View Full Version : U.S. Says Iran-Tied Terror Plot in Washington, D.C. Disrupted
http://news.yahoo.com/u-says-iran-tied-terror-plot-washington-d-145047487.html
Jimbuna
10-11-11, 02:07 PM
Iran must be skating on the thinnest of ice if these allegations are true :hmmm:
Brought to you by the same people who tried to tie Al queda to Saddams regime at one point, So I'd take it with a pinch of salt and wait for more info before assuming anything. :)
Hmmmm :hmmm: That's all I'm going to say on this one. It's certainly going to raise the likelihood of armed conflict between the US and Iran a smidge, if nothing else, whether it's true or false.
Jimbuna
10-11-11, 02:35 PM
Brings this old joke to mind :03:
George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meet in Tehran for peace talks following recent hostilities. As they're sat down, Bush notices three buttons on the side of his chair.
He pushes the first one and a boot comes flying out of nowhere kicking him in the shins. The Iranian president falls about laughing.
He pushes the second button and a boxing glove comes flying through the air and hits him in the face. Again the Iranian president pisses himself laughing.
He pushes the third button tentatively and another boot comes flying out of nowhere and kicks him in the balls. Eyes watering, he falls to the floor while the Iranian president struggles for air as he's laughing so hard.
Bush staggers to his feet and announces that he's going to Washington - the Iranian president will be welcome to resume talks in three days.
Three days pass and the Iranian president arrives in Washington for the talks.
As he sits down in his seat he notices three buttons on the side. Eyeing them suspiciously, he presses the first one.
Nothing happens........ Bush starts giggling.
He winces as he pushes the second one. Again, nothing.... Bush starts laughing harder.
He grimaces as he pushes the third one. Once more, nothing happens..... Bush falls out of his seat laughing.
The Iranian president gets up in a huff and announces, "I'm going back to Iran."
Gasping for air, Bush replies, "what Iran?"
Why do I have this feeling, that USA is building up an opinion at home. It's seems that the government in USA, want a war with Iran.
Maybe it have to do with all this military build-up and movement i have red about and seen on youtube( I do not believe all of it)
Markus
Rockstar
10-11-11, 02:50 PM
It may simply be an attempt to wag the dog. Making Eric Holder out to be a hero distracting attention away from the operation 'Fast and Furious' debacle.
soopaman2
10-11-11, 02:51 PM
I love the USA...
Can I be skeptical without being put in the "tinfoil hat guy" category.
I need more solid proof, Iran is one of Russia and Chinas favorite new allies (anyone who hates the USA allies with folks like Iran and N korea just to tweak us) and could mean trouble.
I am so sick of war, I been to enough funerals, one of them closed casket.
If the proof is there then effing nuke them, no more men should die of religious zealout hatred. But overall it just needs to stop, leave us alone, we leave them alone
Geez I sound like a peace loving hippy...But isn't there a time where enough is enough?
Krauter
10-11-11, 03:29 PM
I love the USA...
Can I be skeptical without being put in the "tinfoil hat guy" category.
I need more solid proof, Iran is one of Russia and Chinas favorite new allies (anyone who hates the USA allies with folks like Iran and N korea just to tweak us) and could mean trouble.
I am so sick of war, I been to enough funerals, one of them closed casket.
If the proof is there then effing nuke them, no more men should die of religious zealout hatred. But overall it just needs to stop, leave us alone, we leave them alone
Geez I sound like a peace loving hippy...But isn't there a time where enough is enough?
Just a few points.. No you don't sound like a peace loving hippy. A peace loving hippy wouldn't say nuke them and get over it, he'd probably advocate peace...
Also, how does nuking someone on evidence of terrorism or hatred towards the US help anyone at all? Why not just have everyone launch and whoevers left can claim to be the winner.
/facepalm
I seriously doubt Iran would do this, what is their motive? someone please explain, The Iranian govenment is not that stupid.
Im very VERY suspicious of this.
We dont need yet another war based on another lie. we cannot aford any more wars right now, and enough soldiers have died already.
They better have Rock solid proof to support this allegation.
AVGWarhawk
10-11-11, 03:40 PM
Like JU88 said, this would spurn yet another war. We need that like a trap door in a canoe.
Skybird
10-11-11, 03:45 PM
Good joke, Jim, I didn't know that one. :DL
Onm the issue, let'S wait how it shapes up. The plot is several weeks ago, it seesm they really wanted to take the time to make this as fail-safe and tight a case as they could.
The motivation of Iran could be to disrupt ties between the US and Saudi Arabia - Iran's biggest rival for dominance in the region. Also hasn't Iran repeatedly threatened to wipe out Israel? You do not expect too much reasonability from a voice saying so, do you, JU_88...?! Even more so when they mean it?!
For the US, this is two-sided an affair. Military action woudkl mean more costs, and that in the current time of financial crisis, and maybe the third war within just ten years, if they go all the way. It could also be an opportunity or an argument to go after that Iranian nuclear weapon program, via air strikes, special ops and together with the Israelis. That program does not disappear all by itself, you know.
Whatever, sending agents to a foreign nation to assassinate people there and blowing up places, imo is nothing else but a declaration of war. I mean you cannot act any more hostile than killing people and blowing up places, and intentionally so.
Wwe now need to wait and see what evidence the US is showing up with. If it is a speculation like mobile bio-labs in Itran, or a Powellian phiola with "antrax" powder theatralically shown to the camera, then it is a fake. If it is something better founded - then it becomes complex for Obama, because he could not afford to ignore the incident then. The chance to win profile in a military campaign, improving election chances by that and giving Iran a bloody nose, versus a war-tired sentiment in the US, loosing election chances therefore, and a crisis of the American finance system.
