View Full Version : ISIS attacks Iran
ISIS taking credit for a suicide bomber/gun attack on Iran. Much carnage. Largest sponsors of terrorism in the region attacked by a terrorist group. That's irony...
Iran attacks leave 12 dead at parliament and Khomeini mausoleum
Twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum in the capital, Tehran, have killed at least 12 people and injured many more.
The assault on the parliament building appears to be over, after hours of intermittent, audible gunfire there. A suicide bomber died at the mausoleum.
Iranian officials say they managed to foil a third attack.
The so-called Islamic State group (IS) has claimed it carried out the attacks, which would be a first in Iran.
IS later posted a video which showed what it claimed was footage from inside the parliament building.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40184641
RetroRevolver77
06-07-17, 09:11
Seems Iran's chickens have come home to roost!
ISIS taking credit for a suicide bomber/gun attack on Iran. Much carnage. Largest sponsors of terrorism in the region attacked by a terrorist group. That's irony...
When I saw the headline I started thinking to myself - I certainly don't like ISIS but Iran may be getting what they deserve.
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 09:45
When I saw the headline I started thinking to myself - I certainly don't like ISIS but Iran may be getting what they deserve.
Just like we deserved 9/11?
No one deserves anything like this.
The Sunnis attack the Shias. Tale as old as time.
The Sunnis attack the Shias. Tale as old as time.
I have a hard time keeping track of who is which in the region. To be sure, the "my (version) of God is better than yours so I must kill you" approach is as old as humanity itself. Nothing new to see here I know, but it's telling in terms of how far this flavor of the religion of peace (ISIS) able to reach.
ISIS apparently not a proxy anyone has control over.
Just like we deserved 9/11?
No one deserves anything like this.
Are you serious?
Why can't people see that innocent victims on 9/11, didn't deserve what they got.
But people that support and live under a regime that is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world today. They have no innocent victims.
Next you will want us to cry for the German and Japanese that were in the cities we bombed during WW2.
Averageman
06-07-17, 10:23
I have a hard time keeping track of who is which in the region. To be sure, the "my (version) of God is better than yours so I must kill you" approach is as old as humanity itself. Nothing new to see here I know, but it's telling in terms of how far this flavor of the religion of peace (ISIS) able to reach.
ISIS apparently not a proxy anyone has control over.
It's more like gang warfare than an organized military action with a clear cut chain of command. At various points this looks more like a vendetta than anything else.
Nobody deserves this, least of all any moderates within Iran that want to sweep the power away from the ruling mullahs bent on an apocalypse.
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 10:37
Are you serious?
Why can't people see that innocent victims on 9/11, didn't deserve what they got.
But people that support and live under a regime that is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world today. They have no innocent victims.
Next you will want us to cry for the German and Japanese that were in the cities we bombed during WW2.
So only American Civilian loss of life is important... Even if you are born into an oppressive regime with only two choices execution or keep your head down.
I guess all the Jews had it coming because they did not stand up to their oppressors.
Got it.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-07-17, 10:42
So only American Civilian loss of life is important... Even if you are born into an oppressive regime with only two choices execution or keep your head down.
I guess all the Jews had it coming because they did not stand up to their oppressors.
Got it.
We working to get this one locked also?
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 10:45
We working to get this one locked also?
not at all. I find it tasteless that anyone would be cheering for the loss of civilian life that had no part in the actions of the ones in power. It is highly disturbing.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-07-17, 10:46
not at all. I find it tasteless that anyone would be cheering for the loss of civilian life that had no part in the actions of the ones in power. It is highly disturbing.
That response would have been the better one then. Just my opinion though.
Sadly, this is something that I believe may appear more and more as things continue to worsen.
If their influence truly is dwindling, then resorting to easier attacks is more than likely one of their few courses of action available.
Granted, I may not be fully up to date as my personal interest, as with most, varies day-to-day.
We working to get this one locked also?
That's why I didn't bother to respond when he quoted my post. Not even worth arguing about.
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 10:53
That response would have been the better one then. Just my opinion though.
People with hardline points of view can typically only be forced to think about things when given an analogy that is closer to them.
I guess all the Jews had it coming because they did not stand up to their oppressors.
Got it.
That is some grade A stupid sh*t. As a Jew I would love for you to come to my dojo to train. BJJ for the win. I like stand up as well, so we can practice that in the completely legal confines of the mat. I am inviting you to come and train with us. Or, if you prefer, you can pick a dojo near you and I'll fly to train with you. Just to help you understand the mentality you described isn't alive and well. Friendly training; you can always tap unless you go to sleep or are KO'd. We have procedures for those situations as well. You'll be well taken care of.
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 11:15
That is some grade A stupid sh*t. As a Jew I would love for you to come to my dojo to train. BJJ for the win. I like stand up as well, so we can practice that in the completely legal confines of the mat. I am inviting you to come and train with us. Or, if you prefer, you can pick a dojo near you and I'll fly to train with you. Just to help you understand the mentality you described isn't alive and well. Friendly training; you can always tap unless you go to sleep or are KO'd. We have procedures for those situations as well. You'll be well taken care of.
