• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

Hlafordlaes said:
The progress since 2001 is certainly there, the willingness to destabilize surrounding governments is there, the taking of land is constant (now in Syria once again), the existence of many fanatics who dream of Greater Israel is there, the constant claim to more and more land is there. Question of time, should Israel be left to its own devices.

But where is your excuse for the settlements? Evasion means what it means: You have nothing but fanatical religious extremism lacking reason or measure afoul of law, in short, brutal tribal madness. Hooga booga! Savages are the new civilized!
Click to expand...
Facts mean very little to certain Trump supporters.
 
Throughout the war people said Iran wouldn't cross certain lines because that would be suicide.
This implies a belief that the Iranian leadership is fundamentally rational and concerned with self preservation of itself and the country.

None of that would change if Iran had nukes: a use for anything but deterrence would result in massive retaliation that would be the end of the regime and the future of the country.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
None of that would change if Iran had nukes: a use for anything but deterrence would result in massive retaliation that would be the end of the regime and the future of the country.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that as long as they only used nukes for deterrence, then there's no problem. This is foolish. A nuclear deterrent means they could drastically ramp up their terrorist activity, without having to worry that it might trigger a direct military response.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Throughout the war people said Iran wouldn't cross certain lines because that would be suicide.
This implies a belief that the Iranian leadership is fundamentally rational and concerned with self preservation of itself and the country.

None of that would change if Iran had nukes: a use for anything but deterrence would result in massive retaliation that would be the end of the regime and the future of the country.
Click to expand...
Nuclear deterrence has offensive applications, too. Look how far Moscow has progressed in Ukraine, because of it.
 
Ziggurat said:
You seem to think that as long as they only used nukes for deterrence, then there's no problem. This is foolish. A nuclear deterrent means they could drastically ramp up their terrorist activity, without having to worry that it might trigger a direct military response.
Click to expand...
ramp up - how?

their cooperation with Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas, as well as its own missile program, was Iran's version of a Nuclear Triade: threats from different sources making it impossible for Israel to defend against simultaneously, thus making an all-out attack against any one of them inadvisable. Israel has demonstrated that it can deal with the groups without having to put Iran in a position where nuclear retaliation was the only option.

If Iran had a nuke, it wouldn't need these groups anymore.
And it looks like the groups themselves feel rather abandoned by Teheran.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
that's the point of MAD.
Click to expand...
Changed my post.. wait what?? Russia getting their way in Ukraine is not the point of MAD and is a great example of why we wouldn't want Iran to get one. Aside from the fact one of their death cult proxies might get one and actually use it! MAD doesn't work for people willing to die.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Changed my post.. wait what?? Russia getting their way in Ukraine is not the point of MAD and is a great example of why we wouldn't want Iran to get one. Aside from the fact one of their death cult proxies might get one and actually use it! MAD doesn't work for people willing to die.
Click to expand...
it's not MAD if only one side has it.
Ukraine proves that having nukes is stabilizing, not destabilizing, if a rival power has nukes.
Israel wouldn't be so reckless in its use of force, domestic and abroad, if it was facing a deterrent.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's even stupider.

Why is that?

Because Iran is getting its ◊◊◊◊ kicked in, not because Iran doesn't want to support them.
Click to expand...
Iran refused to put any more of its resources behind Hamas and Hezbollah in light to concentrated Israel attacks against the groups - it could have started its airstrikes right after the invasion of Gaza after oct 7th, or after the pager attack, but it didn't.
And the attacks on Iran by Israel show that it is just as compromised by Mossad as Hezbollah.

The relationship between these groups is in need of some marriage counselling.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
it's not MAD if only one side has it.
Ukraine proves that having nukes is stabilizing, not destabilizing, if a rival power has nukes.
Click to expand...
No. Having nukes can prevent aggression by another party, yes. But having nukes also enables aggression by the party with nukes, as Russia proves.

Why are you in favor of enabling Iranian aggression?
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no, it's not straw at all. It is explicitly what Hladfordlaes claimed:

Do you agree with him?
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly do. You see, Israel teaches the Torah as factual history, in history class. Its president since Oct7 has cited that text to claim Palestinians were to get the Amalekite treatment (genocide), more than once. Israel refers to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, using that as reason to "settle" the land and remove its rightful inhabitants.

Ergo: They take their scripture literally, as would an Islamic extremist, aka, terrorist.

And so: the verse cited above quite specifically states the geographic borders of the land promised Israel.
  • It's in the text.
  • They take that text literally
  • to the point of breaking the law and committing acts of terrorism.
After over 75 years of this being the case, you have doubts?

I don't think it's doubt, actually.

"Oh, oh, please no, not more logic. No more supported theses citing supporting evidence. Please, this is about the entitlement of settler colonialists! We hold ourselves as superior beings! We are the Chosen above all others! We have divine rights, not mere 'human' rights!"

Sadly for those about to object, this is an accurate paraphrase of the video evidence cited earlier. So, are you a Zionist, or a slave? Those are the only two categories of people for today's Israelis; the Chosen or those subject to provisional acceptance as slaves, providing they behave. It doesn't get more supremacist than that.
 
Last edited:
As for Iranian aggression, it is motivated by more than hatred, mostly moral outrage upon witnessing 75+ years of criminal Israeli behavior, and outrageous it is.

That said, just like Judaism, Islam sucks donkey balls, and Islamists have also acted and reacted using terror as their weapon of choice, ruining what otherwise could have been a pristine case against a clear criminal aggressor. Theists suck, big time. Because they take their mythical magic seriously, they are empowered and entitled by an unquestionable authority. In short, they are primitive savages doing the hooga-booga and splitting skulls.

Yes, Iranians use terror as policy; Iran practices state terrorism. Just like Israel and the United States in Palestine. Let's be principled, let's man/woman up to what it takes, and condemn them all.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Iran could get bombed again in a matter of months, too.
Click to expand...
Yeah but now we've told them exactly how deep they need to dig.

And, again, that even though there was no indication they were actually making a weapon, they sure as ◊◊◊◊ are going to now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom