Iran threatens Israel with 'annihilation' over growing involvement in Syria
80 replies, posted
I'm sorry but when was the last time a western country involved there beheaded people because of their faith or threw them off a building due to their sexual orientation?
Christ dude, to you even consider what's actually going on over there?
Our leader is too incompetent to be truly evil. To be evil would require some degree of intelligence, forethought, and ability to keep one's mouth shut long enough to make and carry out plans of action. These are all traits that happen to be 100% not found within the White House at this time.
Did you forget the part where the moment the British left, ALL surrounding Arab nations invaded both Palestinian land and Jewish land (which was significantly smaller) and Israel not only expanded in their war of defense, but with weapons from Czechoslovakia, a Warsaw Pact nation.
But yeah, it's all America's fault and Russia did nothing wrong.
I'm all for combating ISIS and would never argue such a thing, we did however create the rancid conditions for their uprising when we reduced the military capabilities of Iraq and Syria to a fraction of what it was. Not to mention the essential genocide we allowed to happen when we removed Saddam (bad man, but experienced in keeping his populace from chopping each others heads off.)
Unfortunately what was a fight against ISIS in Syria (which I never argued over, we were in collaboration with all) has turned into a fight against Assad, arming not only the Kurds (fine by me) but many unvetted groups that were popping up that have turned into very problematic mother fuckers for the towns and cities they have taken.
I get the feeling his definition of 'good guys' is a bit too noble, and/or that he can't grasp that sometimes good actors do awful things. One can't deny that sticking our dick into the middle east has caused a LOT of issues and conflict that otherwise wouldn't have been there, and a lot of our actions there are misguided at best, but at least on the surface we're not there to impose religious rule or anything like that. Ostensibly, the West is active in the region to try to bring some manner of peace, prosperity, and freedom to the peoples living there...even if they're not very good at it.
Well, that, and a healthy dose of terrorist hunting.
The problem is we're fighting an uphill battle trying to stabilize that region. It's been fighting itself for millenia and the presence of Western forces there isn't going to change the root cause of all the fighting. It's too deeply ingrained within these peoples for outside intervention alone to do much good. Sure, sure, we can suppress terror groups, but terror groups are but a symptom, and the only true solution for that region is for extremism itself to fade into obscurity.
Iran's been doing the same thing since it started, didn't see you saying about it then. Everyone involved in the war is doing it and unfortunetly its a legit strategy.
Anyway, whats wrong with arming some of those groups? Are you saying some of those groups might be, you know, bad guys?
We can't have a dicotmy of bad and good going around, we all know war is a grey area where no one is good and bad!
Oh wait, it turns out there are good and bad sides toe very conflict and this one is deffo against Iran, which you mysteriously still aren't explaining why they're not evil. Why aren't Iran just as bad as the fighters you don't want to support?
Again, I'm not saying Iran's foreign policy isn't a piece of shit, but your use of the word evil just kind of negates your seriousness so I'm finding it hard to give you a response. You're assuming I'm somehow calling Iran's foreign policy a force of good for some reason just because I'm laughing at you for using the word evil.
How is it not evil?
"evil - profoundly immoral and wicked."
That seems to fit Iran pretty well, along with the supporters of its Islamic Revolution.
first Iran isnt nuclear capable yet, they gave that up in the Iran deal. Second, the only country bombing Iranian bases is israel, idk why you are bringing america up in this discussion
If you haven't realized the US and Israel are ultimate bum buddies, considering you living in the US at the moment yet referring to Israel as "we" then I honestly don't know what to say further.
Alright look i'm sorry for being so aggressive, i'm becoming far too hot headed over this. Just realized.
I'm guilty of the same far too often.
america isnt responsible when Israel bombs Iranian bases in syria and why would they be responsible for that. I know that the US and Israel are close allies but blaming the US for israel bombing iranian bases in syria is like blaming israel for the Iraq war
They will be sharing intelligence etc, but regardless, if Israel and Iran clashed in a big war over a few bombings of airbases, we all know the US will be jumping in, they are tied up tight in the highest of places.
if iran and israel would have a war anywhere, it would be in Lebanon with Israel fighting Hezbollah with Hezbollah getting support from the Iranian army and the US wont get involved in it like they didnt get involved in the 2006 war. It's arguable that the 2006 war was actually the first war between Israel and Iran. Recently though, Nasrallah also threatened israel at the same time that Iran did in the OP of this thread.
We can only hope it doesn't escalate like it does in the OP, we can all agree on this. Israel have been in a tough spot from the get go, I would never argue, but they aren't getting much sympathy for their cause or from their neighbors with their chosen methods. I hope this can change.