Not even sure what you are trying to say, did the holocaust happen or not?
Was it their fault? I'm siding with it was not. His point of view is no civilians under an oppressive regime is innocent.
People with hardline points of view can typically only be forced to think about things when given an analogy that is closer to them.
The hardliners still won't get it. They'll just get butthurt.
I guess I'll stick my 2 Jewish cents in here.
As a Jew I totally get what DD is saying. He isn't saying Jews deserved it, he's making a comparison. If people living in Iran automatically makes them a supporter of the regime then Jews living under Nazi occupation are no different. In other words, guilty by association. You're there so it means you must be a supporter. Then people living in areas of ISIS occupation are by default ISIS supporters!
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 11:38
I guess I'll stick my 2 Jewish cents in here.
As a Jew I totally get what DD is saying. He isn't saying Jews deserved it, he's making a comparison. If people living in Iran automatically makes them a supporter of the regime then Jews living under Nazi occupation are no different. In other words, guilty by association. You're there so it means you must be a supporter. Then people living in areas of ISIS occupation are by default ISIS supporters!
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Yep, that exactly.
Things are not as simple as he is trying to make it.
To the moderators please don't close this thread.
I have a real hard time dealing with the fact that it took so long for any Jews to fight back. But when they did fight back with almost no tool in the Warsaw Ghetto.
I pray that if the day comes that I live under a totally evil government, that I have the courage to rise up against it. Even at the cost of my life.
I believe that if you allow yourself to be ruled by evil and you don't fight back to try and over throw that evil. You then are a partner in that evil.
I used to talk to Palestinians and they would say we want peace. My answer would be if in fact you want peace then prove it. If I know in your village, town or city where the terrorist safe houses are. Then you also know, so if you want peace go there at 3AM with the whole village and kill the terrorist. Then the BS would start, well my cousin is a member of such and such terror group, you don't want me to have to kill my cousin do you? I would answer, yes I do demand of you if you want peace to kill your cousin as your part of us getting peace.
But it never happened, never will.
So Sunni, blows up Shia or vis versa. Who cares, cause the vast majority of both groups want my kids dead.
I guess I'll stick my 2 Jewish cents in here.
As a Jew I totally get what DD is saying. He isn't saying Jews deserved it, he's making a comparison. If people living in Iran automatically makes them a supporter of the regime then Jews living under Nazi occupation are no different. In other words, guilty by association. You're there so it means you must be a supporter. Then people living in areas of ISIS occupation are by default ISIS supporters!
The irony is that's the same logic used by those who blow up Israeli civilians, those who flew the planes on 9/11 etc. Not sure why that would be difficult for anyone to understand. Civilians dying as collateral/related actions in war, is not the same as actively targeting civilians. Matters not if you're that civilian getting blow up of course.
I would also like to point out Jews of various nations were the victims of the holocaust. They had in many countries not only the Germans that were against them but their fellow countrymen.
I would venture that in Germany after a certain point in history, the people against the Nazis were gone. Those that were left were supporters to some degree of the regime. I don't remember what year the rose rebellion was, but that might make a good mark in time.
The attempt on Hitlers life was a good attempt to end evil.
Singlestack Wonder
06-07-17, 12:07
Back on point......With all of the information coming out of the intelligence community today pointing to iran as a major sponsor of terrorism thru-out the world, is it possible they staged the attack in order to look like victims of terrorism as well? Food for thought.....
turnburglar
06-07-17, 12:25
Like a good ole fashioned false flag op?
For some reason that doesn't sound like Iran to me.
Back on point......With all of the information coming out of the intelligence community today pointing to iran as a major sponsor of terrorism thru-out the world, is it possible they staged the attack in order to look like victims of terrorism as well? Food for thought.....
There have been several attacks by Sunni extremists in Iran over the past couple of decades.
We're hearing about this one because ISIS claimed responsibility, and ISIS is the current global boogeyman.
Back on point......With all of the information coming out of the intelligence community today pointing to iran as a major sponsor of terrorism thru-out the world, is it possible they staged the attack in order to look like victims of terrorism as well? Food for thought.....
No.
Iran is shia. ISIS is sunni.
Iran supports shia terrorists.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-07-17, 13:00
I think most false flags ops are false flag rumors.
I think of this more in the scheme of the over all Sunni-Shia fighting and more importantly in light of the cutting off of Qatar this week. Do we get closer to direct confrontation between the Saudi's and Iran? If Iran were smart, they'd use this to try to snuggle up to Trump. Not really snuggle up to, but try to make Trump admit that the enemy or my enemy is my frenemy.
If you want a historical analogy, two autocratic (here religious) powers are poking each other. You could say like Russia and Germany in WWII. I still think more of the Thirty Years War model. And with the money these guys have for arms, it is like a HUGE version of giving two monkeys AKs. Unfortunately, we don't have proper cover.
WickedWillis
06-07-17, 13:05
Just like we deserved 9/11?
No one deserves anything like this.
