Iran will counter 'any threat'

[Jimbuna]

http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20070523/salami20070523191719234.jpg Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has said that Iran will resist any threat and give a powerful response to its enemies.

The comments came on Wednesday coinciding with a US naval show of force off Iran's coast.

He made his statement to mark the 25th anniversary of the recapture of an Iranian port which was seized by Iraqi forces during the two neighbors' 1980-88 war.

"Islamic Iran will resist any kind of threat and will give a powerful answer to enemies and oppressors," he was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

Earlier on Wednesday, nine US warships carrying 17,000 personnel entered the Persian Gulf in what navy officials said was the largest daytime assembly of ships since the 2003 Iraq war.

US Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the ships, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran's coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.

"If one day a war is about to happen, Iran will defend its borders with more power than previous years," Alireza Afshar, deputy for "defense propaganda", told Mehr news agency.


How serious do you think Iran is ?
Are they capable of being a threat to the awesome array of firepower lying off their coastline ?

[Happy Times]

Mostly hot air. Offcourse they will fight, if it is a ground invasion, air and sea is of limits to them. They will probably attack in Iraq and Afganistan. If they are feeling suicidal, they might use biological/chemical weapons. Maybe terrorism towards countries participating in the attack. Thats it, but maybe enough, they think that westerners are weak. If they are right, remains to be seen sometime in the future.

[TteFAboB]

Untill they get a nuke they're only a nuisance that can, nevertheless, cause alot of trouble by messing with Oil supply.

[Jimbuna]

I don't think the Israelis will allow that somehow :hmm:

[Oberon]

The Kilos could be a pain in the arse, particularly to merchant shipping, their Hoot Skhvals could be a problem close range against shipping, they might use it as an underwater missile from a small torpedo or missile boat, rapid approach to target, fire and leg it. Unlike a missile the Skhval can't be shot down and if fired close enough there's virtually no reaction time.
But, this depends on the firing platform getting close enough to fire as you can hear a Skhval several miles off so it's primarily a close-in knife fight weapon. So to get to the target you either need the target to have no radar or a very old and useless radar set (which ditches out the US/UK Navy) or some kind of stealth ability...and I don't think the Norweigans have sold that to Iran.

Their missile boats shall be an annoyance, and I imagine one or two stray Sunburns might get through and cause damage, we may even lose a ship or two, no fleet is invincible, the Falklands showed that, and the Argies didn't have the SS-N-22 back then...and admittedly it didn't help that we built our ships out of aluminium too...but even so, no part of the force is invulnerable.

In retalliation however, you can kiss goodbye to Bandar Abbas and every visible naval facility, and their nuclear plant will be gone if it wasn't hit in the strike which prompted the conflict. Iranian airfields will be pummelled next by B-2s, cluster bombs on the runways, bunker bombs in the command posts. They'll be pretty much out of action for a week or two....but if Iran is smart they'll have back-up airfields out in the deserts with mobile radar and SAM sites (IIRC didn't they buy a load of new SAM systems off the Russkies a year or so ago?) to protect them. Iranian casualty rates will be high but they will inflict some damage on attacking craft, I'm thinking a couple of F-18s may get got by ground SAMs, the Iranian AF seems to have a lot of modern fighters, MiG-29s, 31s, Frogfoots, and F-14s with their Phoenix missiles which may catch someone unawares...but it is hard to judge such things on a basic numerical scale.

Which leaves the ground forces, their Zulfiqar series of tanks seem to have some interesting design implementations which rumour has it, have been put in place from the studies of M1 Abrams wreckage in Iraq. It has elements of a T-72 and M60, and some resemblance to the M1, monkey see, monkey do. But I doubt their ground forces (except the SCUD and AA branches) will see much use...there will probably be some border skirmishes on the Iran/Iraq zone, but I doubt very much that Iran will launch a full scale invasion of Iraq, not while so many Allied forces are in it...some strike missions on prime targets perhaps, but not a full-scale invasion...although I may be proved wrong. Chemical and standard SCUD launches will probably drop over the border, some may even hit their targets, which'll undoubtably be civilian. It's also possible that some of the Iranian missile boats shall strive to get into a position to drop LAMs on coastal targets. Minefields in the Straits of Hormuz will probably also hinder naval operations in the area until the minesweepers are brought in.
I would imagine Irans SOP would be to harry and harass, get in, launch and get out sharpish before the Allies can react. The Allies on the other hand will be focusing on hamstringing the Iranians C&C ability, taking out command centers, communications arrays, radar facilities...and I should imagine Iran knows this, it's not exactly a well kept Allied secret...so their defence will likely be fluid, if an airfield gets hit and destroyed, then retreat to a hidden airfield elsewhere, if that gets hit, then move again, keeping their command equipment mobile will help hinder accurate intelligence, for a time anyway. Irans AF will probably be decimated eventually, the fleet mauled beyond most repair, the ground forces damaged but if they stay out of Iraq they probably will be the least hurt, particularly if they disperse when the fighting starts. Being mobile and quick about it is the key to good defence, by the time the B-2s arrive you're no longer there, melting into the desert, having large rigid base structures is akin to painting a large Bullseye on every roof in the base with a little sign saying "Rockeye goes here."
It's the opening few days that'll be the decider, by the end of that the naval strike ability of Iran will have been reduced severely, probably down to a few ships and those Kilos who if they play their cards right, can survive for some time if they take it slow and steady...if they go crazy and have to recharge, they're P3 bait, if they have to go and find a resupply boat, then by the time they'll get there, they'll be trying to refuel from a burning wreck. So it's slow, steady and hitting merchants and clearing the datum before the cavalry arrives, in that way they can scare the merchant fleets and tie up fleet ability in escort duties to the tankers, as well as send the environmentalists mad with oil slicks and the media on overload with protests. That's really the main thing, kill enough Allies, do enough damage and it'll turn the public against the Allies and force them to curtail any long term plans, like has happened and is happening in Iraq. It's not just a physical war anymore, it's a media war as well, and the media is already warm to the side which isn't Bush and if the Iranians show enough pictures of carefully positioned childrens corpses and hits on 'Baby milk factories' then the media war is already swaying in their favour... the US may have talked about winning 'Hearts and Minds' in the Iraq strike, and while at first it may have succeeded, now the 'Hearts and Minds' are beginning to sway the other way, and a strike on Iran would probably only serve to push them even further, with extreme organisation recruitment levels soaring, the Allies have to be prepared for this and the backlash at home and abroad that will occur....it may not be immediate, but it will happen eventually.
So what Iran is saying is similar to a Puffer Fish puffing itself up, it can cause damage, that's for certain, but it's not 'The mother of all battles' that Dinnerjacket may reckon it is, and that's why Iran is testing us, unless it's not a major Ace up its sleeve that we don't know about, it's bluffing...until it finishes its nuke program...then all bets are off.

