Iran Did Do It..............says Trump

Odhinn

Gringo180 wrote: »

Maybe the same thing that happened Saudi Arabia when they attacked on 9/11. The heart eaters should of been wiped from the face of the earth, but hey the west still sells them weapons.

The Saudi arabian state did not back the attackers. One might say they are indirectly responsible as militant jihadism is the offshoot of Saudi wahabi doctrine, but that's neither here nor there.

Gatling

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I did, you said it

You ask the same question again here



Why would iran attack America?

Ask the poster who said it .


I never said Iran would attack mainland America ,

I'm sure there would be severe and dire consequences if it did for whatever reason the other poster comes up with

Limpy

Odhinn wrote: »

The Saudi arabian state did not back the attackers. One might say they are indirectly responsible as militant jihadism is the offshoot of Saudi wahabi doctrine, but that's neither here nor there.

They would be heavily funding the mosques that supplied the attackers. It wasn't just a few lads in a board's forum deciding they wanted to bomb America. The planning would of came from the top down. Bin laden was quoted as saying it was a response for the US putting troops on the holyland (Saudi Arabia) .
If the Saudis had nothing to hide they wouldn't be a lawsuit against them from the families of 9/11 survivors.

You would think they media would be all over this, asking questions and supporting the families.

Odhinn

Limpy wrote: »

They would be heavily funding the mosques that supplied the attackers. It wasn't just a few lads in a board's forum deciding they wanted to bomb America. The planning would of came from the top down. Bin laden was quoted as saying it was a response for the US putting troops on the holyland (Saudi Arabia) .
If the Saudis had nothing to hide they wouldn't be a lawsuit against them from the families of 9/11 survivors.

You would think they media would be all over this, asking questions and supporting the families.

Doubtless there are/were a number of embarrassing links between the hierarchy of Saudi and some of the perpetrators, but again I don't believe the regime was behind the attacks.

archer22

InTheShadows wrote: »

Eh no it's to stop Iran getting the bomb. Iran with the bomb is unthinkable.

Also is you think it will only be refugees and thousands of dead American and British troops you are sorely mistaken. I'm in no doubt the Iranians have sleeper cells all over Europe and the US and if a war kicks off they will be activated resulting in thousands of dead civilians worldwide. I don't think it will come to that though as when push comes to shove Trump isn't as hawkish as most like to think he is.

No it's more likely now that Iran will produce nukes...and who can blame them,this has shown they obviously need to urgently.

And why is "Iran with the bomb unthinkable" but the genocidal state of Israel with it is ok, even despite their stated "Samson option" of nuking European capitals if Europe doesn't do as they say.

And indeed why is it ok for America to have nukes...the only nation that ever used them and against defenceless civilians at that!

Fiery mutant

archer22 wrote: »

..and who can blame them....... genocidal state of Israel .........."Samson option" of nuking European capitals

Jesus you do talk some shyte don't you.

jackboy

archer22 wrote: »

And why is "Iran with the bomb unthinkable" but the genocidal state of Israel with it is ok, even despite their stated "Samson option" of nuking European capitals if Europe doesn't do as they say

Israel already has it so too late to stop that.

archer22

Fiery mutant wrote: »

Jesus you do talk some shyte don't you.

In other words you have phuck all to say and can only reply with that scutter post!

Limpy

archer22 wrote: »

No it's more likely now that Iran will produce nukes...and who can blame them,this has shown they obviously need to urgently.

And why is "Iran with the bomb unthinkable" but the genocidal state of Israel with it is ok, even despite their stated "Samson option" of nuking European capitals if Europe doesn't do as they say.

And indeed why is it ok for America to have nukes...the only nation that ever used them and against defenceless civilians at that!

It's why lil Kim is still in power in North Korea. If he didn't have nukes they would be a smashed pretty quick. It keeps heads level at the critical point.

They could still cause major damage to most of their neighbours without one. There won't be a land war. Iraq has shia in power they won't fight against Iran. Afghanistan is busy with itself. The Kurds would get trampled by Turkey, Syria and Iran if they got excited.

Cheerful Spring2

Gatling wrote: »

How are they underestimating Iran .


Do you think Iran would survive an actual war

Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq. Almost has three times the population of Iraq. It would be massive undertaking for any military to occupy it. US will need well over a million and half troops to just pacify it. Iran border is very mountainous, so US tanks would be vulnerable to ambush and guerrilla tactics. Iran landscape is very different to Iraq.

Iran can also muster millions of men for combat duty if they were invaded, it not be over weeks, or months.

