• 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

Safe-Keeper said:
Martyrs, actually.
Click to expand...
This is a translation and cultural issue. Shuhada means witness the root is from 'to see'. The same term would be used for a witness in a court case. So these 'Martyrs' as tends to be the translation are witnesses to their faith. Essentially anyone who dies an unnatural death, by fire or drowning, or by a building collapsing on them or defending their home or family would be regarded as witnessing to their faith. Death in childbirth is also regarded as 'martyrdom'. Interestingly death by infectious disease also counts. Those who die in war for their faith would also be martyrs. However martyr is perhaps not the best translation.
 
Planigale said:
This is a translation and cultural issue. Shuhada means witness the root is from 'to see'. The same term would be used for a witness in a court case. So these 'Martyrs' as tends to be the translation are witnesses to their faith. Essentially anyone who dies an unnatural death, by fire or drowning, or by a building collapsing on them or defending their home or family would be regarded as witnessing to their faith. Death in childbirth is also regarded as 'martyrdom'. Interestingly death by infectious disease also counts. Those who die in war for their faith would also be martyrs. However martyr is perhaps not the best translation.
Click to expand...
It depends on the context. In some contexts, a martyr is simply someone to be venerated, for having sacrificed themselves, or having been sacrificed, to a noble cause.

In other contexts, a martyr is someone whose sacrifice inspires heightened commitment to the causes, especially increased recriment of fodder for the violent conflict furthering that cause.
 
theprestige said:
It depends on the context. In some contexts, a martyr is simply someone to be venerated, for having sacrificed themselves, or having been sacrificed, to a noble cause.

In other contexts, a martyr is someone whose sacrifice inspires heightened commitment to the causes, especially increased recriment of fodder for the violent conflict furthering that cause.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why it is a bad translation. Martyrs aren't 'venerated' in Islam the way that martyrs are in catholicism. It isn't half way to sainthood. One would NEVER pray to a martyr in Islam. As I tried to imply those who die from accidents and infections are regarded as witnesses or martyrs, there is no requirement for a noble cause. Victims of violence, or trauma* even accidental, are witnesses or martyrs. It doesn't have the connotation you are trying to create by equating it with being a martyr for a cause.

Originally it was a good translation as the word martyr in ancient greek means witness, including one who would witness in court. Christians used the term as those who witnessed to their faith, not recanting despite threats or torture. The baggage that has accrued which you reference is why it is probably not a good translation any longer.

*This would include non-human events such as earthquakes / tsunamis / being struck by lightning.
 
Last edited:
I'm listening to the radio discussing fertiliser shortage going hand in hand with the oil shortage. A lot of the world's urea-based fertiliser comes from the gulf. A UK farmer talked about the perverse incentive he faces, where he can choose to plant this year's barley crop or just sell the fertiliser he bought and make more money. Another analyst suggesting 8% food inflation isn't unrealistic.

Thanks again, Trump.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm listening to the radio discussing fertiliser shortage going hand in hand with the oil shortage. A lot of the world's urea-based fertiliser comes from the gulf. A UK farmer talked about the perverse incentive he faces, where he can choose to plant this year's barley crop or just sell the fertiliser he bought and make more money. Another analyst suggesting 8% food inflation isn't unrealistic.

Thanks again, Trump.
Click to expand...


patrick boyle’s latest video goes over the wide range of economic effects the war in iran is predicted to have, revolving around the concept that lesser militaries can defeat superpowers by damaging the global economy. he also covers the difficulties with getting the oil back moving, and how it relates to electricity.

anyway, there's a good explanation on the fertilizer bit at around 9m. aluminum is also similarly vulnerable. as far as food and electricity, there already have been global price hikes, and some poor nations have already started rationing.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm listening to the radio discussing fertiliser shortage going hand in hand with the oil shortage. A lot of the world's urea-based fertiliser comes from the gulf. A UK farmer talked about the perverse incentive he faces, where he can choose to plant this year's barley crop or just sell the fertiliser he bought and make more money. Another analyst suggesting 8% food inflation isn't unrealistic.

Thanks again, Trump.
Click to expand...

Don't forget helium. Thanks to USA divesting its huge helium reserve, the medical world and many other tech operations require helium, and most of it was coming from the back end of the Red Sea.
 
Meanwhile, I wonder if Trump is sick of winning yet?

It becomes clearer by the day that zero thought went into the consequences of the attack. Trump and his cabinet of phonies and sycophants never considered Hormuz being closed, far less the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

Expecting Iran to negotiate anything with a country that was involved in discussions at the very time of the attack is insane and unlikely to bear fruit.

When the ground attacks start, the winning will include lots of US corpses.
 
Interestingly France was planning for this last year, they were even pretty accurate with the date, not so good with the location.

French hospitals told to prepare for war in Europe by next year in leaked Government letter​

The country’s health ministry has instructed hospitals to prepare for a ‘major military engagement’ by March 2026​

Click to expand...
www.independent.co.uk

French hospitals told to prepare for war by next year in leaked Government letter

The country’s health ministry has instructed hospitals to prepare for a ‘major military engagement’ by March 2026
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
From Yonatan Touval's opinion piece in today's New York Times:
What this war exposes, then, is a failure not only of strategy but of literacy. Literature and history, at their most serious, train precisely the faculties these leaders lack: the capacity to grant that other minds are not transparent to us, and are governed by purposes not our own. A mind tutored by history and literature knows that actors in the grip of a sacred cause tend to mean what they say — and that bombing a founding myth is more likely to consecrate it than to dissolve it.
Click to expand...

