Missiles Launched From Iran Hit ISIS Terrorist Bases in Syria

I have no idea if you actually believe that, or think I will believe it. But, either way, it's nonsense. If the entire world thinks you are a state sponsor of terrorism, literally every single nation, maybe you are? Given how little nations of the world get along with each other, it's a bit rich to suggest that you are being unfairly maligned, in some grand conspiracy carried out by nations that hate each other, just to make you look bad.

The atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunate. I can see why some, who are not educated in history, see them as terrorism. The reality is, a full scale invasion of Japan would have killed far, far more civilians. Warfare was very different then, no matter how you want to judge it by today's standards. Much of what happened in WWII warfare is now illegal, via treaties. This is something your nation knows nothing of, honoring a treaty and acting with honor in other ways.

But, the reality is, your culture is so cowardly, that even your own women have to be forcibly coerced to be with you. That is just sad. How small of a man do you have to be, to hide your women under a black blanket, for fear that a real man might come along and gain her affections? I can tell you with complete certainty, that this is not needed, in your country. There are no men there, so this is not something you should worry so much about.

Fire as many as those cruise missiles at Syria as you like. It will be all the fewer you can laughably fire at us when we come slap your bitch ass down.

 

It's not reasonable to make Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Dresden as acts of terror. They were acts of war. Now whether you agree with the attacks on industry as viable acts of war is another matter. I say they were at the time as we had no other way to defeat the enemy readily at the time. Today I would consider them inhumane but they will never be legally defined as acts of terror.

 

The very fact that the US has nuclear weapons, and had a policy of threatening their use in various circumstances, including not just in response to a nuclear attack following the MAD (mutual assured destruction) doctrine but also in case, inter alia, of a conventional Soviet invasion of Europe, if you thought about it and wanted to apply the definition of terrorism being intentionally targeting civilians, would tell you all you need to know about who practices terrorism on the largest scale. The same is true, incidentally, of Israel which hypocritically claims it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons when the real basis of its opposition to Iran's nuclear program was the knowledge that it wouldn't be able to deter a conventional attack by Iran against Israel by implicitly relying on its nuclear umbrella.

Nukes aside, the entire doctrine of Israel viz a viz Hezbollah is premises on practicing terrorism, not on the puny limited scale that even the most obnoxious of these Wahhabi terrorist groups engage in, but on a massive scale. The kind US and western supported forces excel in. Promising to turn Lebanon into rubble in case of war.

 

I have given my response. And frankly I am tired of the propaganda and moralizing of issues involved in war, including the proxy and direct wars waging in the Middle East which involve Iran. War is about getting your way through violence and killing people in the process. It has always been that way. All rules of war, which themselves are drafted by victors who try to come up with rules they can live with, are nonetheless broken when a side can get away with breaking them and finds it to its benefit in some sort of a cost/benefit calculus and even more so when a side gets to be desperate.

Now, if you guys need the pseudo moral-isms as a crutch to carry out the agendas at issue in each of the wars that take place, go ahead. I prefer to focus on the real issues at stake in each of these conflicts.

 

Personally, I think is a bad move on Iran's part. They have a competent Quds force, or they can strike thru their proxies, Hezbollah or Assad.

 

How many Middle Eastern governments has Iran toppled lately?

Who's dangerous?​

 

On the contrary, it was an excellent and timely move by Iran. Iran had already tracked down and killed the so-called masterminds of the attack, who were hiding in Iraq. It has also broken up a cell they had created in Iran. And while Iran's allies are fighting ISIS, Iran needed to take a more overt and direct action as a clear sign not just to ISIS, but to those who implicitly or explicitly support them against Iran. In fact, the timing of the incident, coming after ever increasing provocations from Wahhabi Arabia and after the US shot down a Syrian jet in this area, probably wasn't coincidental. Indeed, the statement issued by Iran explicitly warned not just ISIS but also its state supporters. In Iran's mind, those supporters include Wahhabi Arabia and Israel. Not because Iran thinks that ISIS is controlled by them right now, but because Iran knows that ISIS was the product of policies cooked up in Washington at the time of the so-called "Redirection" aimed funding, supporting and arming various sunni jihadist groups and other sunni militia and increasing anti-shia/anti-Iranian religious and political indoctrination among them. And also because even if the US intends to clear ISIS from eastern Syria, the US is also engaged in preventing Iran's allies from doing this and wants to beat them to the task to deny them a secure corridor from Iraq.

