It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Iranian Commander Threatens US Troops

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
An Iranian military commander has threatend US troops and Israel should either attack Iran in an effort to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. Iran already has the capability to strike Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan with missiles. Should they decide to do so, they can attack US troops in both countries.
 



www.spacewar.com
The head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards has warned that 190,000 US troops stationed close to the Islamic republic could be targetted if Iran were attacked, a report said Wednesday.
"More than 190,000 members of American forces are scattered in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the US carries out its threats against Iran, they nust know that all these forces will be within our reach," Yahya Rahim Safavi told the ultra-hardline Ya Lessarat newspaper.

"The US and the Zionist regime (Israel) do not have the power to confront us and we will hand them bone-breaking blows," Safavi said, adding that "Iraq is getting more unsafe everyday for America" anyway.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Iran must be feeling the heat. Similar comments have come from Iran in the past threating immediate retaliation if their nuclear facilities are struck. This latest bluster seems to be a more generalized threat should the 'country' be attacked.

I don't believe a threat like this should be ignored. Iran does have the missile technology to launch strikes against it's neighboring countries. Iran's missiles can even strike European countries where the US still maintains a sizeable presence.




posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
If they attacked any Europeancountrys were USA tropps or bases were they would be nuked to cinders by usa and europe,then we would probablymove on an nuke syria while we at it, and then nuke any other terrorist harboring countrys so this act of terrorism would not happen again we would send a big plain ad day messgae you mess with us we will FUDGE you over with nukes. ALL that is if Iran used nukes first of course...

oh and if they did attack iraq or any middle east where usa troops were usa would nuke em back and nuke em hard, so would isreal so double nukeing i suppose... so if iran want to end being a country let emtry attacking in retaliation then we would have to wavegoodbye iran.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by blobby]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by blobby]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
And this differs from Saddams chest beating and posturing in what way?
Means nothing, just whipping up the ignorant masses...



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
It differs in that Iran now has some historical presedence to go on. It differs in that Iraq under Saddam was a secular government, not a radical fundementalist government.

Iran is surrounded. The pressure on Iran to not produce a bomb is growing. The rhetoric is growing. The comfort I take in this is that the threaten retaliation not first strike. If we stay out of their business, they wont retaliate.

Course if we do that then they could continue to develop the Islamic bomb unchecked.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Preak, the article said that is 190.000 US troops close to their country, they are concern of been targeted.

The US troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is obviously a warning. They also said that Israel does not have power to attack them, I kind of disagree with that.

Now it also said that Israel and US accused Iran of “seekeing to develop a nuclear weapon”

But on where in the article said.



An Iranian military commander has threatend US troops and Israel should either attack Iran in an effort to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. Iran already has the capability to strike Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan with missiles. Should they decide to do so, they can attack US troops in both countries.



I think you misunderstood the news.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
If they attacked any Europeancountrys were USA tropps or bases were they would be nuked to cinders by usa and europe,then we would probablymove on an nuke syria while we at it, and then nuke any other terrorist harboring countrys so this act of terrorism would not happen again we would send a big plain ad day messgae you mess with us we will FUDGE you over with nukes. ALL that is if Iran used nukes first of course...

oh and if they did attack iraq or any middle east where usa troops were usa would nuke em back and nuke em hard, so would isreal so double nukeing i suppose... so if iran want to end being a country let emtry attacking in retaliation then we would have to wavegoodbye iran.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by blobby]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by blobby]


and then the entire planet would be uninhabitable for around 20,000 years...



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
In the same light, I don't think that good old congress mans remarks regarding nuking Syria should be taken lightly either.

The difference between Saddams chest beating and that of Irans is one fundamental difference: one country has nukes..

Deep



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Its all rhetoric hype. An attempt to 'pump up' the will of the Iranians, and break the will of enemy. Just like a football game. Alot of talk and preparation. However Iran knows that they eventually will get their butts handed to them on a silver platter if they get into military conflict with the US. And im not trying to be arrogant,......im being completly rational. Iran will be much tougher to beat than IRAQ, but it still has no chance against the US military. And Iran is not stupid enough to try using nukes against Europe, much less the US......It would mean immediate suicide. This is simple reality, and cannot be denied.

Carburetor



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Carburetor, I'm in an absolutely agreement with that. Iran's ruling leadership is taking a very serious risk against the United States, not to due to US' military might but the willingness to use nuclear retaliation in case US troops would be killed en masse by Iran's conventional missiles which are faster and deadlier than Iraq's old SCUD missiles (Russia have provided new advanced missile technology to Iran since early 1990s).

You do realize that the majority of young Iranians are scared of their clerical leadership (the mullahs) and the Revolutionary Guards daring the United States on. It's a national suicide they're not asking for.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Why is it considered a Threat? Isn't simply a statement, a warning not to engage in military attacks.