Iran yes has not got the same level of arnaments as the US army and navy, but they do have the largest missile force in the middle east. If US aircraft carriers got destroyed by anti-ship missiles what to you think happens to those million dollar planes onboard the carrier? Iran missile force is no joke. US would have to destroy this capability quickly to avoid a early blow and defeat. Iran anti-air defence is not old. They have anti-air systems that can shoot down US bombers and warplanes.

Iran militas are not a joke either, allies will have to defeat Hezbollah, the houtis and Iraq and Syria militia groups loyal to Iran. Iran war would be huge comparable to events that occurred during WW2

Cheerful Spring2

UK FM Jeremy Hunt expected to announce tomorrow a package of diplomatic and economic measures against Iran, including possible asset freezes - @Telegraph

UK ruling out military option, wise choice. UK just has not got the capability to take on Iran by themselves.

igCorcaigh

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

UK FM Jeremy Hunt expected to announce tomorrow a package of diplomatic and economic measures against Iran, including possible asset freezes - @Telegraph

UK ruling out military option, wise choice. UK just has not got the capability to take on Iran by themselves.

Good that they've chosen a non military response. Now they need to stick to their said aim to not escalate.

Still though, economic strangulation is the American aim. And an act of war surely. UK has to decide if it really wants to be party to that.

Hobosan

I feel bad for US citizens. It's like watching a circus elephant. Captivating when you are younger, but as you get older you realise it's a captive animal that's beaten into submission behind the scenes.

I'm sure the European Union will pick up the slack when war weariness truly sets in for the US.

fryup

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

UK FM Jeremy Hunt expected to announce tomorrow a package of diplomatic and economic measures against Iran, including possible asset freezes - @Telegraph
.

i wonder will this boost his Tory leadership challenge?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq. Almost has three times the population of Iraq. It would be massive undertaking for any military to occupy it.

Who said anything about occupation .

Iran can maybe muster 250,000 men ,now take Iraq as an example one of the largest and feared militaries in the world were embarrassed not once but twice ,
Your claim of millions willing to fight for Iran - I believe your quite wrong -
Religious leaders and military revolutionary guard are not popular by any means so you think Iranians will fight a war they have zero interest in .


Your making assumptions off what seems to be social media postings oh Iran has missiles ,iran has mountains ,iran has anti this and anti that.

Big difference between having the best of weapons technology repeatedly proven to be put on targets 24 /7 with surgical precision ,
And Having weapons you have never used or fought a real war in 30 years

Iran shot down a slow unarmed drone wow


Come back in another 30 years and tell us about it

ArchXStanton

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq. Almost has three times the population of Iraq. It would be massive undertaking for any military to occupy it. US will need well over a million and half troops to just pacify it. Iran border is very mountainous, so US tanks would be vulnerable to ambush and guerrilla tactics. Iran landscape is very different to Iraq.

Iran can also muster millions of men for combat duty if they were invaded, it not be over weeks, or months.

Iran yes has not got the same level of arnaments as the US army and navy, but they do have the largest missile force in the middle east. If US aircraft carriers got destroyed by anti-ship missiles what to you think happens to those million dollar planes onboard the carrier? Iran missile force is no joke. US would have to destroy this capability quickly to avoid a early blow and defeat. Iran anti-air defence is not old. They have anti-air systems that can shoot down US bombers and warplanes.

Iran militas are not a joke either, allies will have to defeat Hezbollah, the houtis and Iraq and Syria militia groups loyal to Iran. Iran war would be huge comparable to events that occurred during WW2

Iran is no joke,put no pass on Rambo here posting who has a wargasm every time the US is involved,they have thousands of missiles and for very good reason....

"In a tweet Wednesday, Javad Zarif said that Iran's missile program grew out of the 1980-1988 war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

"For 8 YEARS, Saddam showered our cities with missiles & bombs provided by East & West," Zarif wrote. "Meanwhile, NO ONE sold Iran any means of defense. We had no choice but building our own. Now they complain."

Iraq had showered Iranian cities with 500 missiles killing thousands.

An attack on iran would engulf the whole region in war and seriously disrupt the US oh so important oil..

As an Iranian at the time said "Iran will always strike back" its the only way to deal with scumbag bullies

Atlantic Dawn

The Iranians should have seized the tanker when it was loaded with oil rather than empty or perhaps it did hit an Iranian trawler and didn't stop.

Gatling

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The Iranians should have seized the tanker when it was loaded with oil rather than empty or perhaps it did hit an Iranian trawler and didn't stop.