Dear god, I've done a Skybird...still, I do enjoy a bit of speculation. :rock:

[Skybird]

How serious do you think Iran is ? Are they capable of being a threat to the awesome array of firepower lying off their coastline ?

Yes.

Modern missiles can do a remarkable ammount of damage to ships - and they have plenty of these, plus mines, and a small handful of reasonable subs. Expect to see some modern types of anti-ship-missiles in their arsenal too that nobody previously had on his list, if it becomes a hot war.

Steering two aircaft carriers through the street of Hormuz, hm? Well, if the US Navy tries that during wartime, it will have two aircraft carriers less and two floating platforms more in it's arsenal.

I was in Iran for months. I can only warn everybody of underestimating their determination to defend themselves. The national sentiments amongst Iranians are extremely high, no matter the social class, no matter the age, no matter what people's opinion on religion and political freedom is. Patriotism runs extremely high in Iran. Maybe, better: probably commandos doing some local infiltration operations. But a land invasion of ground forces - forget it.

The greater threats are not for the US fleet anyway, but for iraq, the Israeli area of the ME and Lebanon, Europe, Afghanistan, oil markets, and a massive shift in poloticial baöances concerning oil trade partners (China, India, and strategically: Russia).

It makes me sad a bit that people here usually do not see the many sides of Persian culture and mentality, and reduce it only to "Ahmadinejadh'S Iran", further enflamed by the witness crisis in the 70s. But it remains a fact for me that amongst all Muslim countries I was in, in Iran I found the most reasonable mindset in many people. The educational standard is higher than in most other muslim countries. Amongst apostates from Islam who live as immigrants in the West, Iranians by far form the greatest group. the clerics and Ahmadinejadh only represent a part of the Iranian population, by far not all. I was not in Afghanistan, but on rare occasions met Afghans in Pakistan (were we also stayed only very short only), which also were very different (and in their way very impressive) from the Arab (and Pakistani) Muslims in other places.

Maybe it will come to a war in the future, and maybe, maybe not, I will support that (currently I oppose it completely). but I will always consider it to be a great tragedy.

If you think I am queer or I contradict my usual anti-Islamic statements, then you haven't understand so far what I am talking about in all those months. That the Ayatollahs now are so strong only illustrates what immense tragedy Islam means for the people and cultures it subjugates. Maybe we will fight them one day, and if I see a need for that, I will demand a far tougher going than politicians in the West are willing to accept, including the Americans, becasue peace and war is a black-white affair for me only. But I will never feel triumphant or excited about it.

[SUBMAN1]

SO this is where Comical Ali went to! I always wondered!

-S

[Hitman]

Probably the only real threat Iran represents is for the world economy. Iran has the power to make the Strait of Ormuz and the entry to the Suez channel very hot, plus it is the fourth oil producer. I would say that skyrocketing oil prices would not be welcomed anywhere, and such a blow to the world economies added to the cost of engaging in a new war (Though hopefully lessons from Irak are learnt and a very different approach is made) would be enough to disuade the US and UK politicians from starting it. The chances of Israel starting it on its own are not to be underestimated, however:hmm:

[Chock]

Well, you can't blame them for a bit of posturing considering they have far more right to be concerned about what is going on in Iraq than most other countries.

Put yourself in their shoes: Imagine a coalition of Arab nations nipping over to Canada and suppressing the place and occupying it. Do you think that the Yanks over the border would just sit quietly and let it happen?

Or to put it another way:

Yes there are indeed some terrorists in Iran, and a lot of religious radicals too, as there are in quite a number of countries where Islam is the main religion. But then again, there are a lot of religious radicals and terrorists in Ireland and many other countries besides, yet you don't see the Syrian Air Force nipping over there and bombing Belfast claiming that they are fighting for peace and a war on terror, and not giving a crap about civilians being hit in 'collateral damage'.