The Iranian govenment is not that stupid.
No, maybe not the Iranian government, but Ahmadinejad is and more so; he's stupid and a fanatic. It is just possible such a plot would have been viewed as feasible with the opportunity to place the blame on Al Queda and, maybe drive a bit of a wedge between the U.S. and the Saudis. Not that I personally believe Ahmadinejad would have gotten away clean if the plot was carried out; but, we are dealing with irrational fanatics and the laws of reason do not necessarily apply.
soopaman2
10-11-11, 03:50 PM
Just a few points.. No you don't sound like a peace loving hippy. A peace loving hippy wouldn't say nuke them and get over it, he'd probably advocate peace...
Also, how does nuking someone on evidence of terrorism or hatred towards the US help anyone at all? Why not just have everyone launch and whoevers left can claim to be the winner.
/facepalm
Yeah facepalm. You guys up north have always been more tolerant of abuse than us. It don't effect you. Whens the last time someone wanted a Canadian dead...Never. Your a jerk if you want to kill a Canuck!:D
Every few months Iran finds a new way to tweak us, while Russia and China laugh on, knowing they can block anything we try to do in the UN.
My hippy comment came from my (and our as a nations) general war wearyness.
My nuke them comment came from my intolerance to being taunted by a weakling who has nothing but 2 bulldogs and barely a capibility to hit its near neighbor (Israel) with nukes, much less across an ocean.
Go on mock me.
Skybird
10-11-11, 03:54 PM
No, maybe not the Iranian government, but Ahmadinejad is and more so;
I am not certain that it is Ahmadinejadh. He is at odds with the clerics, and in recent years the Revolutionary Guards have gained in additional power and influence, strengthening their sovereignity and authority both in the military and the civilian sector. Parts of the civilian economy and key industries are controlled by them, they are a state within the state. I would assume any source for major drives to strike at Israel or the West to be located in their ranks more than anywhere else in Iran. Ahmadinejadh maybe is just a noisy clown (that is why the clerics do not like him, he attracts too much attention to things that Iran originally wanted to kept in the hidden).
Kaye T. Bai
10-11-11, 04:20 PM
This doesn't really surprise me much. The Iranians and Saudis have been at each other's throats for control over the Middle East for as long as anyone can remember. Just goes to show that Muslims hate each other way more than they do non-Muslims; all this talk of a global Islamic brotherhood is bullsh*t, as it'll never happen. Hell, even secular democracies have trouble getting along with each other. Take a look at the Troubles in Ireland, where Christians were at each others throats. It's just human nature, I guess.
@Skybird,
Honestly honestly mate, I dont know what or who to believe anymore, while Ahmadinejad is hardly trust worthy we've had so many porkie pies from our own governments the last few years (the last century even) someone remind me why we went to war in Iraq again?
Even Afgahnistan was sketchy, 10 years to find 6 foot man on dialysis who somehow managed to pull off a muliple airline hijacking & suicide attack in a country that has the best air defense and tracking system in the world (bar none).
Hard to swallow? well for me yes it is actually... while im not excatly 'Troofer' material I'm sorry to say that I am skeptical, and im sorry if that offends anyone here.
I dont like to wildly accuse our govenments of 'conspiring' I really dont,
but at the same time, It appears that they might not be so incapable of it either.
History has shown us that when political leaders want a war, they will make is so, though whatever means nessecary.
So i dont know, I 'give up' if you like. sod it, if we have another war, we have another war and if we're lucky we'll wont have a nuclear exchange. What else is there to say....
TLAM Strike
10-11-11, 04:23 PM
I need more solid proof, Iran is one of Russia and Chinas favorite new allies (anyone who hates the USA allies with folks like Iran and N korea just to tweak us) and could mean trouble.
The Russian military has been running wargames in the Caucasus and Caspian simulating a Iranian offensive against the Oil Fields. They also told Iran to get lost of the S-300 missile deal. I think the Russians don't want anything to do with the Iranians anymore.
Anyways
This news doesn't surprise me. Hezbollah a known Iranian Proxy has been working with the Mexican Cartels along the border and this guy says he was seeking aid from the Zetas. Stuff does seem to add up here.
Why's everyone talking about Ahmawhatshisface, isn't that other guy in charge
over in Iran? :hmmm:
EDIT: Ali Khamenei is the other dude's name.
soopaman2
10-11-11, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE=TLAM Strike;1765496]The Russian military has been running wargames in the Caucasus and Caspian simulating a Iranian offensive against the Oil Fields. They also told Iran to get lost of the S-300 missile deal. I think the Russians don't want anything to do with the Iranians anymore.
QUOTE]
I was unaware. Perhaps the Russians are alot more aware than I mistook them to be. My apologies to the vodka league.
TLAM Strike
10-11-11, 04:32 PM
Why's everyone talking about Ahmawhatshisface, isn't that other guy in charge
over in Iran? :hmmm:
EDIT: Ali Khamenei is the other dude's name.
Yea Khamenei and the 12 members of the Guardian counsel are in charge. These are the guys who command the IRGC who control Iran's Ballistic Missiles and their paramilitary group called the Quds Force.
USA is regarded in ME as superpower in deep decline and weak leadership involved in too many wars and with economical problems.
Taking action on US soil against Israeli or Saudi is not out of question.
Good joke, Jim, I didn't know that one. :DL
Onm the issue, let'S wait how it shapes up. The plot is several weeks ago, it seesm they really wanted to take the time to make this as fail-safe and tight a case as they could.