Are you serious?
Why can't people see that innocent victims on 9/11, didn't deserve what they got.
But people that support and live under a regime that is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world today. They have no innocent victims.
Next you will want us to cry for the German and Japanese that were in the cities we bombed during WW2.
Well anytime that innocent people get murdered for no reason it's a problem. I really don't give a F what religion, or what color their skin is. Not everyone dying in these attacks sponsor or endorse terrorism.
What's our definition of "innocent" here? One of the attacks was carried out at the parliament building. Were those people the ones that directly killed anyone? Probably not. But have they been the ones that sponsored terror and the ones doing the killings in the past? Yes. So are they really "innocent"?
Seems Iran's chickens have come home to roost!
ISIS taking credit for a suicide bomber/gun attack on Iran. Much carnage. Largest sponsors of terrorism in the region attacked by a terrorist group. That's irony...
Or what better way to avert suspicion?
Now they can say "well see, Iran isn't a supporter of terrorism, or they wouldn't be attacking us too..."
There have been several attacks by Sunni extremists in Iran over the past couple of decades.
We're hearing about this one because ISIS claimed responsibility, and ISIS is the current global boogeyman.
Or this too.
I honestly wonder how many attacks ISIS had no idea about, but claimed anyway (or was blamed for anyway).
Are you serious?
Why can't people see that innocent victims on 9/11, didn't deserve what they got.
But people that support and live under a regime that is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world today. They have no innocent victims.
Next you will want us to cry for the German and Japanese that were in the cities we bombed during WW2.
Not to mention it's the exact same government that took American hostages in 1979.
Just like we deserved 9/11?
No one deserves anything like this.
No, but if I could pick ONE country........
Breaking News:
Small group of innocent civilians in Iran gather to send their well wishes to America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA
MountainRaven
06-07-17, 17:08
What's our definition of "innocent" here? One of the attacks was carried out at the parliament building. Were those people the ones that directly killed anyone? Probably not. But have they been the ones that sponsored terror and the ones doing the killings in the past? Yes. So are they really "innocent"?
You think there aren't any moderate, secular Iranians in the Iranian government?
You think there aren't any moderate, secular Iranians in the Iranian government?
There may be. But the one doesn't justify the whole.
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 17:12
There may be. But the one doesn't justify the whole.
....wow....
....wow....
So if we bomb an ISIS camp/target/whatever and an innocent civilian dies are we to be condemned?
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 17:16
So if we bomb an ISIS camp/target/whatever and an innocent civilian dies are we to be condemned?
uhhhh ya... that is not obvious to you?
There were government buildings in the world trade center. I guess it is all good those got taken out and the civilian lose of life was just forgettable?
How about the pentagon... all good that some civilians loss their life right?
WickedWillis
06-07-17, 17:19
Breaking News:
Small group of innocent civilians in Iran gather to send their well wishes to America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA
Words are wind. Threatening death to other Countries is not violent action against other countries.
WickedWillis
06-07-17, 17:20
There may be. But the one doesn't justify the whole.
and vise-versa
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-07-17, 18:17
That is what you guys talk about, not the strategic implications of ISIS being active in Iran?
That is what you guys talk about, not the strategic implications of ISIS being active in Iran?
Anything that destabilizes Iran is a good thing IMHO. Now an (unlikely) overthrow to a Sunni theocracy as opposed to a Shiite one is certainly no better, but as far as causing "problems" for the Iranian government.....hell yeah!
SeriousStudent
06-07-17, 18:51
To the moderators please don't close this thread.
.................
Why should it stay open?
Is it changing anyone's mind?
Is it a calm, polite and rational discussion?
Why should it stay open?
Why should it stay open?
Is it changing anyone's mind?
Is it a calm, polite and rational discussion?
Why should it stay open?
It should stay open because of this...
That is some grade A stupid sh*t. As a Jew I would love for you to come to my dojo to train. BJJ for the win. I like stand up as well, so we can practice that in the completely legal confines of the mat. I am inviting you to come and train with us. Or, if you prefer, you can pick a dojo near you and I'll fly to train with you. Just to help you understand the mentality you described isn't alive and well. Friendly training; you can always tap unless you go to sleep or are KO'd. We have procedures for those situations as well. You'll be well taken care of.
...one of the greatest reading comprehension fails and ensuing ridiculous e-tough overreactions GD has seen since, well, the last GD thread posted.
Of course this thread should be closed -- there's a pile up of members thoroughly ignorant of the target country in question arguing for death by fire of innocent civilians because of their leaders.
Why are you even asking if that kind of stupidity should carry on?
Digital_Damage
06-07-17, 19:17
It should stay open because of this...
...one of the greatest reading comprehension fails and ensuing ridiculous e-tough overreactions GD has seen since, well, the last GD thread posted.
Of course this thread should be closed -- there's a pile up of members thoroughly ignorant of the target country in question arguing for death by fire of innocent civilians because of their leaders.
Why are you even asking if that kind of stupidity should carry on?