We may not agree with their politics or their religion, but your average everyday Iranian citizen who's going out to work, paying the bills etc, can hardly be blamed for thinking 'Hey, we've got just as much right to have a Nuke as anyone else, especially with an occupying army over the border that thinks we're all a bunch of terrorists'.

An extreme example, I know. But everyone has the right to defend themself. And one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on your point of view.

But back to the main point of this post: Yes, I think that the Iranians could put up quite a fight. If you relate it to my extreme example, who do you think is going to be more dedicated to such a fight, a US or British soldier who's been sent over to some country he doesn't really know or care about, or someone who is fighting for their homeland and has nothing else to lose?

:D Chock

[fatty]

How serious do you think Iran is ?
It's hard to say how serious they are because they aren't really making any explicit statements in this article. "If you attack us we will fight back" ...well, that's pretty much a given. Iran must lay out their terms before we can start weighing in on deterrence. Both U.S. and Iran are just rattling their cages right now; they both probably know that a strike in the next years or so (or as long as troops are still in Iraq) will disintegrate any remaining support for the American administration.


Are they capable of being a threat to the awesome array of firepower lying off their coastline ?

Yep. Skybird answered this best. Shore-to-ship missiles, submarines, mines, etc etc.

[Skybird]

Well, you can't blame them for a bit of posturing considering they have far more ...

(...)

... about, or someone who is fighting for their homeland and has nothing else to lose?

:D Chock

Iran is shia Islam. Most Arabs are Sunni Islam. Shia islam in recent years have shown to be a bigger troublemaker. This together with the strengthening of Iran in recent years is the reason why all Gulf states and Saudi Arabai are seriously concerned about them. The Iran-remote-controlled Hezbollah in Lebanon is Iran tool to bring sunni influence in the Palestinian region into trouble - that is the reason why many Sunni politicians remained relatively silent when Israel tried to bomb the hell out of Hezbollah in the last Lebanon war - if successful, Israel would have done them a favour that way. There are some conclusive thoughts that the current battle of the Lebanese army in those camps is an attempt to crack down another raidcal organization, which was supported by Saudi-Arabai and was meant to counter Hezbollah in the region. Since Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government, they tried to use their influence to make officially "neutral" Lebanese army taking care of their rival, whi9ch then would be in the interest of Iran, and Syria, although Syria'S interests again are slightly different and they realized that they cannot afford to let Iran interfere in Lebanon the way it did in the past years, not without this happening at the cost of ongoing future Syrian chances to dominate Lebanon, like it used to do in the past years. All these factions nevertheless are Arabs, while the Iranians are Persians. It is a clash between Sunnis and Shias, Arabs and Persians, Iran and the gulf states, Saudi Arabia, and other sunni states. Compared to that kettle of boiling water, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets overestimated time and again. The Palestinian problem is the less important of the two.

Schwierig, hm? :)

This only to put your remark back into perpective that Iran only is interested in Iraq from a position of self-defence. It's exactly the opposite.

Their attempt to gain nukes, whcih I take as granted, is also a split affair. Ironically, Iran NEEDS alternative energy, since currently it uses too much of the oil it produces for it's own needs, loosing to many incomes from oil it just burns, but does not sell. That way, it cannot push economical develoepemtn like they want and try, their finances and incomes remain too weak. At the same time they have learned by the example of Iraq 2003, that if you are in the way of US policies, you will get accused of developing nukes, and when you reject it, you will be called a liar and get attacked. So you need those damn nukes for real, to prevent being attacked, that way prooving that the accusation is true - you grab for nukes indeed. And finally, nukes are a wonderful tool to gain prestige in the Muslim world, and become a stronger player and be able to act with more determination amongst muslim states, and towards the world as well, since you have become very much invulnerable to military attacks.

So, the interest of Iran to want nukes is logical and easy to understand. One should not expect them to act against their interests, or to act stupidly.

[Chock]

This only to put your remark back into perpective that Iran only is interested in Iraq from a position of self-defence. It's exactly the opposite.


The point of this discussion was to debate whether Iran could feasibly have some sort of war with (presumably) an American-led coalition force. And the point of the announcement from the Iranian Defence Minister (apart from gaining public support from waverers with a rallying cry) was that it was a response to the gathering military 'show of force' in the region, ostensibly as part of the coalition efforts in Iraq. So that was what I was responding to, by pointing out that such a statement was probably geared towards garnering the support of the populace as much as it was 'trying to sound like a badass' on the international stage.

With that in mind, their interest in Iraq and the coalition efforts is hardly 'exactly the opposite'. The US political hawks have been sabre-rattling and mooting some sort of military action against Iran for a long time. I never said it was the only reason Iran were interested in Iraq, just that the leaders and more militant religious heads in Iran can co-opt more soft-line members of their populace with a 'backs against the wall' attitude to the US threats.

This has been a proven tactic of leaders throughout history. Most notably in Nazi Germany, where the Allied bombing of civilian population centres actually had the effect of stiffening people's resolve to fight, even if they had no great love for the Nazi leaders and what they had brought the country to. As evidenced by the fact that even as the Second World War drew to a close, production rates for fighter planes etc actually went up.

That was my point.

:D Chock

[Frau_Phillips]

Why can't we all just get along?

...

:rotfl:

[Happy Times]

They have to feel safe to sail these in.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070522-N-8157C-240.jpg
Description: (from foreground) USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) transit the Gulf of Oman.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=29585

[Jimbuna]

Reminds me of the Maori Haka :hmm:

[Skybird]

They have to feel safe to sail these in.

Why? Are they invisible?

[FIREWALL]

[quote=jimbuna][quote]http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20070523/salami20070523191719234.jpg Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar


This guy looks like a street wino. :rotfl:

[DanCanovas]

haha I agree! :rotfl:

[DanCanovas]

on a different note, i enjoy reading skybirds contributions!

[The Avon Lady]

:D Smile! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274725,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/euro) :D

[Oberon]

http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/l/le/lespowell/181768_sizewell_power_station.jpg

Well, as long as they don't try to hit the one on the left, we're alright.

Seriously though, attack on nuclear power plants? I don't know about Europe, but certainly Sizewell has got a fair bit of security, particularly on the inside of the stations, ok...the outside station security is a complete joke, as Greenpeace protestors demonstrated, but to get inside you have to go through several security and radiation checkpoints. The dome itself is armoured against a nearby nuclear strike, let alone a plane being dropped in it. So what are they going to use? There are so many backups and failsafes in Sizewell that it would be very hard to set it to meltdown. Now, the last time I checked Iran didn't have a Carrier sitting in the North Sea, so they can't launch a bunker-buster air strike, and their Kilos probably wouldn't be allowed to leave the Gulf, particularly considering they'd have to refuel.

So, there'd be a lot of panic and the environmental and safety groups ('Shut down Sizewell') would have a fit if someone tried to bomb the dome, but I do doubt very much that there would be a major release of radiation, the Dome has been dropping the odd leak for years and I've not started glowing yet. ;)

Oh, don't worry, I'm not totally dismissing the Iranian threat, I'm just curious as how they expect to carry that threat out.

[Jimbuna]

[quote=jimbuna][quote]http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20070523/salami20070523191719234.jpg Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar


This guy looks like a street wino. :rotfl:
Actually, he's the most important person in................................his own head :lol:

[DanCanovas]

:D Smile! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274725,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/euro) :D


:rotfl: i think they over-estimate their important and capabilities.

[The Avon Lady]

:D Smile! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274725,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/euro) :D
:rotfl: i think they over-estimate their important and capabilities.
In all seriousness, the smilies were my cynical response to folks like you that think they're immune to large scale Shi'ite Iran's martyrdom fantasies against infidel Europe.

The world has not caught on yet, I see. :nope:

Read (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305).

Read some more (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP72304).

But, hey, keep on smiling! :D

[Jimbuna]

Do you believe the Israeli Government will act ie: prevent the Iranians from creating an atomic bomb through military means without prior permission from the US ? :hmm:

[DanCanovas]

Do you believe the Israeli Government will act ie: prevent the Iranians from creating an atomic bomb through military means without prior permission from the US ? :hmm:

i have wondered this.

[The Avon Lady]

Do you believe the Israeli Government will act ie: prevent the Iranians from creating an atomic bomb through military means without prior permission from the US ? :hmm:
Out of desparation and with no help from the outside, Israel might do it. Unfortunately we have the wimpiest government in Israel's history sitting in the hot seat at present. In addition, the west both has its head in the sand plus thinks that appeasement by feeding Israel to Ahmadinajar :D will spare them. :nope:

[Jimbuna]

Do you believe the Israeli Government will act ie: prevent the Iranians from creating an atomic bomb through military means without prior permission from the US ? :hmm:
Out of desparation and with no help from the outside, Israel might do it. Unfortunately we have the wimpiest government in Israel's history sitting in the hot seat at present. In addition, the west both has its head in the sand plus thinks that appeasement by feeding Israel to Ahmadinajar :D will spare them. :nope:

Not so sure I agree with you there :nope:
Israel has a proud history of defending itself when the chips are down and everyone else thinks the odds stacked against her are unsurmountable :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Do you believe the Israeli Government will act ie: prevent the Iranians from creating an atomic bomb through military means without prior permission from the US ? :hmm:
Out of desparation and with no help from the outside, Israel might do it. Unfortunately we have the wimpiest government in Israel's history sitting in the hot seat at present. In addition, the west both has its head in the sand plus thinks that appeasement by feeding Israel to Ahmadinajar :D will spare them. :nope:
Not so sure I agree with you there :nope:
Israel has a proud history of defending itself when the chips are down and everyone else thinks the odds stacked against her are unsurmountable :yep:
Judaism teaches a very important Axiom: "Ein somchin al ha'ness" - "One should not rely upon miracles".

Those of us who are religious acknowledge the numerous miracles we've seen over the last 60 years - even daily ones in the last decade or 2.

Iran has done its best to bomb-proof and scatter these facilities. In addition, they have a hugh arsenal of long range missiles that easily reach Europe, let alone Israel.

It would be lovely to have a massive earthquake and watch Iran slide down a sink hole or see a regime change where sane Iranians rule again but I wouldn't count on it.

I guess I'll have to pray a little harder.