Sure they were just showing off ,

Look our military can sieze an empty commercial ship were in the big leagues now .......


Let's see how they do against an actual naval vessel .


I don't think the story they claimed about a fishing boat is true they made several statements that contridict the previous claim

Jimmy Garlic

Gatling wrote: »

Let's see how they do against an actual naval vessel .

US wargames concluded that they would lose vessels if there was a confrontation in or around Iranian waters, why do you think they wouldn't?

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/IrnaEnglish/status/1152790530864140288

ArchXStanton

Gatling wrote: »

Sure they were just showing off ,

Look our military can sieze an empty commercial ship were in the big leagues now .......


Let's see how they do against an actual naval vessel .


I don't think the story they claimed about a fishing boat is true they made several statements that contridict the previous claim

There's reports there was a UK warship nearby that tried to prevent them seizing it,just for the record I don't believe the claim about the fishing boat but think the Iranians have every right to seize a British tanker after the UKs own act of piracy or do you think the west can act with impunity without repercussions? Every attack on Iran be it drones in their airspace or seizure of their tankers have been responded to,like they said they would....doesn't happen in the Rambo films eh Gatling?

archer22

If America and it's vassals start a conflict in the gulf they will find themselves in a Hornets nest with thousands of those little Iranian fast boats attacking from every direction.

Iran's decision to invest it's resources in those small, fast and formidably armed boats is pure genius and shows they have been thinking outside the box.

I am sure they have a lot more less obvious surprises in store for Uncle Scam and pals

InTheShadows

archer22 wrote: »

If America and it's vassals start a conflict in the gulf they will find themselves in a Hornets nest with thousands of those little Iranian fast boats attacking from every direction.

Iran's decision to invest it's resources in those small, fast and formidably armed boats is pure genius and shows they have been thinking outside the box.

I am sure they have a lot more less obvious surprises in store for Uncle Scam and pals

I'm sure you hope so.

yrreg0850

The reason for Trumps carry on, is the fact that he is being financed by Isreali money.

So, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Isreal would love to see Iran destroyed --their reason Iran has nukes, but, is this not a case of the kettle calling the pot black ,as they also have them -- courtesy of Trump and co.

Jimmy Garlic

It appears Bolton had a hand in encouraging the British to make the seizure in Gibraltar, as reported in the Spanish press. I wonder if Jeremy Hunt will think twice the next time now that he has been hung out to dry. Probably not though, the Brits and the neocons have been in cohoots since Dennis was in No10. Pathetic sidekicks yearning for yesteryear.

ArchXStanton

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

It appears Bolton had a hand in encouraging the British to make the seizure in Gibraltar, as reported in the Spanish press. I wonder if Jeremy Hunt will think twice the next time now that he has been hung out to dry. Probably not though, the Brits and the neocons have been in cohoots since Dennis was in No10. Pathetic sidekicks yearning for yesteryear.

It was foolishness on the UKs part,being the US poodle as usual,now they've stopped sending their tankers into the straight of Hormuz for their own stupid mistake,a situation that could have been completely avoided and they still act as some kind of moral authority warning Iran of "serious consequences"...funny thing is Iran told them a week ago after they abducted the Iranian tanker that they would be returning the favour...now they cry foul

cnocbui

archer22 wrote: »

If America and it's vassals start a conflict in the gulf they will find themselves in a Hornets nest with thousands of those little Iranian fast boats attacking from every direction.

Iran's decision to invest it's resources in those small, fast and formidably armed boats is pure genius and shows they have been thinking outside the box.

I am sure they have a lot more less obvious surprises in store for Uncle Scam and pals

You have next to no understanding of modern warfare or how it is prosecuted. You should further your knowledge and study the major conflicts since Vietnam. Hopefully you would see a pattern that would make you realize how flawed your current thinking is.

cnocbui

yrreg0850 wrote: »

The reason for Trumps carry on, is the fact that he is being financed by Isreali money.

So, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Isreal would love to see Iran destroyed --their reason Iran has nukes, but, is this not a case of the kettle calling the pot black ,as they also have them -- courtesy of Trump and co.

Iran has nukes? Have you any links proving Trump personally receives funds from Israel?

ArchXStanton

cnocbui wrote: »

You have next to no understanding of modern warfare or how it is prosecuted. You should further your knowledge and study the major conflicts since Vietnam. Hopefully you would see a pattern that would make you realize how flawed your current thinking is.

Yeahhh...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

archer22

And just to make American hypocrisy complete!...but shur we can trust these lads

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-companies-granted-authorizations-for-nuclear-work-in-saudi