I did not take it personally, I think he just misunderstood that a comparison was being made. Kind of a strange response. But hey, context is not always conveyed well on the internet.
I think it should stay open. Some will not change, but I think it is being informative for some. You can guarantee some are furiously googling right now.
Words are wind. Threatening death to other Countries is not violent action against other countries.
In many parts of the world such events are public entertainment.
I learned this 20 or so years when I was a "guest" in a second world country. A huge anti-government protest was planned, and people came in on buses from miles around. Lots of violent speeches, effigies burning, threats to storm government buildings, etc.
Until a gentle rain started, and everybody went home in an orderly fashion. I realized what I'd witnessed was the equivalent of an open-air concert.
In many parts of the world such events are public entertainment.
I learned this 20 or so years when I was a "guest" in a second world country. A huge anti-government protest was planned, and people came in on buses from miles around. Lots of violent speeches, effigies burning, threats to storm government buildings, etc.
Until a gentle rain started, and everybody went home in an orderly fashion. I realized what I'd witnessed was the equivalent of an open-air concert.
That is as fascinating as the post you quoted. Just one question though. Were you a "guest" of Iran?
Moose-Knuckle
06-08-17, 05:08
The Sunnis attack the Shias. Tale as old as time.
It's not like that haven't been engaged in a proxy war in Syria for years lol.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-08-17, 08:14
It's not like that haven't been engaged in a proxy war in Syria for years lol.
I guess that is my point. This isn't a proxy-proxy act, it is a proxy-actor attack. That it happens at the same time as the Qatar Qerfluffle is interesting.
I give up.
It is obvious that even in the conservative gun world PC has infected peoples thinking.
So their really is no need for this thread.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 08:53
I give up.
It is obvious that even in the conservative gun world PC has infected peoples thinking.
So their really is no need for this thread.
That is just a dumb statement.
Murder of innocent individuals regardless of geography is not a "PC" issue. It is what makes humans distinct from animals.
WickedWillis
06-08-17, 10:46
I give up.
It is obvious that even in the conservative gun world PC has infected peoples thinking.
So their really is no need for this thread.
You can't justify killing civilians and innocent people just because of the country they live in. No need to lose your temper because all of us are not in complete agreement that everyone in this bombing deserved what they got. If this was Israel, or the United States we could sympathize with that, but because Iran has a shady as f history we can't?
That is just a dumb statement.
Murder of innocent individuals regardless of geography is not a "PC" issue. It is what makes humans distinct from animals.
Exactly. If we stop caring about innocent people getting killed and caught up in all this BS we are no better than ISIS.
I give up.
It is obvious that even in the conservative gun world PC has infected peoples thinking.
So their really is no need for this thread.Actually, in modern history, wanton genocide of innocent civilians has overwhelmingly been the province of hard left socialist and communist regimes, forbears to much of today's PC movement; "conservative gun world", as you would have it, has been a moral and actual bulwark against the mass murder inclinations of these ideologies.
It's amazing how far removed from traditional American values it is to suggest that incinerating ordinary individuals is justifiable and welcome if their rulers are corrupt; that's the thinking and action of evil regimes and those who support them -- about as unAmerican as it gets.
What's obvious is that the conservative tradition of American moral leadership in the world has been infected with a small but virulent element of those with petty tyrant instincts who mistake ignorance and sadism for leadership and strength.
I never said wanton genocide of innocent civilians.
I did say I don't care if Iranian civilians get killed in terrorist attacks, or in Allied bombings.
Traditional American values were last shown in war in WW2.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 12:19
I never said wanton genocide of innocent civilians.
I did say I don't care if Iranian civilians get killed in terrorist attacks, or in Allied bombings.
Traditional American values were last shown in war in WW2.
This just can't be an honest answer... If it is you need to talk to someone.
Moose-Knuckle
06-08-17, 12:21
I guess that is my point. This isn't a proxy-proxy act, it is a proxy-actor attack. That it happens at the same time as the Qatar Qerfluffle is interesting.
Did you hear about the billion dollar ransom Qatar paid to ISIS to get back some royals who were nabbed out on a falconry safari?
Interesting that the House of Saud has cut diplomatic ties with them as well.
Averageman
06-08-17, 12:34
You know we (as in allies) bombed the hell out of Dresden. They might have deserved a bombing, but they got a inferno. When you consider it even concerned Churchill, you know it was a bit over the top.
There is a line, when you cross it you become part of the problem not the solution.
WickedWillis
06-08-17, 12:35
I never said wanton genocide of innocent civilians.
I did say I don't care if Iranian civilians get killed in terrorist attacks, or in Allied bombings.
Traditional American values were last shown in war in WW2.
You have to know what that sounds like my friend. I don't think you're a bad guy by any stretch if the imagination, but this statement is rough. Not every single Iranian Man, Woman and child in that country is evil.
Oddly, WW2 was the last war we actually had to act in a defensive manner. Since then it's been more of a policing the world thing.
I never said wanton genocide of innocent civilians.
I did say I don't care if Iranian civilians get killed in terrorist attacks, or in Allied bombings.