[DanCanovas]

Do you believe the Israeli Government will act ie: prevent the Iranians from creating an atomic bomb through military means without prior permission from the US ? :hmm:
Out of desparation and with no help from the outside, Israel might do it. Unfortunately we have the wimpiest government in Israel's history sitting in the hot seat at present. In addition, the west both has its head in the sand plus thinks that appeasement by feeding Israel to Ahmadinajar :D will spare them. :nope:
Not so sure I agree with you there :nope:
Israel has a proud history of defending itself when the chips are down and everyone else thinks the odds stacked against her are unsurmountable :yep:
Judaism teaches a very important Axiom: "Ein somchin al ha'ness" - "One should not rely upon miracles".

Those of us who are religious acknowledge the numerous miracles we've seen over the last 60 years - even daily ones in the last decade or 2.

Iran has done its best to bomb-proof and scatter these facilities. In addition, they have a hugh arsenal of long range missiles that easily reach Europe, let alone Israel.

It would be lovely to have a massive earthquake and watch Iran slide down a sink hole or see a regime change where sane Iranians rule again but I wouldn't count on it.

I guess I'll have to pray a little harder.

haha to the point as always.

[Oberon]

That is probably what a lot of the EU is hoping will happen to Iran, they're thinking that if they leave it long enough Israel will do the dirty work so they don't have to soil their hands with it.
Oh, I'm in no false impression about Irans want to spread a cloud of radioactive gas across most of Europe, in fact I think most of the Middle East wants to do that, but Iran having the bigger links and money is in a better position to do so. That's why we have so many security services around and near critical targets, but part of the war against terror is not letting them change our way of life, not letting them see pictures on the news of people living in constant fear of a terrorist attack, We are not scared, let them try their worst, we will ride it out, we've managed to overcome worse before, and although our leaders may not have much in the way of backbone, we do, and we won't be defeated.

EDIT: I'm not a religious man, but I'll join you in that prayer AL. ;)

[Jimbuna]

we've managed to overcome worse before,

Remind me....when was the last time we were the target of nuclear missiles ?:hmm:
:up:

[DanCanovas]

we've managed to overcome worse before,

Remind me....when was the last time we were the target of nuclear missiles ?:hmm:
:up:

:rotfl:

[Oberon]

we've managed to overcome worse before,

Remind me....when was the last time we were the target of nuclear missiles ?:hmm:
:up:

Approximately 1947-1991, aaaaand probably still today ;) Because, let's face it...the US'll still have Russia and China on the nuke speed-dial.

[DanCanovas]

being under threat is different to coping with a reality.

[The Avon Lady]

we've managed to overcome worse before,

Remind me....when was the last time we were the target of nuclear missiles ?:hmm:
:up:

Approximately 1947-1991, aaaaand probably still today ;) Because, let's face it...the US'll still have Russia and China on the nuke speed-dial.
These are not Russians and MAD won't work here.

"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”
- Ayatollah Khomeini, 1942

EDIT: Let me expand the above quote fully:

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country of the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who says this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]! Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! These are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
- Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted from Ibn Warraq's book "Why I am Not A Muslim", Prometheus Books, 1995, p.11-12. (p.381), Amir Taheri, Holy Terror, London, 1987, p.226-227.

[Oberon]

Ok, I'll grant you that, but as Russia knew during the Cold War, any nuclear missile strike on Europe will result in the total eradication of the Middle East, they may hit us with one missile but in return they'll get a rain of MIRVs. Admittedly, around that point China will probably open up, maybe Russia too and then we all die, but as Skybird said, as radical as Iran is, I can't see them using it on Europe...Israel sadly, yes I can...which is tandamount to dropping one on Europe really, I can't see the US or UK letting that one pass. Whoever uses a nuclear weapon first loses the entire worlds favour, it's not exactly a popular thing to do.
Nuclear missiles? No...not yet...sometime within the next five years, maybe, particularly if Iran does get its nuke. Dirty bombs, almost definately. But then again, if you had asked the average Joe in October of '62 whether he thought the world was gonna end, he probably would have said yes....and it didn't....just.
So, our biggest weapon is our attitude, our ability to prevent attacks taking place, and when they do (which it's inevitable that they will) we take it on the chin the best we can, for to run around like a headless chicken is to give them what they want. They want that power over us, they want us to live in fear of them, why should we?

Oh, and yes, I know that MAD doesn't work in the case of Islam, aside from them being it, but consider the respective firepowers, Dinnerjacket would surely want to build up his arsenal before using them? Plus...with any luck, we'll have ICBM defence systems up and running before long, and the only way to overcome them is to saturate them or develop a smart MIRV, and even then the smart MIRVs can be countered. So while the risk is still high (you've only gotta look at the Doomsday clock), I'm still fairly confident about the risk of missile attack.

Now terrorist based ground bombs ala 'Jericho' is a different story, and that does worry me.

[Skybird]

All nations having nukes have preselected targets prpgrammed into their warheads if they are mounted to missiles. Some years ago there was a mderate row in Germany when it became known that Israel even has targetted all majpor cpitals in Western europe, as some Israeli source indicated to medias back then. If Iran really is doing intel gathering on nuclear sites in europe, it is more likely to be meant for strikes from the ground or civial air traffic, which means: terror strikes.