The motivation of Iran could be to disrupt ties between the US and Saudi Arabia - Iran's biggest rival for dominance in the region. Also hasn't Iran repeatedly threatened to wipe out Israel? You do not expect too much reasonability from a voice saying so, do you, JU_88...?! Even more so when they mean it?!
For the US, this is two-sided an affair. Military action woudkl mean more costs, and that in the current time of financial crisis, and maybe the third war within just ten years, if they go all the way. It could also be an opportunity or an argument to go after that Iranian nuclear weapon program, via air strikes, special ops and together with the Israelis. That program does not disappear all by itself, you know.
Whatever, sending agents to a foreign nation to assassinate people there and blowing up places, imo is nothing else but a declaration of war. I mean you cannot act any more hostile than killing people and blowing up places, and intentionally so.
Wwe now need to wait and see what evidence the US is showing up with. If it is a speculation like mobile bio-labs in Itran, or a Powellian phiola with "antrax" powder theatralically shown to the camera, then it is a fake. If it is something better founded - then it becomes complex for Obama, because he could not afford to ignore the incident then. The chance to win profile in a military campaign, improving election chances by that and giving Iran a bloody nose, versus a war-tired sentiment in the US, loosing election chances therefore, and a crisis of the American finance system.
Made me remember one of my own thread
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=184141
Not exactly the same...
Markus
USA is regarded in ME as superpower in deep decline and weak leadership involved in too many wars and with economical problems.
Taking action on US soil against Israeli or Saudi is not out of question.
True, but you'd think they would start with embassies somewhere else.
I still dont fully understand Irans motive, how would it drive a wedge between the US and the Saudis?
I cant imagine Iran would have risked it. Iran knows the U.S is watching them like a hawk and has already warned them of a possible conflict many times before.
Kinda seems like the U.S govt has been itching for it for a while.
which makes me smell a (possible) rat.
MothBalls
10-11-11, 05:04 PM
It's just that time again. Think about it.
Ever since the end of WWII, the US has always been engaged in a military conflict somewhere in the world., and has always had an enemy on the horizon. When things start to quiet down, the media stars reporting that "someone-something-somewhere" in the world is the new threat to America, democracy or freedom.
When Iraq and Afghanistan started to wind down, the headlines were full of the 'threats' from North Korea and Iran, and minor threats from a few South American dictators (who quickly decided to shut the hell up). North Korea isn't stupid, they know we are looking for our next target, even they chilled out.
The US can not survive unless the military industrial complex is kept feed and productive. We can't keep building more beans\bullets\bombs unless we use the ones in stock. We just need a new target, and it looks like Iran is on the top of the list.
Fire up the propaganda machine, we need a new enemy to keep our economy alive.
Jimbuna
10-11-11, 05:07 PM
Mr Kissinger....I wish you'd get rid of the 'retired' sig....Kpt never did approve of them :yawn:
Platapus
10-11-11, 05:25 PM
It's just that time again. Think about it.
Ever since the end of WWII, the US has always been engaged in a military conflict somewhere in the world., and has always had an enemy on the horizon. When things start to quiet down, the media stars reporting that "someone-something-somewhere" in the world is the new threat to America, democracy or freedom.
When Iraq and Afghanistan started to wind down, the headlines were full of the 'threats' from North Korea and Iran, and minor threats from a few South American dictators (who quickly decided to shut the hell up). North Korea isn't stupid, they know we are looking for our next target, even they chilled out.
The US can not survive unless the military industrial complex is kept feed and productive. We can't keep building more beans\bullets\bombs unless we use the ones in stock. We just need a new target, and it looks like Iran is on the top of the list.
Fire up the propaganda machine, we need a new enemy to keep our economy alive.
There is wisdom in these words. It is sad, but perhaps wise. :yep:
True, but you'd think they would start with embassies somewhere else.
I still dont fully understand Irans motive, how would it drive a wedge between the US and the Saudis?
I cant imagine Iran would have risked it. Iran knows the U.S is watching them like a hawk and has already warned them of a possible conflict many times before.
Kinda seems like the U.S govt has been itching for it for a while.
which makes me smell a (possible) rat.
If the article is correct its not about driving wadge between US and Saudi.
Its more about sending a "diplomatic" massage not to mess up with Iranians internal matters and expect to get away with it.
Saudi probably pray at Mecca every day for someone to bomb Iran.
ME Arab countries are more afraid of Iran becoming nuclear than anybody else.
The rest of the world live in denial about it as if it was just Israeli and Iranian crazy talk.
If Hezbollah or Iran came to conclusion that it's possible get away with it they would do it.
Mr Kissinger....I wish you'd get rid of the 'retired' sig....Kpt never did approve of them :yawn:
Mr kissenger? why on earth would you call me that? :hmmm: can't say that I'm flattered.
As for the sig, if it was a problem all this time, someone could maybe have let me know via a PM (sometime in the past 4 years) :shifty: Sorry for not being psychic, I cant read the kpts mind.
Yeah, the Russians have really done a 180 on Iran over the last few years, and some of the stuff that came out of Wikileaks certainly suggested as much. They've actually warmed up to cooperation with Europe on missile defense specifically because of Iran, and have indeed been aggressively pursuing military deterrents against it.
Iran actually has very few allies left. At this point they're only on okay terms with Syria, who are also now being could-shouldered by Russia (who have also cancelled a lot of the military contracts with them). But because of Iraq's effective neutralization as a military power by the US, and the seemingly-inevitable collapse of Pakistan and Afghanistan as soon as the Western military mission there ends, they are still the predominant regional power. As much as they're crazy, they also see, to realize that at the moment the situation is in their favour without them needing to do anything. And they should, at least reasonably, be quite content to bide their time and wait for Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to fall into their sphere of influence. It'll be interesting to see what happens afterward.
em2nought
10-11-11, 07:17 PM
You see what happens when you start protesting on wall street. :D
TLAM Strike
10-11-11, 07:31 PM
Ever since the end of WWII, the US has always been engaged in a military conflict somewhere in the world.
