Israel & Iran are going at each other
- Thread starter fsu1jreed
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure how many times Israel is supposed to bomb their neighbor before they get bombed back.
I guess the hope is to somehow draw us into a war with Iran.
I guess the hope is to somehow draw us into a war with Iran.
Hmmm, if only 95% of academics in the international arena had said that our recent actions would lead to exactly this very thing then maybe we would have chosen a different course of action towards Iran. Unfortunately only 94% warned it was a bad idea so of course “we” ignored it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...5/9/17335456/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-scholars
Israel has never bombed Iran. And I’m sure if you lived in Israel you’d be concerned with Iran moving in right across the border as well.
I clicked the link and didn't find any discussion of Israel bombing Iranians in Syria.
What is 'exactly this very thing' you're referencing?
Speaking for myself, it's only a sure thing when 30 Helens agree.
You should see the outbriwf between Putin and ole Benny from yesterday or today....pretty much solidified that Russia isn’t going to protect Iran’s efforts in Syria.
Hasn't ever been a neighbor either.
But Israel has been bombing Iranians that are in Syria. They did so apparently within the hour of American withdrawal from the agreement.
Hell, I live all the way over in America and I know the West colluded with the Gulf monarchies to foment and arm a salafist principality on Israel's doorstep, can't imagine how scary it is for folks in the neighborhood.
But when you learn that the Iranian proxies are fighting Saudi et alia proxies, it's a fair question what excuse that gives Israel to start bombing Syria.
----
In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.”
Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
Hasn't ever been a neighbor either.
But Israel has been bombing Iranians that are in Syria. They did so apparently within the hour of American withdrawal from the agreement.
Hell, I live all the way over in America and I know the West colluded with the Gulf monarchies to foment and arm a salafist principality on Israel's doorstep, can't imagine how scary it is for folks in the neighborhood.
But when you learn that the Iranian proxies are fighting Saudi et alia proxies, it's a fair question what excuse that gives Israel to start bombing Syria.
----
In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.”
Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
It’s a complicated situation for sure! In some cases the Iranians get along with ISIL, and in some cases ISIL and Nusra fight each other. What’s even crazier is the cooperation between KSA and Israel at the moment, who would’ve ever seen that one coming? Syria is like a Crazy river, rapids all over the place. Overall though, Iran has very bad intentions and should be treated as such. Groups like ISIL, Nusra, Boko Haram, whoever will come and go as long as the third world continues to expand.
Winston was willing to chum with Uncle Joe when it suited him. Enemy of my enemy and all that...
Yeah, sucks knowing "we" contributed to the maelstrom. I do take heart in the American public rebuking one of the architects of that nightmare.
I think groups like ISIL, Nusra, and Boko Haram would would have less expansive powers if "we"'d quit toppling governments (or half ass trying) and sending them weapons.
I'm curious, in the case of a place like Libya, should "we" be judged on the bad outcome, or the 'intentions'?
Que?
Not only did Isreal bomb Iran, they Pearl Harbored them (or George Washingtoned them) by doing it more or less out of the blue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
So believe it or not I think Iraq and Syria would be a lot worse if we didn’t intervene, remember Iraq nearly completely fell, and Syria was on the verge of collapse even with the Russians involved. I think Russia and Iran would’ve contributed more and that would have made things worse.
Libya....yeah, complete mess. Our rules of engagement were unbelievably stupid there.
Ummmm....We’re talking about Iran right? Your link is to when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility, which is not in Iran......just sayin
Saddam always seemed to have a pretty good handle on what happened inside his own borders, but I'm going back too many interventions, right?
I also wouldn't conflate the fall of western (non-Shia, and sparsely populated) Iraq with the whole country though. I did wonder aloud when the Iraqi Army we spent years training and billions arming shed their uniforms and ran if there would be helicopter air lifts in the green zone. But I think ISIS wisely decided against getting tied up with the Shia militias.
But that was driven by our support of those jihadist elements. What you're really saying is if we didn't intervene (bomb ISIS) against the outcome of our earlier intervention (arm ISIS) which was consequent to prior the intervention (topple a government) next door in Iraq, it would have been much worse - but that's silly. The whole present mess goes back to knocking over the apple cart in Baghdad.
And yet Russia and Iran are the ones who have really contributed the most to quashing the monster "we" helped create, so I don't get how they would have made things worse. Syrians move back into the areas that the Syrian government clears of jihadists. If anything the Russians and Iranians have actually helped reduce the refugee crisis by rolling back ISIS.
Russia's self interest in not seeing Syria turning into Libya is self evident to me. They continue to struggle with jihadists at their own country's frontiers and don't want to see more havens for them created. In fact, former Soviet republics are among the largest sources for foreign fighters amongst the jihadists in Syria and Iraq.
Putin would rather kill them in Syria than the Caucasus.
You think the problem was ROE?
In my opinion we had folks in the State Department that were even more dewey eyed about the prospects of representative government in Libya than their predecessors had been about the same in Iraq.
And now we have open air slave markets in Libya after these folks got done patting themselves on the back. It's sickening how shameless they are about what they have wrought.
What’s one letter? Lol
But yeah you’re right, from memory (I was five) I thought it was Iran and google pulled that up when I typed in Iran and bombed by Israel but I didn’t RTFA I linked. So a big mea culpa and I retract it.
But Isreal has killed a lot of Iranian scientists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists
Last edited:
They sure have, also check out the stuxnet op, pretty cool stuff!
I highly recommend this documentary:
Also, on this weeks HBO: Vice it will be discussed that Iran is basically running the show in Iraq now days and how if the US does go at it with Iran then most of the fighting will be in Iraq.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Mr. Alford, if you want sell out the Tuck and go Dancing every year HIRE WILL WADE, NOW!- Latest: Seminole Dynasty Mike
-
