secret mission (and continue to develop it of course).

An Iranian non response, just showing footage of the dead and damage, with no violent response, would do immense damage to the US and Israel in terms of public opinion.

If Iran responds with "terror" actions, ie Hezbollah and trying to block the Straits of Hormutz, it will provide a retrospective rationale for the strike "see look at what the Iranians do, we couldnt let them have a bomb".

Whether Iran is clever enough to play it that way, I am not sure. But I am sure that would work best in the long term. It's hard to be the enemy of the West if you are only a victim of the West.
 
^
lol you're saying that a sovereign country should just sit back and do nothing when its under attack. not smart at all tbh
 
Should we be worried?

Please discuss.

I do not think there will be any kind of pre-emptive strike by the IAF, as they did with their brand new F-16s against Saddam's reactor in 1981.

Instead, there will be a Middle East nuclear arms race and the world will become as dangerous as it was in the 1960s.
 
Back
Top