Oh its been since WAY before that...
1775 Revolutionary War begins
Minor wars and rebellions...
1801 Anti Pirate, Privateers, and (believe it or not) Islamic Terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War) actions
1783 Revolutionary War officially ends
1812 Duh
1819 USN begins anti slave trade patrol
(anti-pirate operations)
1846-48 Mexican American War
1849-1851 Operations against Turkey
(misc operations)
1853-54 Perry opens Japan
1854-59 Operations in China
1857 Utah war (Sailor Steve unsuccessfully tries to chase the Mormons out of Utah)
(misc operations)
1858-59 Navy sticks it to the Turks again for the killings in 1846-48
1861 USN ends anti slave trade patrol
1861-65 War of southern insanity
1865-77 North teaches southerns manners... with bayonets...
(misc operations... yea its like 30 years of stuff...)
1898 War of Teddy Roosevelt...
(misc operations in China etc)
1899-1913 Philippine American War
1912-41 The Sand Pebbles
1914 Blackjack Pershing and Old Blood and Guts hunt down Mexican Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa).
1917 US Wins WWI
1918-1920 United States invades Russia, gets bored and leaves.
1919-1934 More crap in China.
??? OMG the 6 years when the US was NOT at war!!!
1941 Germany bombs Pearl Harbor: starts Vietnam War...
1950 North Korea invades South Korea. America sends Hawkeye, Trapper, Radar and Hot Lips to save the day. War continues in reruns so still officially on...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
The United States is at war with everyone... We have always been at war with everyone! :O:
Torplexed
10-11-11, 07:35 PM
1857 Utah war (Sailor Steve unsuccessfully tries to chase the Mormons out of Utah)
Wow. Sailor Steve probably was at the Battle of Bull Run after all. :o
magicstix
10-11-11, 07:52 PM
I find it funny all of the Europeans are on here talking about this being America wanting another war. The hilarious thing is that the European intelligence communities have a far grimmer picture of Iran's WMD ambitions than the US does. American intelligence agencies were saying Iran had stopped its nuke program in 2003, while German and French agencies have been saying "not so fast." It's obvious to anyone that Iran is up to no good, but it is puzzling as to the approach they're taking in their weapons program.
It's no secret Iran and Saudi Arabia don't get along. The Wikileaks cables already show Saudi Arabia has asked the US to attack Iran for them. The US plot wasn't the only one uncovered either; this was part of a larger coordinated set of plots involving South American embassies as well. I think this is far more likely to push Iran and Saudi Arabia to the brink of war more than the US and Iran. If the bombs had actually gone off however, things would likely be different.
Platapus
10-11-11, 07:57 PM
The United States is at war with everyone... We have always been at war with everyone! :O:
What do you expect when our National Anthem is about rockets and bombs and celebrates the glory of battle?
Torplexed
10-11-11, 08:03 PM
What do you expect when our National Anthem is about rockets and bombs and celebrates the glory of battle?
In retrospect we probably should have gone with the anthem about stamp collecting and needlepoint.
Sailor Steve
10-11-11, 09:06 PM
What do you expect when our National Anthem is about rockets and bombs and celebrates the glory of battle?
Set to the music of a drinking song. :D
Set to the music of a drinking song. :D
The only anthem that begins and ends with a question... :up:
TLAM Strike
10-11-11, 09:51 PM
The only anthem that begins and ends with a question... :up:
Only the last line of the first verse starts and ends with a question. The other three verses it starts and ends with a statement. :know:
Nobody sings the other three verses that I've seen except for the start of the Superbowl in the movie The Sum of All Fears. ;)
Only the last line of the first verse starts and ends with a question. The other three verses it starts and ends with a statement. :know:
Nobody sings the other three verses that I've seen except for the start of the Superbowl in the movie The Sum of All Fears. ;)
Maybe the 2nd through 4th do but the rest of the verses, including all the bawdy ones, all start and end with questions. :yep:
TLAM Strike
10-11-11, 10:23 PM
Maybe the 2nd through 4th do but the rest of the verses, including all the bawdy ones, all start and end with questions. :yep:
From the Smithsonian's website:
The Star-Spangled Banner
O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
’Tis the star-spangled banner - O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The 1st verse and the 1st half of the second and third are questions, all the other verses end with a . or a ! :yep:
Nobody sings the other three verses that I've seen except for the start of the Superbowl in the movie The Sum of All Fears. ;)
Oh say can you see
That nuke below me?
Kongo Otto
10-12-11, 07:10 AM
1857 Utah war (Sailor Steve unsuccessfully tries to chase the Mormons out of Utah)
Wow. Sailor Steve probably was at the Battle of Bull Run after all. :o
I KNEW IT! *grabbing my steel helmet and rush into next Bunker*
;):salute:
The 1st verse and the 1st half of the second and third are questions, all the other verses end with a . or a ! :yep:
You must be wicked fun at parties! :dead:
You must be wicked fun at parties! :dead:
The CIA knows how to party :yep:
Tribesman
10-12-11, 07:39 AM
Given the names and organisations cropping up in this story, could it be that it is Iran playing America like a puppet yet again.
TLAM Strike
10-12-11, 09:53 AM
The CIA knows how to party :yep: Its wild fun when we invite all the 3rd World Dictators and Military Strongmen we have installed over the years. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-CG5w4YwOI&ob=av3e)
Given the names and organisations cropping up in this story, could it be that it is Iran playing America like a puppet yet again.