As a matter of fact I expect such strikes to happen sooner or later, no matter whom it is conducting them. I often think of that, since I live near a channel here in Münster, and a small harbour with an oil storage site with a pumping station, three major and half a dozen or so smaller tanks. The gate to the perimeter is often open, and nobody in sight. I can travel by bike along the fence, and no camera and patrol anywhere. Nobody would stop me if I suddenly climb over the simple wire-fence and run for the tanks to place a bomb. I even would not need to climb over the fence - the path is so near to the tanks that I could lob a handgrenade at them easily. Some pipes leading from and to the main tanks are arrayed so close to the fence that you can touch them by putting your fingers through the mesh.

Such concepts of "security" certainly do not help.

[The Avon Lady]

All nations having nukes have preselected targets prpgrammed into their warheads if they are mounted to missiles. Some years ago there was a mderate row in Germany when it became known that Israel even has targetted all majpor cpitals in Western europe, as some Israeli source indicated to medias back then.
You have an attraction for unsubstantiated lies when it comes to Israel. Do you collect them? Trade them with your friends?

The origination of this nonsense is one crackpot leftist self-loathing Israeli professor named Martin Van Crevel. A nobody in local circles.

As originally reported by the most distinguished IAP News (IAP = Islamic Association for Palestine), the professor said, without a shred of substantiation:

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."

There's your "Israeli source" and the mouthpiece reporting it. The royal "we" and "our".

Two shoes in mouth (again), Skybird! :up: :up:

[Oberon]

I can kinda sympathise there Skybird, there was an outcry up here a few years back when protestors scaled the fence and got onto the site of the nuclear station and scaled up the side of the Dome to write in big red letters 'DANGER'....BNFL tried to get it cleaned off but only managed to get the D taken off which resulted in 'ANGER' being written on the side of the Dome for several weeks afterwards. But they didn't get inside the facility, just the facility grounds which means they could probably disconnect it from the grid, or damage the water supply system (B is a PWR) but as for causing a release of radiation, well, BNFL are quite capable of doing that at Sizewell themselves without any Iranian help.
Can't comment on other British nuclear sites, but flying a plane into Sizewell B won't do much, it's a bloody thick wall.... A, however...yeah that might collapse, it doesn't look very sturdy but it's decommed anyway, and will be a thick concrete shell before long.

Oil and gas terminals though....yeah, they're totally screwed without military coverage. :damn:

[Skybird]

Don't know if the quote was by van Crefeld or not. But I have red some materials and even books by van Crefeld, and what you, AL, call leftist crap, I call very reasonable and insightful thinking and better understanding of local conditions and future projections to be made from that, than what most Israeli and European politicians are capable of.

He is the first to admit that Israelis hate him, btw. He says he has caused too many scratches on Israel's glorious self-perception - and this your people do not forgive him. But that is not my problem, but yours.

Your hostile as well as arrogant rethorics do yourself no compliments. Anyway, on a different thing, this is for you, and you probably like it better: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,484770,00.html

[Oberon]

Ahmadinejad reacted by declaring that Iran is a "train without brakes and rear gear,"

And we all know what happens to them:

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/01/26/87/image_1587261.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

Don't know if the quote was by van Crefeld or not. But I have red some materials and even books by van Crefeld, and what you, AL, call leftist crap, I call very reasonable and insightful thinking and better understanding of local conditions and future projections to be made from that, than what most Israeli and European politicians are capable of.
Surely the book you read substantiates its sources. Go ahead. Take your time.
He is the first to admit that Israelis hate him, btw. He says he has caused too many scratches on Israel's glorious self-perception - and this your people do not forgive him. But that is not my problem, but yours.
One of many. But if you don't problems with people spewing nonsense based on nothing, then go for it.
Your hostile as well as arrogant rethorics do yourself no compliments.
I don't care. I call 'em as I see 'em. You're a sucker for anti-Israel smears. Ask yourself why.
Anyway, on a different thing, this is for you, and you probably like it better: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,484770,00.html
A regular I-told-you-so. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Ahmadinejad reacted by declaring that Iran is a "train without brakes and rear gear,"
And we all know what happens to them:

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/01/26/87/image_1587261.jpg
I was thinking more along the lines of:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3585/xin29030211084250029384wc4.jpg

[Oberon]

Touché

[Skybird]

Surely the book you read substantiates its sources. Go ahead. Take your time.
What book? Yours?
One of many. But if you don't problems with people spewing nonsense based on nothing, then go for it.
He offers more than you. Not just links en masse. In the 80s, there was this stereotype that almost was a running joke in Germany, that americans watch so much TV that they do not take something for real anymore as loing as they haven'T seen it on TV. Today, some people seem to be like that with regard to the internet. If it's not on the web, it is not real. And if it is not a welcomed opinion, it isn't real, too.
I don't care. I call 'em as I see 'em. You're a sucker for anti-Israel smears. Ask yourself why.
One very far away day in my life I think I really must give this question some very deep and thorough examination. Til then, even if it surprises you, I prefer the lecture of guys like van Creveld or Herrfried Münkler.