Traditional American values were last shown in war in WW2.No. You said that there are no "innocent victims" among people suffering under authoritarianism; you made evident the belief that there is no distinction for you, morally or for targeting, between citizens and their leadership. That's terrorist thinking.
You had better moral standing with "I give up".
I never said wanton genocide of innocent civilians.
I did say I don't care if Iranian civilians get killed in terrorist attacks, or in Allied bombings.
Traditional American values were last shown in war in WW2.
How is that different than say Hezbollah using the same justification/logic to blow up Israelis? What am I missing there? Many Iranians are victims of their POS government and when they have attempted to make their voices heard, gunned down in the streets or taken away to interrogation centers and never seen again. Sure, some civilians support their governments position against the west et al, but many, perhaps most, do not. I'm unclear how any of that applies to Traditional American values per se.
Civilian deaths are an unfortunate part/cost of war and combat, and that was accepted during WWII, much less so now, but that's not equivalent to what you're saying. Even in the extreme cases where civilian targets were the focus, it was viewed as a means to an end with a goal, justified or not in retrospect, another issue.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 13:37
How is that different than say Hezbollah using the same justification/logic to blow up Israelis? What am I missing there? Many Iranians are victims of their POS government and when they have attempted to make their voices heard, gunned down in the streets or taken away to interrogation centers and never seen again. Sure, some civilians support their governments position against the west et al, but many, perhaps most, do not. I'm unclear how any of that applies to Traditional American values per se.
Civilian deaths are an unfortunate part/cost of war and combat, and that was accepted during WWII, much less so now, but that's not equivalent to what you're saying. Even in the extreme cases where civilian targets were the focus, it was viewed as a means to an end with a goal, justified or not in retrospect, another issue.
What he would do with his lottery winnings could shed some light...
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?197298-Hypothetical-If-you-won-the-435M-Powerball&p=2502325#post2502325
Might be joking, but with the way he has responded in this thread I cant be sure.
What he would do with his lottery winnings could shed some light...
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?197298-Hypothetical-If-you-won-the-435M-Powerball&p=2502325#post2502325
Might be joking, but with the way he has responded in this thread I cant be sure.
But perhaps he'd be a benevolent dictator in Ethiopia. :cool:
Hypothetical question: let's say a nuclear device was smuggled out of Iran (if they had one to do so) and into the U.S., or if Iran or North Korea launched a missile with a nuke. It incinerates Los Angeles or New York; millions of civilians die. If you were POTUS, what would your response be? Would it be tactical nukes on military-only targets? Or would you see to it that an equal or greater number of people in the offending country died?
Your response would likely mean your impeachment and removal from office if you chose the wrong one, and that isn't hypothetical. What do you think Americans would demand?
Reason I ask is that while terrorist acts killing innocent people are certainly not to be condoned, especially since this is not an openly-declared war between Iran and ISIS (although it may be soon enough), there comes a time when the scale of death inflicted can only be "rectified" by an in-kind response. This attack on Iran is not at that scale, as most terrorist acts don't reach that level at one pop. But it is food for thought on where the line is drawn.
As I said previously, in a strictly geo-political sense any problems confronting Iran will not lead to me wringing my hands in angst. For instance, if Iran had a major earthquake I would not be in favor of the U.S. spending my tax dollars on a relief effort. Iran has reaped what they have sown for nearly 40 years, and they can go ESAD. At a personal level it is sad (as usual) to see innocents going about their business and dying as a result of scumbag terrorists. I will never cheerlead terrorists.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 14:26
Hypothetical question: let's say a nuclear device was smuggled out of Iran (if they had one to do so) and into the U.S., or if Iran or North Korea launched a missile with a nuke. It incinerates Los Angeles or New York; millions of civilians die. If you were POTUS, what would your response be? Would it be tactical nukes on military-only targets? Or would you see to it that an equal or greater number of people in the offending country died?
Your response would likely mean your impeachment and removal from office if you chose the wrong one, and that isn't hypothetical. What do you think Americans would demand?
Americans cannot agree on anything so what small sections demand is a moot point.
Complete destruction of the offending government through conventional means would be my choice. No country building, just the opposite. Complete destruction and no aid, complete embargo. No ability to build a shack let alone another nuke.
Using a nuke because of a nuke does not just make the world blind, it makes it unlivable.
This is definitely an interesting discussion even though some want it shut down.
I think that we can all sympathize with innocent people being killed due to the actions of their government. I certainly can feel bad for them, but it stops there.
There is also a decent argument that you can't win a war without cracking a few heads. We definitely cracked a few heads in Europe and Japan, some of which may well have been decent folks caught in a bad place due to pure happenstance.
The question is are you purposefully targeting innocents or are they merely collateral damage. If you're targeting civilian centers you're a terrorist in my book. If you're causing collateral damage you need to look back and insure you did everything realistically possible to minimize collateral damage without sacrificing the mission or your men. If you did that it comes down to war sucks and we shouldn't go there willy nilly like we are in the habit of late. If we do go that route our objective is to protect Americans and their interests first and foremost everything else comes second. It's not rocket surgery.