ISIS may have spawned in Iraq, but it grew in Syria. It was falling apart, and even lost support from the former Al Qaeda organization when it was till known as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) because it began to target Sunni Muslims. On top of that, the organization that would become AQI was formed in 1999, several years before the Second Gulf War and still while Saddam was in full control of his government.
The US and the West did not create the chaos that Syria is in that allowed for ISIS to grow. That was made by Syria's own hand when Assad decided it was better to kill civilians than give even an inch of his despotic power away.
Assad began firing on his own people.
Russia has backed Assad in all things it has done.
The US has not reduced the Syrian government's ability to wage war in ANY capacity.
Are you really going to make shit up now about events that have just came to pass in the last few years?
I'm aware Assad fired on his own people but I'm afraid we see this in many places at the moment and you don't see us barging in and blowing shit up on a regular basis so I'm afraid it's sort of a null point of us choosing to care about Assad's people over say that of Egypt or Venezuela.
The chemical weapons did provoke a response indeed and so we have overtly struck them for those however we have a terrible habit of arming groups we probably shouldn't be. I'm all for freedom fighters fighting a dictator but we were and are arming groups that weren't even Syrian.
As far as not touching his forces the strikes on his airbase wiped out a good chunk of his air force. We have also bogged down his forces from fighting ISIS in the east by the rebellion that had taken place and I must say, if that rebellion had been successful in taking down Assad during the time ISIS was heavily in the country we would be in a very very different situation right now.
Egypt and Venezuela, while oppressive to their people, are not massacring them on the streets, especially as the first response to anti-government protests, which both those countries have had numerous times already.
Which did zero damage to Assad's actual military power. All we did was create a few potholes in his air fields which are fairly easy to fix. We have not even come close to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again, nor cripple his military in any range.
Are you talking about the Kurds? Because there are Kurds that live in northern Syria and have so for centuries.
Source? I honestly have not heard of strikes taking out any planes. Unless this happened years ago? (Which is irrelevant regardless because Russia has committed to doing air strikes for Syria)
I think you are very much overestimating how much material and support we gave to rebels in Syria, which weren't even all groups. As for ISIS, the bulk of those fighting them were Kurds, not the Syrian Army, which was busy besieging Aleppo, Homs, and the suburbs of Damascus over the past few years, all of which were occupied by non-ISIS rebel groups.
Given that ISIS crumbled while Syria was still a cluserfuck of different factions fighting one another, I'm certain that if Assad were defeated, ISIS would have been swept even more easily.
ISIS was able to gain large chunks of Syria due to power vacuums in the region, not because of its own strength. This is evident when their forces came in contact with actually trained troops with high morale such as in Iraq.
The Wikipedia article stating the damage:
>U.S. Central Command stated in a press release that Tomahawk missiles hit "aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, defense systems, and radars".[33] Initial U.S. reports claimed "approximately 20 planes" were destroyed, and that 58 out of the 59 cruise missiles launched "severely degraded or destroyed" their intended target.[34][35] According to the satellite images the runways[36] and the taxiways have been reportedly undamaged and combat flights from the attacked airbase resumed on 7 April a few hours after the attack, although U.S. officials did not state that the runway was a target.[37][38][39] In a later statement on 10 April 2017, the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis claimed that the strike destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft and the base had lost the ability to refuel or rearm aircraft.[40]
I'm not talking about the Kurds no although I absolutely agree they took the brunt of ISIS and were absolutely vital in that victory. It's sad to see them being left to the devices of turkey rolling in, they deserve much better than that. I know the PPK hasn't done themselves any favors but the YPG were the true heroes of this conflict. The Kurds deserve their own nation in my opinion.
The CIA were arming a few groups of rebels that splintered off from eachother, FSA had some serious internal conflicts while we were still arming them and lots of weapons fell into Islamist hands as cells split off to do their own thing.
Trump said he wanted to kill the families of terrorists, yeah?
Shit's complicated dude, it's not black and white.
Except he never did. That wasn't even said when he was president, only running for office.
There really is a whole lota stuff people should be aware of when it comes to the actions of our countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktu4BPOD04w
I'm sorry but where in either article does it specifically say he is and has targeted the families of terrorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_qEBwwET0s
Saying "I would" is not the same as having actually done so?
Yeah I get it, give me more videos and articles of him saying he would.
But really I'd prefer an article that actually specifically HAS gone after terrorist family members?
probably, amongst the thousands of civilians he has killed.
The double tap method has been no secret for air strikes even through the Obama administration. Striking a house and then striking once more when neighbors come to rescue anyone that still may be lying in the rubble.
I doubt this has changed under trump.
We don't behead people. We just bomb innocent people all the time with drones. Iran's government is full of zealots, but don't act like the West are out-and-out good guys.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