[The Avon Lady]

Surely the book you read substantiates its sources. Go ahead. Take your time.
What book? Yours?
Engage brain before posting. To quote you:

"But I have red some materials and even books by van Crefeld....."
One of many. But if you don't problems with people spewing nonsense based on nothing, then go for it.
He offers more than you. Not just links en masse.
Ooooooooooooh! A professor that can babble. They impress you, so it seems.
In the 80s, there was this stereotype that almost was a running joke in Germany, that americans watch so much TV that they do not take something for real anymore as loing as they haven'T seen it on TV. Today, some people seem to be like that with regard to the internet. If it's not on the web, it is not real. And if it is not a welcomed opinion, it isn't real, too.
Look in the mirror. You just described yourself to a tee.
I don't care. I call 'em as I see 'em. You're a sucker for anti-Israel smears. Ask yourself why.
One very far away day in my life I think I really must give this question some very deep and thorough examination. Til then, even if it surprises you, I prefer the lecture of guys like van Creveld or Herrfried Münkler.
Regarding the former, you are what you eat. Regarding the latter, never heard of him. Very little seems to be available in English. Found this article (http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-iraqwarphiloshophy/article_1921.jsp), of no particularly exciting revelation.

Bah, it must be rubbish because I found it through a link. :roll:

[Skybird]

Surely the book you read substantiates its sources. Go ahead. Take your time.
What book? Yours?
Engage brain before posting. To quote you:

"But I have red some materials and even books by van Crefeld....."

Engage your own brain first, maybe. You made a link between van Creveld and a reference of mine, the latter of which I clearly indicated that I am even not sure if I red about that quote in one of van Creveld's books. I just said that I have read some stuff by van Creveld. so what book do you mean, and with regard to what? My initial reference? See the beginning of this paragraph.

Or better, read it yourself. You can learn from that man.

Ooooooooooooh! A professor that can babble. They impress you, so it seems.
Oooooooooooooh! A women that is no professor but still babbles nevertheless. I am not always impressed, or so it seems.

In the 80s, there was this stereotype that almost was a running joke in Germany, that americans watch so much TV that they do not take something for real anymore as loing as they haven'T seen it on TV. Today, some people seem to be like that with regard to the internet. If it's not on the web, it is not real. And if it is not a welcomed opinion, it isn't real, too.
Look in the mirror. You just described yourself to a tee.
When I ask the mirror for links, it shows me your face. Weired.


One very far away day in my life I think I really must give this question some very deep and thorough examination. Til then, even if it surprises you, I prefer the lecture of guys like van Creveld or Herrfried Münkler.
Regarding the former, you are what you eat.
Same is true for you.

Regarding the latter, never heard of him. Very little seems to be available in English. Found this article (http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-iraqwarphiloshophy/article_1921.jsp), of no particularly exciting revelation.

English is not everything. Münkler is professor for politology in Berlin. He wrote a biography about Machiavelli which is considered to be an academic standard work on that man and his ideas, and some historic books on the politology of empires, and the developement of warfare in the past and the future, all of them hold extremely high credits in German-tongued academic circles. His book on the future of war is possibly the best I ever have read in English or German on that matter.

[Gizzmoe]

Avon, Skybird, you both are adults, you should be able to discuss things without using snide remarks and personal attacks...

[DanCanovas]

:rotfl: here here!

[Oberon]

Awww, don't break them up just yet Gizz, my ticket sales were just starting to peak!!

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/144/a/6/The_Big_Fight_by_Electricfox5.jpg

[DanCanovas]

Awww, don't break them up just yet Gizz, my ticket sales were just starting to peak!!

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/144/a/6/The_Big_Fight_by_Electricfox5.jpg


:rotfl: can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

[Gizzmoe]

can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

No, that´s Hannah Szenes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hannah_Szenes

[DanCanovas]

can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

No, that´s Hannah Szenes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hannah_Szenes


ah thanks Gizzmoe. :up:

[Oberon]

can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

No, that´s Hannah Szenes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hannah_Szenes

One helluva lady....serious respect. :up:

[DanCanovas]

can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

No, that´s Hannah Szenes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hannah_Szenes

One helluva lady....serious respect. :up:

who the Avon Lady or Hannah Szenes?

[Oberon]

can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

No, that´s Hannah Szenes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hannah_Szenes

One helluva lady....serious respect. :up:

who the Avon Lady or Hannah Szenes?

Lol, Both!! But more so for Hannah. ;)

[DanCanovas]

can I ask a question, is that the Avon Lady in her pic??

No, that´s Hannah Szenes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hannah_Szenes

One helluva lady....serious respect. :up:

who the Avon Lady or Hannah Szenes?

Lol, Both!! But more so for Hannah. ;)


:rotfl:

[Ostfriese]

The Iranians have learned an important lesson: Causing fear is a weapon far more effective than any bomb could be, as long as people take you seriously.
And they are doing quite well with this strategy. Just look at how many ressources are put up against them, just because of WORDS.

[August]

The Iranians have learned an important lesson: Causing fear is a weapon far more effective than any bomb could be, as long as people take you seriously.
And they are doing quite well with this strategy. Just look at how many ressources are put up against them, just because of WORDS.

It's a bit more than words as the victims of iranian made ieds and hezbollah rockets can attest.

[Skybird]

Avon, Skybird, you both are adults, you should be able to discuss things without using snide remarks and personal attacks...
I did not start it. Please take note of that simple fact. I simply mirrored her choice of words once she became aggressive.