 

Symbolism isn't a coherent or logical strategy. I'm pretty sure everyone in the region is aware of Iran's capabilities. Deniability is key.

 

In this case, Iran isn't interested in deniability. In fact, the reverse. It wanted to send a clear signal, not just to ISIS either.

 

A clear signal has been received from Iran, by the gulf Cartel a long time ago. Why do you think they purchased billions of dollars of weapons from my country, because they're not concerned by Iran?
What if those ballistic missiles missed the mark, and caused civilian collateral damage?
Even worse, they could have hit US personal on the ground, which would have likely resulted in retaliatory strikes, and a escalation of hostilities between the two parties, which I fear will is already going to happen once ISIS has been defeated.

Clandestine action is always prefers method to deal with external threats.

 

Incidentally, this was Iran's most direct and open engagement against the terrorist groups in Syria but it wasn't its first. While most of Iran's drones are operated from Syria and Iraq and used in support of allied forces there, Iran has also quietly flown missions using its Shahed 129 drones to target and attack terrorist groups in Syria in the past.


p.s.
The US shot down an Iranian built Shahed 129 last week in around the same area in eastern Syria.

 

Perhaps you can list your evidence that Iran are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism? Been asked many times and all have failed

 

Only the naive believe that the US want stability in the Middle East. The US desires constant turmoil in the Middle East and US Foreign Policy does not change in any significant way with whoever government is in office

 

Wow, you have no clue about Iran!

 

"
"Death to America" expresses the anger many Iranians feel about U.S. policy toward Iran, said Foad Izadi, an assistant professor of world studies at the University of Tehran. Iranians remember that the U.S. overthrew the legitimate government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and supported the dictatorial Shah who followed.

The slogan "means death to American foreign policy," said Izadi. Iranians "have problems with the American government, not the American people." In fact, he said, Iranians are friendly to Americans. "When you walk around town, and people see you're an American, everyone wants to take care of you."


And you know how much Americans love their guns and so when they shoot you they actually say........


Gotta love the Muslim propaganda !!!

 

Moral high ground when targeting civilian areas infested by terrorists is none existant, your scale is whole wrong, you're a Democrat ?

 

If they mean it, what benefit would they get by denying it?

 

Who told you that damn lie?

You may believe that ordinary iranians particulary younger iranians are not as radical or eager to die for allah as the crazy mullahs are

But its the mullahs to run the country and will make the final decision about whether the iranians - And Americans - die or not

 

I dont trust ppl that cry murder and then say they meant a whole diffrent thing by it - when a few of them truly go ahead with it and murder someone, I see this whole culture responsible for it, same thing with worshipping Shahids, it's sure to backfire.

 

US commanders in the region should take note

It could be American soldiers killed next time

 

I don't know your country or political affiliation so it may be perfectly rational of you to see America as the bad buy and the iranians as benign

Obama certainly did

And even though he was wrong it made sense in his world

But not mine

The iranians are not stupid and that makes them a very dangerous threat America and our allies in the region

 

And to the US

The coming war with Iran is going to be a real bitch and will cost many American lives

 

Who has gone ahead with any of it?

 

I'm talking about the whole Muslim hatred culture, IMO growing up to screams of death, burning of flags, worshipping dead terrorists, anti western propaganda that blames EVRYTHING on the Jews/Zionists/America - will produce a kind of ppl that forms the ranks of Daesh or Al Quida or any other of the sort, it starts with a formal and Gov sanctioned act of reckless hate such as "Death to America". I mean we also have a racist party that sends ppl to the streat after a terror attack and they stand with signs of "Death to Arabs" - the diffrence is we all know they are racists, in Iran case its coming from the Gov! and you can be sure its part of the education system - so you tell me how is a littlle boy suppose to grow with such hatred ?

 

Can there be a relative peace in the world?