1. complete the mission
2. Minimize losses on your end
3. Minimize collateral damage.
In that order. Had we not been willing to cause collateral damage in Japan over the span of 2 bombing missions countless more Americans and possibly Japanese would have died.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 14:36
This is definitely an interesting discussion even though some want it shut down.
I think that we can all sympathize with innocent people being killed due to the actions of their government. I certainly can feel bad for them, but it stops there.
There is also a decent argument that you can't win a war without cracking a few heads. We definitely cracked a few heads in Europe and Japan, some of which may well have been decent folks caught in a bad place due to pure happenstance.
The question is are you purposefully targeting innocents or are they merely collateral damage. If you're targeting civilian centers you're a terrorist in my book. If you're causing collateral damage you need to look back and insure you did everything realistically possible to minimize collateral damage without sacrificing the mission or your men. If you did that it comes down to war sucks and we shouldn't go there willy nilly like we are in the habit of late. If we do go that route our objective is to protect Americans and their interests first and foremost everything else comes second. It's not rocket surgery.
1. complete the mission
2. Minimize losses on your end
3. Minimize collateral damage.
In that order. Had we not been willing to cause collateral damage in Japan over the span of 2 bombing missions countless more Americans and possibly Japanese would have died.
That is the problem most are pointing out here... some are saying they don't sympathize at all.
Americans cannot agree on anything so what small sections demand is a moot point. Don't think it would be a small amount of people at that point
Complete destruction of the offending government through conventional means would be my choice. No country building, just the opposite. Complete destruction and no aid, complete embargo. No ability to build a shack let alone another nuke.
Using a nuke because of a nuke does not just make the world blind, it makes it unlivable.
Fair enough, but you would probably be removed from office. At least you were honest, but we'll have to disagree.
That is the problem most are pointing out here... some are saying they don't sympathize at all.
Now saying you're glad innocent people were killed just because they're Iranian is one thing, it's another matter entirely when you say you aren't going to shed any tears over what happens to Iran in a larger sense.
Averageman
06-08-17, 14:46
I have heard a school of thought that goes;
"Until the war has been brought to the home front and civilian casualties increase, the spirit to resist and to continue the fight will be there."
I will say though, I believe the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan was almost humanitarian compared to the numbers of civilians and soldiers that would have been lost had Japan been attacked by conventional forces.
If they were not fanatical fighters willing to suffer so many great losses, there would have been no need for the second bomb.
I have heard a school of thought that goes;
"Until the war has been brought to the home front and civilian casualties increase, the spirit to resist and to continue the fight will be there."
I will say though, I believe the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan was almost humanitarian compared to the numbers of civilians and soldiers that would have been lost had Japan been attacked by conventional forces.
If they were not fanatical fighters willing to suffer so many great losses, there would have been no need for the second bomb.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it". But yeah, I totally agree, with saving the lives of OUR service personnel paramount over saving Japanese lives (that was secondary).
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 14:53
Fair enough, but you would probably be removed from office. At least you were honest, but we'll have to disagree.
Doubt anyone would be removed from office, prob not reelected. That is what cracks me up about this place, everyone seems to live in such a small world.
Lets pull apart your proposed scenario.
A Nuke is stolen from NK, last reports is a 10kt which is half of fatman.
That would essentially destroy the financial and arts district in LA. If done at peek around 70,000 dead.
You are saying everyone would be wanting to send a 100kt W-76 (smallest yield we have) to Pyongyang killing 800,000 and starting an all out war with China in the process?
Guys why is it so hard for some to understand.
If your government is Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Hizballah, ISIL, Iran, then I feel you as a man have a duty to try to over throw that government. For the government you live under murders innocent people, that makes it evil. If you fail to raise up even at the pain of your own death then you by default have become part of the problem.
At that point in time. I don't care if you live or die as part of the struggle to end your evil government.
Doubt anyone would be removed from office, prob not reelected. That is what cracks me up about this place, everyone seems to live in such a small world.
Lets pull apart your proposed scenario.
A Nuke is stolen from NK, last reports is a 10kt which is half of fatman.
That would essentially destroy the financial and arts district in LA. If done at peek around 70,000 dead.
You are saying everyone would be wanting to send a 100kt W-76 (smallest yield we have) to Pyongyang killing 800,000 and starting an all out war with China in the process?
I didn't say a nuke stolen from a country by a non-state actor, I said a country itself did it. And quite frankly nukes aren't the kind of things that get heisted very easily without some turning a blind eye by the host government.
Turning the other cheek in a nuclear scenario (i.e. any response that was non-nuclear) would not be tolerated in my scenario.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 15:01
Guys why is it so hard for some to understand.
If your government is Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Hizballah, ISIL, Iran, then I feel you as a man have a duty to try to over throw that government. For the government you live under murders innocent people, that makes it evil. If you fail to raise up even at the pain of your own death then you by default have become part of the problem.
At that point in time. I don't care if you live or die as part of the struggle to end your evil government.