The more technologically sophisticated war becomes, the more dangerous it is to place it in the hands of people untrained in irony, contingency and the darker constants of human nature. Such leaders will speak fluently of capabilities, timelines and kill chains. They will have no language for resentment, dishonor, loyalty or grief — and they will discover, too late, that wars are made of these as much as of steel and fire. That is the illiteracy of this war.
Click to expand...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I think it's not too early for everyone decide, in their own heart, whether Trump or Netanyahu dropping a Nuke of any size on Iran, regardless of the circumstances, will be a step to far for them or not.
Click to expand...
They already took the 'step too far' for me.

Nukes are very unlikely though. Israel can't use them because it would violate the Schrödinger's nuke theorem. The US can't use them because then everyone else can, but it won't anyway unless their back is to the wall which will never happen. For both countries the nuclear option represents defeat because it means they couldn't win using conventional weapons. And Iran is a big place. How many would you have to drop to destroy everything they have? One thing's for sure, Iran won't cave like Japan did after a couple of small nukes were used on them.

So I'm hoping they do, but not counting on it. What will probably happen is Israel becomes a spent force and the US gets it's nose so bloodied that it becomes politically impossible to continue. This will be a good result. I also hope that the US continues to fight with conventional weapons because it's weakening Russia as they support Iran. Ukraine needs a weak Russia in order to succeed in its final push to end the war in their country.

I expect that when the dust has settled Ukraine and Iran will be the winners. Both of them deserve it. Neither of them were the aggressors. Both had 'peace' settlements that were broken by their enemies, who flouted international law and the right of sovereignty that all nations should have. Therefore Ukraine and Iran winning are the morally correct outcomes. Sad that so many people have to suffer to relearn lessons of war, but that's just the way is for humans.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
From Yonatan Touval's opinion piece in today's New York Times:
Click to expand...
I read another piece, I can't find it to link. The argument made was this was for the US this is the equivalent of the Suez crisis for the French and British colonial systems.

This will be the decline of the US as a global power. In the background minor powers will buy drones and feel they can oppose US hegemony. With US focussed on Iran, why does Venezuela have to be subject to US authority.

NATO, Japan and Korea will feel they cannot depend on the US, so they have no need to support the US. Reliable alliances will exclude the US. Trump will get what he wants he will go down in history as one of the most significant US presidents, but not in the way he wants, but as the president who triggered the decline in US global dominance.
 
White House statement tonight:

“President Trump does not bluff. He is prepared to unleash hell. Iran should not miscalculate again.”

“Iran has been defeated militarily. Any violence beyond this point will be because Iran refused to understand they have already been defeated.”

link
 
Photos show heavily damaged US radar jet at Saudi base

Verified pictures show a US command and control aircraft has been destroyed at an air base in Saudi Arabia.

The pictures appear to have been first shared by a Facebook page carrying US military news. They show the E-3 Sentry aircraft appears to have been split in two.

www.bbc.co.uk

Photos show heavily damaged US radar jet at Saudi base

US Central Command has not yet publicly commented on the incident.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Roger Ramjets said:
They already took the 'step too far' for me.

Nukes are very unlikely though. Israel can't use them because it would violate the Schrödinger's nuke theorem. The US can't use them because then everyone else can, but it won't anyway unless their back is to the wall which will never happen. For both countries the nuclear option represents defeat because it means they couldn't win using conventional weapons. And Iran is a big place. How many would you have to drop to destroy everything they have? One thing's for sure, Iran won't cave like Japan did after a couple of small nukes were used on them.
So I'm hoping they do, but not counting on it. What will probably happen is Israel becomes a spent force and the US gets it's nose so bloodied that it becomes politically impossible to continue. This will be a good result. I also hope that the US continues to fight with conventional weapons because it's weakening Russia as they support Iran. Ukraine needs a weak Russia in order to succeed in its final push to end the war in their country.

I expect that when the dust has settled Ukraine and Iran will be the winners. Both of them deserve it. Neither of them were the aggressors. Both had 'peace' settlements that were broken by their enemies, who flouted international law and the right of sovereignty that all nations should have. Therefore Ukraine and Iran winning are the morally correct outcomes. Sad that so many people have to suffer to relearn lessons of war, but that's just the way is for humans.
Click to expand...
That assumes that every player is rational. I fear that that may not be true.
 
Andy_Ross said:
White House statement tonight:

“President Trump does not bluff. He is prepared to unleash hell. Iran should not miscalculate again.”

“Iran has been defeated militarily. Any violence beyond this point will be because Iran refused to understand they have already been defeated.”

link
Click to expand...
It didn't take much for a few terrorists controlling commercial planes to change the world back in 2001. I feel it's very likely that we will see something similar soon.
 
Andy_Ross said:
White House statement tonight:

“President Trump does not bluff. He is prepared to unleash hell. Iran should not miscalculate again.”

“Iran has been defeated militarily. Any violence beyond this point will be because Iran refused to understand they have already been defeated.”

link
Click to expand...

That stuff about "any violence beyond this point blah blah already defeated" is what they said a week or so ago, verbatim.

<edit> I discover it was only last Wednesday Leavitt said it. So much craziness all tumbling one event upon the next, I lose the sense of real time passing.

Also: Trump does not bluff and is prepared to unleash hell. Hey, voters with kids in the military, that's your kid he's talking about. That "hell" he isn't bluffing about unleashing on the Iranians. You know who actually has to go there and be that hell, and do that unleashing, right?
 
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