Iran is playing us like a puppet by giving the US and Saudi Arabia a possible Casus Belli against them? I don't think they are that suicidal. They must have thought there was a reasonable chance of success and some kind of denyability (most likely not expecting their asset to be captured).
The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit
murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up,
right?
:rotfl2:
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-12-11, 10:06 AM
Its wild fun when we invite all the 3rd World Dictators and Military Strongmen we have installed over the years. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-CG5w4YwOI&ob=av3e):rotfl2:This should be in the list of weapons of mass destruction. :D
Osmium Steele
10-12-11, 10:45 AM
and the seemingly-inevitable collapse of Pakistan and Afghanistan as soon as the Western military mission there ends,
Afghanistan yes, Pakistan, no.
The Taliban, et al, don't have nearly enough support outside the NW provinces. Not even in the ISI.
If you'll recall, early last year it was all over the media that the Taliban were just 30km from Islamabad and massing for a push.
The locals put an end to it, not the government.
Once in control of the area, some men stopped a seventeen year old girl whose only "crime" was holding her boyfriend's hand while walking to school.
They lashed her near death and left her.
Within two weeks, every one of those men had been found, lashed and dumped by the locals, and every muslim with a beard was fleeing the area.
Unless they gain much more support within the ISI and/or government itself, Pakistan will not fall to the Taliban or their ilk.
Tribesman
10-12-11, 10:46 AM
Iran is playing us like a puppet by giving the US and Saudi Arabia a possible Casus Belli against them?
You know full well that America cannot afford it and the house of Saud are not able for it
The same people seem to be cropping up in the backround of this story that have been pulling your chain in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tribesman
10-12-11, 10:52 AM
The Taliban, et al, don't have nearly enough support outside the NW provinces. Not even in the ISI.
Osmium, you seem to be neglecting two other major elements there, one of which also heavily involves Iran
soopaman2
10-12-11, 10:57 AM
This was pasted all over the New York papers front pages today.
I don't buy it, the supposed plot is an attack on a Saudi national and not some kind of terrorist plot.
Enough feeding the military industrial complex with "yellow journalism"..
General (President) Dwight D Eisenhower warned us of this kind of military adventurism in a speech on his way out of his successful Presidency.
If anyone lacked the idiot gene it was him.
I see this as an attempt to "keep the engines of destruction going"
Nothing to do with us, let the obscenely rich Saudis feed our economy buying our gear, and kill its own sons. Do it yourselves.
I don't buy it, the supposed plot is an attack on a Saudi national and not some kind of terrorist plot.
So blowing up a foreign embassy in the US isn't a terrorist plot to you? Even if it injures or kills passing civilians?
Osmium Steele
10-12-11, 11:14 AM
Osmium, you seem to be neglecting two other major elements there, one of which also heavily involves Iran
I can think of 4 major elements, other than muslim extremists, off the top of my head, none of which are anywhere near likely. To which do you refer?
soopaman2
10-12-11, 11:17 AM
So blowing up a foreign embassy in the US isn't a terrorist plot to you? Even if it injures or kills passing civilians?
Not when it means more American burials for the purpose of protecting our oil interests.
I'm glad your so frivolous with Americans lives, you must be hard right leaning..
Only the poor die in wars.
Osmium Steele
10-12-11, 11:21 AM
I'm glad your so frivolous with Americans lives, you must be hard right leaning..
Right, because the left never... oh, what's the use?
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-12-11, 11:24 AM
General (President) Dwight D Eisenhower warned us of this kind of military adventurism in a speech on his way out of his successful Presidency.
If anyone lacked the idiot gene it was him.Becoming general requires you to have capability to make sensible decisions based on reality and use of common sense.
Becoming president do not.
TLAM Strike
10-12-11, 11:25 AM
General (President) Dwight D Eisenhower warned us of this kind of military adventurism in a speech on his way out of his successful Presidency.
If anyone lacked the idiot gene it was him. Ike's plan was to run a shadow CIA army to fight the Soviets and any leftest leaning leaders (democratically elected or not), rather than fund a large military to actually defend against the Soviets/Chinese. When Ike was faced with an actually military crisis in the Taiwan straits he basicly stated that nuclear weapons were to be used like any other shell or bomb. He then had to backpedal. Ike helped place the US Military in a position where nuclear weapons were the first resort against an enemy without them.
Ike helped stage coups against Iran and Honduras that in reality posed no threat. Actions like these made the CIA in to assassins and coup maker that still lives in the eyes of the world today. Just watch TV today, the CIA is portrayed as some kind of dark malevolent entity, that black mark is all thanks to the precedents that Ike and JFK started.
Ike wasn't beyond making stupid decisions, just look at his speech in Wisconsin when he was running for office; he let his mentor be attacked by the likes of Joe McCarthy and didn't say a thing against him in public until he got in to office.
Ike may have been a great Supreme Commander but as a National Leader he was maybe average.
Rockstar
10-12-11, 11:28 AM
I'm tellin' ya I'd bet all 7 of my mint 1994 Topps baseball cards they're just wagging the dog to distract from the upcoming 'Fast and Furious' pre-election scandal.
I haven't heard anything solid from any news source about motives or connections. But I do see Holder front and center portrayed as being hard at work saving America from terror.
Meanwhile this goes on, subpoenas are being handed out over another Holder event operation Fast and Furious.
Tribesman
10-12-11, 11:29 AM
To which do you refer?
The long simmering civil wars in the east and west, the NW you mentioned is just the same as it has always been.
I'm tellya I'd bet all 7 of my mint 1994 Topps baseball cards they're just wagging the dog to distract from the upcoming 'Fast and Furious' pre-election scandal.