I guess it would not be hard to understand... if you are a psychopath.
Seriously, what you are proposing and lack of basic empathy is disturbing.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 15:05
I didn't say a nuke stolen from a country by a non-state actor, I said a country itself did it. And quite frankly nukes aren't the kind of things that get heisted very easily without some turning a blind eye by the host government.
Turning the other cheek in a nuclear scenario (i.e. any response that was non-nuclear) would not be tolerated in my scenario.
ok not stolen, point still has value.
You are saying the murder of close to a million innocent people (in exchange of 70,000 innocent people) and the possibility of total war causing the death of millions more would be the best possible response?
If you want your pound of flesh You can achieve a reasonable combatant body count with conventional weapons in a target rich environment like that.
ok not stolen, point still has value.
You are saying the murder of close to a million innocent people (in exchange of 70,000 innocent people) and the possibility of total war causing the death of millions more would be the best possible response?
If you want your pound of flesh You can achieve a reasonable combatant body count with conventional weapons in a target rich environment like that.
There has to be deterrent value with the credible threat of it being used in order to avoid nuclear weapon use. If it is demonstrated that one country can use it and not suffer the same in return then Katie-bar the door. MAD worked for decades and quite frankly is a valid line of thinking. Open a can of sunshine and we will return the favor.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 15:15
There has to be deterrent value with the credible threat of it being used in order to avoid nuclear weapon use. If it is demonstrated that one country can use it and not suffer the same in return then Katie-bar the door. MAD worked for decades and quite frankly is a valid line of thinking. Open a can of sunshine and we will return the favor.
Would be true if you were facing someone that can be mutually destroyed, that is not North Korea or anyone in the Middle East.
Your proposal would force someone that can participate in Mutually Destruction to respond.
Hypothetical question: let's say a nuclear device was smuggled out of Iran (if they had one to do so) and into the U.S., or if Iran or North Korea launched a missile with a nuke. It incinerates Los Angeles or New York; millions of civilians die. If you were POTUS, what would your response be? Would it be tactical nukes on military-only targets? Or would you see to it that an equal or greater number of people in the offending country died?
Your response would likely mean your impeachment and removal from office if you chose the wrong one, and that isn't hypothetical. What do you think Americans would demand?...
That's a massive act of state-on-state war. Of course it calls for a crushing military response. Presume in your scenario the evidence against the culprit is a given.
Campaign planners don't calculate -- thank God -- in terms of x U.S. citizens dead means we have to kill x+1 Attacking Nation citizens, for reasons moral, legal and strategically practical; they also don't act at the behest of citizen whim or outcry, nor should they.
POTUS declares the desired end state: crippling damage inflicted to the foreign government that nuked us, to prevent a repeat and to warn any other comers. Military leadership determines ways and means -- chiefly, targeting enemy nation's military command and control, and government and economic infrastructure.
Plenty of room within the laws of warfare to knock that shit down and not have to think about being removed from office. Deliberate targeting of civilian "get back" has no business here.
Guys why is it so hard for some to understand.
If your government is Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Hizballah, ISIL, Iran, then I feel you as a man have a duty to try to over throw that government. For the government you live under murders innocent people, that makes it evil. If you fail to raise up even at the pain of your own death then you by default have become part of the problem.
At that point in time. I don't care if you live or die as part of the struggle to end your evil government.This is precisely the anti-US terrorist mentality.
Your point isn't hard to understand, it's just awful.
I guess it would not be hard to understand... if you are a psychopath.
Seriously, what you are proposing and lack of basic empathy is disturbing.
Sorry if I don't sound like a modern man, that cries when his enemy is destroyed. Sorry I don't care if to over throw a regime that murders it's own citizens, hangs homosexuals in public from cranes, and is seeking nukes to wipe my country out, a hell of a lot of civilians would lose their lives in the war, that would remove the evil leadership.
Sorry if hearing Allah hu Akbar, Itbak El Yehud, more times than I can count. As the people screaming it were trying to murder children or women, has boiled any empathy out of me for my enemies. Sorry that I have been to over a dozen suicide bombings including one where me and the terrorist were face to face. Sorry that my daughter found her mentor a young woman that was running to my home for safety because we both chase terrorist for a living and were armed. Her mentor had so many center mass stab wounds they gave up counting and her head was cut off. Sorry my son survived his first suicide bomber at age 16.
But most of all I am sorry for the world, that has so walked away from a relationship with the Divine, that men no longer can tell the difference between a warrior that has stood in the gap for 2.5 decades and the terrorist scum and countries that support terrorist scum.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 15:44
Sorry if I don't sound like a modern man, that cries when his enemy is destroyed. Sorry I don't care if to over throw a regime that murders it's own citizens, hangs homosexuals in public from cranes, and is seeking nukes to wipe my country out, a hell of a lot of civilians would lose their lives in the war, that would remove the evil leadership.