If the US carries out its threats against Iran, they must know that all these forces will be within our reach


If the threat is mentioned in that article its the threat that US has eluded to.

Phae



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Preak, the article said that is 190.000 US troops close to their country, they are concern of been targeted.

The US troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is obviously a warning. They also said that Israel does not have power to attack them, I kind of disagree with that.

Now it also said that Israel and US accused Iran of “seekeing to develop a nuclear weapon”

But on where in the article said.



An Iranian military commander has threatend US troops and Israel should either attack Iran in an effort to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. Iran already has the capability to strike Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan with missiles. Should they decide to do so, they can attack US troops in both countries.



I think you misunderstood the news.

No marg, I've got it covered crystal clear.
Also from the article

The United States and Israel both accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and have not ruled out military options to prevent the clerical regime of acquiring the bomb.

It is an established fact that the Bush Administration has made veiled threats to stop Iran from producing a nuclear bomb. The Revolutionary Guard commander was responding to those threats with his own.

Yes the number of US troops that he names are those in the Afghan and Iraqi theatre, but given the fact that Iran does have missiles capable of reaching Germany, that location should not be over looked.

Israel has also publically debated attacking Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them from developing a nuclear capability. N osecret there either.

No marg, I didn't misunderstand the news, I am aware of the entire picture, and have been able to add that to this one article.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
No marg, I didn't misunderstand the news, I am aware of the entire picture, and have been able to add that to this one article.


I see, sorry I miss spell your name in my post, I didn't mean to.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I see, sorry I miss spell your name in my post, I didn't mean to.

No problem marg.
I figured since you are a voracious reader of ATSNN that you were aware of this as well.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
You do realize that the majority of young Iranians are scared of their clerical leadership (the mullahs) and the Revolutionary Guards daring the United States on. It's a national suicide they're not asking for.


Yep, I realize that. And its a great point about stability of the Iranians under war time pressure, as they will be tested and find that possibly many of their own rebellious young ones either lay down arms or don't pull the trigger in possible hopes of regime change.
The Hype is mostly around Nuclear threat. As a conventional
un-nuclearized war would lead in their quick defeat simular to Iraq. I think the nuclear threat really isn't so much to the US, but to Israel or other neighbors. However the biggest threat to the US is of course loyalist insurgents after a conventional war ends.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor


The Hype is mostly around Nuclear threat.





The hype is mostly around keeping Americans whipped into a frenzy so Bush can justify Patriot Act II - and slide it in right under the radar.

[sigh]



.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The hype is mostly around keeping Americans whipped into a frenzy so Bush can justify Patriot Act II - and slide it in right under the radar.


Um, only the US Congress have the power to vote and enact Patriot Act II, not the President. The President only have to sign it into an act and order federal agencies to enforce it but the Congress still have the power over the budgetary concerns surrounding the Patriot Act II. If some representatives and/or Senators don't get what they wanted for their states from the Patriot Act II, they can threaten to repeal it.

Right now, there are joint anti-Patriot Act lobbying groups working behind the scenes in getting the Congress to repeal P.A. II entirely on constitutional and civil liberty grounds.

It would take another 9/11 attack on the US soil and a declaration of martial law to actually activate the Patriot Act II to full enforcement powers.

So far it hasn't happen yet.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Let them try it. If they tried a fullscale assault, Bush has ALREADY stated that in this case, their country will be wiped off the Earth.

Bush doesn't play, we know that.

And if we attacked them in retaliation for them attacking first? Well, we would not see any political correctness in this situation - none of the stuff we see in Iraq. I predict a 1 to 2 week war. It would be over.

Why? The U.S., in Iraq, is in a holding position, one that always comes with casualties. In the U.S. strategy, it is a blitzkrieg style - a literal lightning war.

-wD


Sep

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Bush has ALREADY stated that in this case, their country will be wiped off the Earth.


Provide a source please.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Let them try it. If they tried a fullscale assault, Bush has ALREADY stated that in this case, their country will be wiped off the Earth.

Bush doesn't play, we know that.

And if we attacked them in retaliation for them attacking first? Well, we would not see any political correctness in this situation - none of the stuff we see in Iraq. I predict a 1 to 2 week war. It would be over.


They are not saying they will attack first, only that if the US or Israel attacks Iran they will fight back.
I see nothing wrong with that and I can't understand why people would get upset about them fighting back when attacked. Does everyone expect them to just sit back and do nothing?



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I think web devil as well as a few other posters, were refering to the comment earlier in the post, where the thought of Iran attacking or nuking Europe was involved......the topic got side tracked a bit with some discussion involving the ramifications of Iran being on a nuclear offensive.

I agree, the Iranians won't just sit back and watch..........atleast not the loyalists......however, as also mentioned earlier, its a possibility that some may sit back and hope for the removal of their regime. As many have long awaited it.

Carburetor



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join