I haven't heard anything solid from any news source about motives or connections. But I do see Holder front and center portrayed as being hard at work saving America from terror.
Meanwhile while this goes on, subpoenas are being handed out over another Holder event operation Fast and Furious.
You could be right but the Shiite Persian Iranians and Sunni Arab Saudis are long term enemies so there is plenty of motive here.
Osmium Steele
10-12-11, 11:43 AM
The long simmering civil wars in the east and west, the NW you mentioned is just the same as it has always been.
Ah, kk. There are very good reasons these are "long simmering", and haven't blown up in Islamabad's face.
I don't consider either of them major. Unless there is something recent of which I am unaware.
I'll have another look.
Rockstar
10-12-11, 11:43 AM
No doubt, but I'd think there would be an obvious connection or motive behind these potential attacks. Everything reported about the terror plot I've read or watched seems kind of vague.
But 7 mint condition Topps baseball cards might add up to a dollar on a good day. So no great loss if I'm wrong :D
soopaman2
10-12-11, 11:43 AM
[QUOTE=TLAM Strike;1765945]Ike's plan was to run a shadow CIA army to fight the Soviets and any leftest leaning leaders (democratically elected or not), rather than fund a large military to actually defend against the Soviets/Chinese. When Ike was faced with an actually military crisis in the Taiwan straits he basicly stated that nuclear weapons were to be used like any other shell or bomb. He then had to backpedal. Ike helped place the US Military in a position where nuclear weapons were the first resort against an enemy without them.
[QUOTE]
Alot of great points, in your post but I isolated this particular passage. Not trying to diminish or invalidate your other facts and counterpoints just want to discuss this particular one.
First this: http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html
After we saw how fast the nuclear bomb stopped a fanatical, die to the last man warrior (bushido) culture. It was the best new thing since TVs and Studebakers.
The link above relates to Korea (only a few short years after WW2), and at the time we (USA) had such an overwhelming advantage over the world, Ike saw the dangers. Our nuclear culture predates Ike and goes back to Truman.
We see it today, admit it...10 year wars with no enemy?
I won't call him a saint, I won't call him Lincoln and Kennedy cloned together, no I won't. But he had foresight. Which was most likely why he was an excellent supreme commander.
TLAM Strike
10-12-11, 11:48 AM
An addendum to my last post:
Lets not forget Ike leaving the Hungarians high and dry against the Soviets while at the same time not supporting the UK, France and Israel in reopening one of the most vital waterways in the world. Instead he made it US policy to back Arab dictatorships in the region to counter Soviet aggression instead of backing Western intervention in the region to maintain the status quo. Instead of helping to kick Nasser out of Egypt when he violated an international treaty he left a guy in power who would help bring the entire Arab world down on Israel.
TLAM Strike
10-12-11, 12:00 PM
Alot of great points, in your post but I isolated this particular passage. Not trying to diminish or invalidate your other facts and counterpoints just want to discuss this particular one.
First this: http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html
After we saw how fast the nuclear bomb stopped a fanatical, die to the last man warrior (bushido) culture. It was the best new thing since TVs and Studebakers.
The link above relates to Korea (only a few short years after WW2), and at the time we (USA) had such an overwhelming advantage over the world, Ike saw the dangers. Our nuclear culture predates Ike and goes back to Truman.
We see it today, admit it...10 year wars with no enemy?
I won't call him a saint, I won't call him Lincoln and Kennedy cloned together, no I won't. But he had foresight. Which was most likely why he was an excellent supreme commander.
It no doubt goes back to Truman, Dugout Dug and Ridgeway, I won't debate you there. But Ike made it policy by building up our nuclear force from 150 bombs in '53 to 16,000 in '60. Truman started the nuclear culture, Ike made it in to overkill.
Maybe if the CIA was doing things like finding out how many bombers and rockets the Soviets had instead of staging coups we might have realized just how big of an arsenal we really would have needed to deter the Soviets.
soopaman2
10-12-11, 12:05 PM
:timeout:It no doubt goes back to Truman, Dugout Dug and Ridgeway, I won't debate you there. But Ike made it policy by building up our nuclear force from 150 bombs in '53 to 16,000 in '60. Truman started the nuclear culture, Ike made it in to overkill.
Maybe if the CIA was doing things like finding out how many bombers and rockets the Soviets had instead of staging coups we might have realized just how big of an arsenal we really would have needed to deter the Soviets.
That would not have not been good either, the Soviets when all was said and done gave their numbers of manufactured nukes and it was vastly more than the US. (though our delivery systems outclassed theirs...but still)
And we thought the arms race was bad before.:haha:
Let us for a moment, play with the scene, that it's true. The iranian government wanted to kill the Saudia-Arabian embassie to US.
1. Is it enough to send the american into an another war?
2. Will USA start a war, if the saudies ask you to do so, under those circumstances?
I say NEY!
Expel the iranian ambassador to US and freeze the diplomatical relation would be enough.
There government in US, know this, so be aware, there's more to come
My danish and swedish friends do believe this is true.
They say that it's muslim behavior and there's no needs for further proof.
Markus
Kongo Otto
10-12-11, 12:45 PM
Expel the iranian ambassador to US and freeze the diplomatical relation would be enough.
IIRC there are no diplomatic relations between the USA and Iran neither is there an Iranian Ambassador in the USA (except the Ambassdor to the UN).
IIRC there are no diplomatic relations between the USA and Iran neither is there an Iranian Ambassador in the USA (except the Ambassdor to the UN).
I didn't know that. However, I stil say, it's not enough to wage war.