Sorry if hearing Allah hu Akbar, Itbak El Yehud, more times than I can count. As the people screaming it were trying to murder children or women, has boiled any empathy out of me for my enemies. Sorry that I have been to over a dozen suicide bombings including one where me and the terrorist were face to face. Sorry that my daughter found her mentor a young woman that was running to my home for safety because we both chase terrorist for a living and were armed. Her mentor had so many center mass stab wounds they gave up counting and her head was cut off. Sorry my son survived his first suicide bomber at age 16.
But most of all I am sorry for the world, that has so walked away from a relationship with the Divine, that men no longer can tell the difference between a warrior that has stood in the gap for 2.5 decades and the terrorist scum and countries that support terrorist scum.
"Modern man" Has nothing to ****ing do with it, You are equating innocent civilians to the enemy. You know what they call that? War crimes. Their is no honor in that, that is being a coward.
No I am not endorsing genocide of civilians. But I guess you can't understand simple words.
Digital_Damage
06-08-17, 16:03
No I am not endorsing genocide of civilians. But I guess you can't understand simple words.
Oh I understand... you got painted into a corner very early in this thread with provided analogies and comparisons. You keep doubling down on asinine and irrational points of view with the goal (to my best guess) of keeping some sort of non-modern man card.
You are basically stating, we should become terrorist to beat terrorist. Because... you know... that is the non-modern man way of doing things. What ever the **** that means.
Sorry if I don't sound like a modern man, that cries when his enemy is destroyed. Sorry I don't care if to over throw a regime that murders it's own citizens, hangs homosexuals in public from cranes, and is seeking nukes to wipe my country out, a hell of a lot of civilians would lose their lives in the war, that would remove the evil leadership.
Sorry if hearing Allah hu Akbar, Itbak El Yehud, more times than I can count. As the people screaming it were trying to murder children or women, has boiled any empathy out of me for my enemies. Sorry that I have been to over a dozen suicide bombings including one where me and the terrorist were face to face. Sorry that my daughter found her mentor a young woman that was running to my home for safety because we both chase terrorist for a living and were armed. Her mentor had so many center mass stab wounds they gave up counting and her head was cut off. Sorry my son survived his first suicide bomber at age 16.
But most of all I am sorry for the world, that has so walked away from a relationship with the Divine, that men no longer can tell the difference between a warrior that has stood in the gap for 2.5 decades and the terrorist scum and countries that support terrorist scum.That sure is a lot of appeal to emotion for a hard boiled throwback man...
It's also a lot of subject-changing horseshit.
What you stepped in was asserting that populations that aren't all "rize up, yo" in the face of repressive leaders have no distinction from those leaders and deserve the same violent end as their leaders. It's an understanding of the issue that exists in ignorance.
Hint at warrior creds all you like -- real warriors know that you can be too long in the fight and become no good for it; best first signs are the ones you're showing.
No.
Iran is shia. ISIS is sunni.
Iran supports shia terrorists.
There are exceptions. Iran supports Hamas. The latter is Sunni. Iran supports any entity that fosters strife in the world. After all, that's what they believe will bring back their 12th imam.
That's a massive act of state-on-state war. Of course it calls for a crushing military response. Presume in your scenario the evidence against the culprit is a given.
Campaign planners don't calculate -- thank God -- in terms of x U.S. citizens dead means we have to kill x+1 Attacking Nation citizens, for reasons moral, legal and strategically practical; they also don't act at the behest of citizen whim or outcry, nor should they.
POTUS declares the desired end state: crippling damage inflicted to the foreign government that nuked us, to prevent a repeat and to warn any other comers. Military leadership determines ways and means -- chiefly, targeting enemy nation's military command and control, and government and economic infrastructure.
Plenty of room within the laws of warfare to knock that shit down and not have to think about being removed from office. Deliberate targeting of civilian "get back" has no business here.
Actually, it does. Remember that this is an EXTREME situation, and to go back to your very first comment about a "massive act of state-on-state war" then the civilian population of the now-enemy country is a manpower resource. That would make it a legitimate target in this scenario, just like Japan's and Germany's was. And this air I detect of some Moral High Road is a bit disconcerting. While I obviously hope that it would never come into play, please spare me the holier-than-thou "we're better than that" BS. If hundreds of thousands or a million Americans died as a result of such an act the proverbial gloves come off......and sure SHOULD come off. Also, the civilian command authority sure as hell is accountable to the behest of the population: they put them there, and the legislators too who could force the issue. To think that an element of "payback" wouldn't be relevant is deluding yourself.
The purpose of my throwing this hypothetical out there wasn't to derail the OP's topic. I was trying to illustrate that this "no civilian casualties" mantra has an upper limit (at least to the realistic among us). It was not to imply that deliberate targeting of civilians is kosher or called for in any but the most extreme circumstances. I'm not going to speak for Yoni but perhaps he just can't get all upset over Iranian terror casualties when the regime itself has caused it for damn near 40 years on lots of other folks. As I said earlier I'll not cheerlead terrorists wantonly slaughtering civilians who are going about their daily lives, even if that is Iranian civilians. However, I'll also not lose any sleep over Iran (the country at large) getting a taste of what they've been dealing out for decades.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.