Missiles Launched From Iran Hit ISIS Terrorist Bases in Syria

Who do we bomb and who did Iran bomb. To say "militants" in relation to Syria would be like saying "white people" in relation to Idaho.

 

Iran bombed ISIS, the group that had attacked Iran and which is in control of the city Iranian backed forces are trying to liberate. Something, incidentally, the US doesn't want to see happen, preferring its own pets and poodles do the job.

 

You said biggest. Do you forget what you post just minutes earlier?
And you think that doesn't mean they don't like other muslim terrorists who terrorize their country.
Your personal attacks continues on and on. But it happens when one has no real argument.

 

ISIS and according to the story, ISIS. What's the problem?

 

Technically Iran said they were targeting Takfiri terrorists

 

The word ISIS does not appear in the story. It only appears in the thread title. Apparently you did not read the link.

 

Iran calls all of them "Takfiri terrorists" but the city is held by ISIS and the target was clearly ISIS and Iran has made it clear it was retaliating against ISIS for the ISIS attacks against it.

 

Here.
Since ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, who do you think Iran will target?

 

It's the missiles. We don't want Iran having the capability of sending missiles that distance accurately.

Or maybe you don't take them attacking Israel seriously??

 

ISIS claims everything done by a Muslim radical to be their work It is part of their disinformation strategy to make them appear larger than they are. I have already said who Iran is targeting. The US wants to bring stability to the region so the refugees can return. Iran doesn't want them to return. They want the Sunni out of the region permanently.

 

I realize that, but if they want to claim responsibility, then they can take the fallout from said claim.

 

The attack was actually from ISIS. The people who carried out the attacks were sunni Iranian Kurds (and a sunni Arab) who had joined ISIS. The ring leaders or masterminds of the attack were also ISIS members, whom Iran tracked down in Iraq and killed afterwards.

 

It is something that numerous people claim. It is at the heart of the US strategy in the region to reroute Iran's planned path to the sea with the hope thwarting them untilISIL is defeated.

 

What sea? Iran already borders and has access to the Arabian Sea.
And from what I've read, is a reason Russia wants to be an ally of Iran.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...en&ll=26.27371424278525,58.79882825000004&z=5

 

I have faith in Israel's ability to make the rubble of Tehran bounce and glow in the dark. I also have faith the Iranian government knows this. I'm prepared to let it play out. Find your huevos, dude. I assure you, the Israelis have a firm grip on theirs.

 

In terms of access to the waters, Iran borders the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman in the south, and the Caspian Sea in the north

Anyway, there are 2 different issues here and they shouldn't be confused. First issue is who was attacked by Iran? The answer is simple and except for our poster here, no one has disputed it. ISIS was attacked. Second issue is a geopolitical rivalry that pits Iran and its axis of resistance against the US/neocon/Israel/Wahhabi Arabia axis. With respect to the latter, there is a land corridor being paved from Iran to Latakia in the Mediterranean and pro Iranian forces in Iraq and in Syria have been capturing territory from ISIS to secure that corridor. This area of eastern Syria where the attacks took place, held by ISIS, are part of the areas that Iran and the US are competing to clear of ISIS first.

 

If you're claiming a Shiite government is in cahoots with a Sunni terrorist group, you have gone off the deep end, or simply have no understanding whatsoever of the politics of the region.

 

What difference does it make? They are all useless trash that attack innocents out of cowardice. Iran is probably just upset ISIS is getting more press than Al Qaeda.

 

What difference does it make? All Muslim nations support terrorism. /shrug

Why bother sorting out which brand is doing what?

I will say this: I fully support Muslims killing each other, instead of everyone else.

 

This has nothing to with manhood. It's about the missiles. No one in their right mind wants the Iranians to have missiles they can fire that far. The question is are they already accurate. But make no mistake just the fact they have them is scary to everyone and not just in the region but globally.

 

I have to learn live with your vocabulary I guess. It is your language, so we will define "terrorism" in English to mean different things. Or, better yet, to mean what the US government really means: acts of violence directed against western supported interests and targets. Using that definition, while the random attacks in Europe and N. America are carried out by the Wahhabi linked groups which Iran hates, Iran prides itself as the leader of the "axis of resistance" to US/Israeli hegemony in the region. I have no doubt that Iran and the US have been involved in various proxy wars in the region, in various theaters (including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon), and both have suffered casualties. I also have no doubt that Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets and missiles pointed at Israel (150,000 by Israeli estimates), capable of inflicting huge damage all over Israel, incomparable to what they were already able to do in 2006, and that Hezbollah has killed more Israeli soldiers than Israel has killed Hezbollah fighters, even if Hezbollah hasn't killed nearly as many Israeli civilians as Israel has killed Lebanese civilians.

 

No that's unlikely.

 

I just heard a startling statistic, 94% of people who died at the hands of terrorists since 2001 were killed by Wahhabi or other sponsored terrorists...

In the video on this link for Inside Story, about 17.05 min into it
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...-positions-eastern-syria-170618193251349.html

 

I define terrorism as any cowardly attack against civilians. These attacks are done out of a deep seeded fear of facing an enemy man versus man. Clearly, there are no real men in this culture. Further proof of this is how they treat women. American men do not have to beat women and make them wear a costume that hides their beauty. Women are attracted to American men so, none of this subjugation is needed. Maybe if the men of Islam were not so flagrantly cowardly, the women of that region would be with them without being forced.

 

Everything else you wrote is a bunch of drivel and nonsense and the product of an ignorant mind without a clue about Iran.

But in terms of intentionally targeting civilians, and that being the yardstick to define terrorism, I am fine with it. The groups Iran supports focus on military targets and not on random attacks against civilians to terrorize a population, while retaining a deterrent capability to try to deter US/Israeli terrorism. That has been especially true since 1997, with the election of Khatami at the time and with Iranian doctrine on the issue becoming much clearer since.

On the other hand, I am not sure you would like to live by your own definition of terrorism since the biggest and most horrendous act of terrorism ever was the US dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the firebombing of Dresden. Unless you like to pretend the US was "targeting" Japanese military installations which were "hiding" among civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where tens of thousands of civilians - including women, children - along with whatever other living creature you might fancy (dogs, cat etc) were killed.

At the moment, such terrorism is the official policy of Israel against Hezbollah, threatening Lebanon and its civilians in case of war.