Markus
Truman started the nuclear culture, Ike made it in to overkill.
Yes and to provide a little more insight into their thinking they seriously considered disbanding the conventional Army as unnecessary on the Nuclear battlefield.
TLAM Strike
10-12-11, 01:11 PM
:timeout:
That would not have not been good either, the Soviets when all was said and done gave their numbers of manufactured nukes and it was vastly more than the US. (though our delivery systems outclassed theirs...but still)
And we thought the arms race was bad before.:haha: The numbers of forces the Soviets had were greatly exaggerated by both sides. Basicly we thought the Soviets were way a head of us in numbers of planes and missiles and we built tons of nukes to compensate. Not saying we started the arms race but thanks to a lack of intelligence we helped to send it out of control.
Yes and to provide a little more insight into their thinking they seriously considered disbanding the conventional Army as unnecessary on the Nuclear battlefield.
:o Thank god they didnt.
Jimbuna
10-12-11, 03:02 PM
Yes and to provide a little more insight into their thinking they seriously considered disbanding the conventional Army as unnecessary on the Nuclear battlefield.
:o Thank god they didnt.
Well we (the UK) certainly did :doh:
magicstix
10-12-11, 08:26 PM
After we saw how fast the nuclear bomb stopped a fanatical, die to the last man warrior (bushido) culture. It was the best new thing since TVs and Studebakers.
BS flag, 10 yard penalty. The Japanese weren't stopped in their tracks by the bomb. If you'll recall, it took a second bomb to get them to surrender, and that only happened because the military coup trying to remove the emperor for agreeing to the surrender failed.
magicstix
10-12-11, 08:31 PM
I didn't know that. However, I stil say, it's not enough to wage war.
Markus
Why wage an all out war? Just blow up their one refinery and let the population have a riot because they can't get gasoline.
Iran has been ripe for revolution for a very long time. All the people who put the clerics in power are getting old, and Iran lost a whole generation to the Iran/Iraq war, most of them supporters of the current regime. All the young people around now don't remember the Shah and all they care about is how much the current government sucks. The kids over there are putting "Made in the USA" on everything and carrying around American flags as a way to rebel against their parents. All it needs is a little push in the right direction...
Why wage an all out war? Just blow up their one refinery and let the population have a riot because they can't get gasoline.
Iran has been ripe for revolution for a very long time. All the people who put the clerics in power are getting old, and Iran lost a whole generation to the Iran/Iraq war, most of them supporters of the current regime. All the young people around now don't remember the Shah and all they care about is how much the current government sucks. The kids over there are putting "Made in the USA" on everything and carrying around American flags as a way to rebel against their parents. All it needs is a little push in the right direction...
That if, USA wasn't concerning about who would lead the country, after the iranian people had overthrown their dictator. I'm sure that USA wants a US-friendly govenment in Iran.
Markus
TLAM Strike
10-12-11, 08:53 PM
Why wage an all out war? Just blow up their one refinery and let the population have a riot because they can't get gasoline.:hmmm:
True,
Iran is already depended on outside sources for its refined oil products. Although they have lots of oil they have very few refineries. :03:
magicstix
10-12-11, 08:56 PM
That if, USA wasn't concerning about who would lead the country, after the iranian people had overthrown their dictator. I'm sure that USA wants a US-friendly govenment in Iran.
Markus
As opposed to the government they have now? A revolution resulting in a new government equally as hostile to the USA would still be beneficial for us as it would likely set back the Iranian nuclear program as well as Iranian interests across the board as the new government gets its act in order.
The only way the current Iranian government could get more hostile towards the USA is if they started engaging in terrorist attacks on our soil... OH WAIT.
As opposed to the government they have now? A revolution resulting in a new government equally as hostile to the USA would still be beneficial for us as it would likely set back the Iranian nuclear program as well as Iranian interests across the board as the new government gets its act in order.
The only way the current Iranian government could get more hostile towards the USA is if they started engaging in terrorist attacks on our soil... OH WAIT.
Let's say, that USA bomb some of their infrastructor, oil a.s.o Thereafter the people take the power.
Now we have peace and Iran is on it's way towards democraty, maybe most of us think.
But instead, al-qaeda or some other religious nuts takes the control, either throug election or some kind of revolution. Most of those islamic hates the west and US.
That's not in the US interest. That's way i say: If there's gonna be a war between USA and Iran, USA are going to invade Iran.
Markus
magicstix
10-12-11, 09:19 PM
Let's say, that USA bomb some of their infrastructor, oil a.s.o Thereafter the people take the power.
Now we have peace and Iran is on it's way towards democraty, maybe most of us think.
But instead, al-qaeda or some other religious nuts takes the control, either throug election or some kind of revolution. Most of those islamic hates the west and US.
That's not in the US interest. That's way i say: If there's gonna be a war between USA and Iran, USA are going to invade Iran.
Markus
Iran already hates the US. Our interests are stability and security. Iran is antithetical to both, as is Al Qaeda. If an unfriendly government replaces the old one, the US still wins because we've set back Iran's ability to destabilize and threaten.
It's highly unlikely that Al Qaeda would take over if the current government fell, because they don't have much to offer that's any different than the current status quo in Iran. The people already hate the current government, why would they want more of the same?
Iran already hates the US. Our interests are stability and security. Iran is antithetical to both, as is Al Qaeda. If an unfriendly government replaces the old one, the US still wins because we've set back Iran's ability to destabilize and threaten.
It's highly unlikely that Al Qaeda would take over if the current government fell, because they don't have much to offer that's any different than the current status quo in Iran. The people already hate the current government, why would they want more of the same?
if US had to put Iran away from destabilize and threaten the region, it have to conduct massive bombraids. A few Tomahawk would not be enough.