[Heibges]

http://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kingdavd.jpghttp://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kingdvd2.jpg

There are crazies on every side of the political spectrum. Sometimes crazies take over governments. Sometimes they get elected Prime Minister.

If you use terrorist tactics to achieve an aim, it's a little naive to expect folks to feel sorry for you, if someone uses them against you. Once you have blood on your hands, it's difficult to wash it off.

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kingdavd.jpghttp://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kingdvd2.jpg

There are crazies on every side of the political spectrum. Sometimes crazies take over governments. Sometimes they get elected Prime Minister.

If you use terrorist tactics to achieve an aim, it's a little naive to expect folks to feel sorry for you, if someone uses them against you. Once you have blood on your hands, it's difficult to wash it off.
That was the main HQ of the British Army. The hotel plus others were phoned in advance of the bombing but some Brit smuggly and obnoxiously replied "we don't take orders from Jews". Spit.

That arrogance and haughtiness is just a miniscule hint of the misery the English afflicted on the Jews of Palestine under British rule for decades. The blood of 100's of Israelis and myriads of Jews who the British White Papers (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/white.html) prevented from escaping Hitler's annihilation machine is on their hands. But don't bother mentioning it. Such trivialities.

More details here: The Bombing of the King David Hotel (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html).

Lastly, one should ask, why Heibges thought this relevant to post here. Indeed.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon, Skybird, you both are adults, you should be able to discuss things without using snide remarks and personal attacks...
I did not start it. Please take note of that simple fact. I simply mirrored her choice of words once she became aggressive.
You only continue to slander my country at your whim with baseless assumptions. I will not remain silent. Well, I will now, 'cause I gotta cook!

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3269/swedishchefev4.jpg

[Gizzmoe]

I will not remain silent.
All we expect from you and everyone else is that you watch your language, nothing more. It is possible to have lively and even heated discussions without resorting to name-calling or flaming!

I did not start it. Please take note of that simple fact. I simply mirrored her choice of words once she became aggressive.
Don´t mirror aggression, all it does is escalate a situation.

[Jimbuna]

The Iranians have learned an important lesson: Causing fear is a weapon far more effective than any bomb could be, as long as people take you seriously.
And they are doing quite well with this strategy. Just look at how many ressources are put up against them, just because of WORDS.

The knowledge alone that both sides had the ultimate in firepower and the means to deliver it has kept the peace for decades in the East/West :hmm:

[Skybird]

You only continue to slander my country at your whim with baseless assumptions. I will not remain silent. Well, I will now, 'cause I gotta cook!

You could have made known your reservations by simply saying you see it different, and that you think that what I said could have been a reference to van Creveld, and that you do not like that man. Instead you started to open fire, hoping that a surprising charge and loud yelling would shut up somebody whose remark was unwelcomed for you. Gizzmoe may think it is okay to let such behavior go by without reacting to it, but all what is accomplished by that is that those yelling the loudest will take over the board. "Der Klügere gibt nach? Deshalb regieren die Dummen die Welt!"

My views of Israel as a nation and political entitiy are like they are. I have no obligation to please you. You must only be extreme enough in being in it's favour, than everybody not being in total and unconditional support for whatever Israel does will appear to you as somebody "who slanders your country at a whim" at every opportunity. note that you do not really show the self-restriction you demand from others when you talk about Europe, for example. Also note that this usually does not trigger such aggressive reaction from me or others like you showed here. Note that I repeatedly clearified my stand concenring Israel, saying that I do not love the way it was formed, and considered it to be a great folly and strategically undefendable in the very long run, but for practical reasons accept it's existence today, since the founding now is roughly two generations ago and cannot be reversed without the same injustice of the past being repeated again to many people, this time from the other tribe of the two opposing sides. Also note that I repeatedly defended Israel in past debates, and even defended it (initially) in issues like the Lebanon war. but just one critical word makes you blowing up? Could be a sign for undiscriminatory major fanatism. Better take care of that. Don't expect me to join you in that. No card blanche from me, no blind trust or unconditional support. "Israel" alone is not enough reason to do this or that. Only the answer to the question wether it acts are right, or wrong.

Next time, if you disagree, state your opposing opinion, and explain why you see it different. No problem for me. But if you begin to target people on personal levels, or try to drown them in an endless flood of links, do not expect to see no reaction.

and btw, although I do not remember if I have red that statement concerning Israeli nukes in one of van Crevelds writings too, I think I initially learned about it in an essay of one of the large newspapers over here, FAZ, or Die Zeit, and the source was some ex-pro of Israel's intel services. It was also on TV, several years ago. If van Creveld maybe is basing on that guy, i do not know.

There is also no official confirmation for Israel having nukes at all - but hardly anyone takes from that that Israel is not a nuclear power. Who was it who said something like that if Israel wants to survive it must behave like a rabied dog and must intimidate and bully anyone around to scare him to the bone? Sharon, when he was younger, i think, but I could be wrong. Targetting Europe makes sense for a nation that sees itself surrounded by enemies, it only is logical seen from a strategic perspective. Politically, it could turn into blackmailing in the case of very severe crisis that pushes Israel to the edge.

But hey, Britain, and France have nukes, too. It's kind of a balance.