Are you 110% sure, that after thise bombings and after the people of Iran have overthrown their dictator, there will come some government that's for real democraty a.s.o?
Markus
magicstix
10-12-11, 09:40 PM
if US had to put Iran away from destabilize and threaten the region, it have to conduct massive bombraids. A few Tomahawk would not be enough.
Are you 110% sure, that after thise bombings and after the people of Iran have overthrown their dictator, there will come some government that's for real democraty a.s.o?
Markus
The only thing the US has to do to destabilize Iran is destroy its refining capacity for gasoline.
The US doesn't necessarily care about democracy, it cares about stability of the world as a whole and security of the homeland. This is usually why we play ball with dictators, because we don't know if we'll wind up with someone worse.
BS flag, 10 yard penalty. The Japanese weren't stopped in their tracks by the bomb. If you'll recall, it took a second bomb to get them to surrender, and that only happened because the military coup trying to remove the emperor for agreeing to the surrender failed.
Soopaman is right. He is accurately describing the thinking at the time. Like I mentioned earlier US planners seriously considered all ground forces to be obsolete. That should give you an indication how much they thought of nukes.
gimpy117
10-13-11, 02:22 AM
if the allegations are true, I feel this is more the Saudi's problem than ours.
if the allegations are true, I feel this is more the Saudi's problem than ours.
Well, it's not like Saudis having problems with Iran is exactly news either. They've been arming themselves to be ready against Iran for decades now, and it's still probably a bigger factor in their military calculations than, say, Israel. Iran is a massive threat to their economic interests as well, and to everyone else this side of the Persian Gulf.
I'm not a fan of conspiracies either, but cynically one might also suggest that this could be a provocation to push the US into closer allegiance with the Saudis over Iran. The Saudis are right next to Israel on the list of states that are intimidated by Iran and could use all the help and political clout from the West that they can afford. They are much more worried about Iran than the US is.
joegrundman
10-13-11, 04:09 AM
Well, it's not like Saudis having problems with Iran is exactly news either. They've been arming themselves to be ready against Iran for decades now, and it's still probably a bigger factor in their military calculations than, say, Israel. Iran is a massive threat to their economic interests as well, and to everyone else this side of the Persian Gulf.
I'm not a fan of conspiracies either, but cynically one might also suggest that this could be a provocation to push the US into closer allegiance with the Saudis over Iran. The Saudis are right next to Israel on the list of states that are intimidated by Iran and could use all the help and political clout from the West that they can afford. They are much more worried about Iran than the US is.
seriously, does anyone at all think there is any risk of a military attack by iran on saudi arabia? and if so -- how?
seriously, does anyone at all think there is any risk of a military attack by iran on saudi arabia? and if so -- how?
This its not necessarily an issue of direct attack on Saudis.
Its about gaining influence in countries with Shi'ite population for start.
The issue of Bahrain is good example.
Would any one thought that Saddam Husein could be crazy enough to take Kuwait and pose treat to Saudis.
Iranians could get very ambitious having nukes as insurance policy -not necessarily talking using them directly.
They could simply work into destabilization of some countries just as they did lately in Iraq or Afghanistan and got away with.
Its all just a crazy talk though lol.
Tribesman
10-13-11, 06:13 AM
Would any one thought that Saddam Husein could be crazy enough to take Kuwait and pose treat to Saudis.
Yes they would, after all he didn't want to pay up and needed a flag waving boost after screwing up his Iranian adventure.
What was surprising was the level of unity gathered against him, who would have thought that was achievable.
I got nothing against Muslims but 'Shi-ite' is a very unfortunate name for an Islamic sect round these parts. :)
soopaman2
10-13-11, 07:24 AM
if the allegations are true, I feel this is more the Saudi's problem than ours.
I echo these sentiments.
No more american coffins unless you want to drop gas price by 1.50 a gallon while we do it..
I love how the Saudi's squeeze our testicles with their silly OPEC then expect us to spend American taxpayer money, and blood on their defense.
MothBalls
10-13-11, 02:50 PM
No more american coffins unless you want to drop gas price by 1.50 a gallon while we do it..The reality is the Saudi's in charge tell Washington....
"Take care of this for us or you'll be paying $1.50 more per gallon than you are right now"
magicstix
10-13-11, 07:19 PM
The reality is the Saudi's in charge tell Washington....
"Take care of this for us or you'll be paying $1.50 more per gallon than you are right now"
Thank the hypocritical environmentalists for this that drive around their SUVs and complain about domestic drilling. I guess it's OK to screw up Saudi Arabia's environment; it's just desert after all, right?
This its not necessarily an issue of direct attack on Saudis.
Its about gaining influence in countries with Shi'ite population for start.
The issue of Bahrain is good example.
Yep, and then there's just the fact that Iran can make life very difficult for everyone in the Gulf - they may not be able to shut down the Straits of Hormuz outright, but they can cause enough headache for traffic there to create serious economic problems, without going into actual war.
Otherwise as I said, I don't think the Saudis are a priority target for them - they're just long-term rivals. Iran's real targets should be (and probably are) inciting trouble in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bahrain to try and bring these into closer alignment. They will push a lot of buttons to that end, and one of the buttons they need to push is reducing Saudi and US influence in those places. So actions like this alleged attack should be interpreted not as an intention to fight the Saudis, but as a way to try and damage their alignment with the US and their influence over parts of the Muslim world where Iran wants to have their cookies. In the long term, Iran seems to be poised to nominate itself as a spiritual and political leader of the world's Muslims, which I think it'll be perfectly happy to take away from the Saudis by 'peaceful' means.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.