Iran says could hit U.S. if it came under attack: paper

Originally posted by Britguy

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Oh Iran please just stop

Is it every day they issue a new threat now? each being more delusional and funnier than the last, the US isn't even saying anything other then taking it to the UN so why do they keep issuing there meaningless threats?, really whose warmongering here?, Iran please for the love of god just shut up for 5 minutes, you're not fooling anybody with these pathetic claims, you're just making yourselves look like a bunch of morons

See what I did there? I fixed it for you, no need to thank me.

Yes i did see what you did there, you ruined it & twisted it around... making it completely irrelevant to this post/topic about Iran's new warmongering threats and said Israel made that threat instead, When Israel make such a threat, feel free to correct me if i ever ignorantly blame it on Iran, but please allow me to express my opinion with out meddling

I think that is called dis-info isn't it? thats all you guys do isn't it? turn it around and blame others while ignoring what is right in front of you... such as this current threat from the mighty revolutionary guard,

They're a funny bunch of religious nuts in Tehran, i can't for the life of me figure out how on earth they could possibly strike the US, i'm quite up to date with the current military Iran posses and id give the odds 1 in a million, more chance of the 12th Imam Mahdi coming back and winning Irans got talent ...then going on to win Iran-idol ...you get the drift

Anyway.. i fixed my edited/broken OP

reply to post by caf1550


Iran absolutely has the ability to attack on us soil. Not in the traditional sense. They will fight a war through proxies in a terrorist campaign. By using terrorist groups they can hit us while avoiding the full might of the us military. At least for a time.

"In the face of any attack, we will have a crushing response. In that case, we will not only act in the boundaries of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, no place in America will be safe from our attacks," Massoud Jazayeri was quoted as saying by the daily.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Dammit... why do they still continue to pour this crap out.

First of all, they don't have nukes yet, both the CIA and the Mossad confirm this.
Second of all, why would he say this?

We have the Israel loves Iran movement going, which I myself have decided to support, and if anything that shows that the people are not interested in another war, even between Israelis and Iranians.

Makes you start thinking if the Iranians officials have been "infiltrated" by western propaganda... that maybe some of the top dogs or semi top dogs are working towards destabilization.

In short... comments like those are not helping Iran :S

We need peace! No more wars! And by this I'm implying, don't let yourselves be taunted by this ill news!

Why do people always bring up "nukes"... they've been tried out, they've been used... now theres so many new stuff to try and to use... nukes are so... messy, and its kind of an old tech and everyone and they mothers have one now...

I would vote for a more vicious and NEW modern mass destruction weapon...

reply to post by caf1550


I think that is propaganda for internal consumption in Iran. The Theocratic Dictatorship of Iran's greatest danger comes from it's own citizens, not from outside.

It should be clear by now that Obama is not going to attack Iran. Smoke and mirrors to fool their own citizens.

I really doubt they have the capabilities to strike back. Look when you went into Iraq in the 90s, they were the 4th biggest military in the world and it didn't took long before the states pretty much destroyed there military.
Still who knows what they have in store.

reply to post by Jameela


What exactly I want and what happens are quite different.For some silly a##sed reason certain people want a catastrophy and our military doesn't want to let them have it.
You are not ignorant Some of us just have more knowledge of jackals.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by Jameela

 

For some silly a##sed reason certain people want a catastrophy and our military doesn't want to let them have it.

Thanks for explaining, I appreciate your time

I might not be following what you are saying in the above sentence. To whom do you refer when saying certain people want a catastrophe?

reply to post by Nite_wing


That's the whole point; if we attack them, they will strike back. The severity of such an attack is really debatable, but they do have sleeper cells here able to carry out terrorist acts. I don't even see why we need to attack them?

It's fine if they want to hit back...I don't have a problem with that mentality....that's their right I suppose.

I do have a problem that if we hit military or military related industry and then they turn around and hit schools, hospitals, churchs, and malls. Frankly that's cowardace.

If they do that we should look at carpet bombing a city in response. You go after our civillians....we will go after yours....

Originally posted by SrWingCommander


I do have a problem that if we hit military or military related industry and then they turn around and hit schools, hospitals, churchs, and malls. Frankly that's cowardace.

in the iran vs iraq war...saddam used chemical weapons...bombed civilian areas....under all this...the iranians didnt react in that manner...they stuck to military targets

peace....

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
It's fine if they want to hit back...I don't have a problem with that mentality....that's their right I suppose.

I do have a problem that if we hit military or military related industry and then they turn around and hit schools, hospitals, churchs, and malls. Frankly that's cowardace.

If they do that we should look at carpet bombing a city in response. You go after our civillians....we will go after yours....

do you know how many hospitals, churchs and malls we destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan??
and don't give me that crap "oh they had that stuff?"

If your infantry and/or insurgents hide in said buildings, it goes from the "off limits" list to the "go get' em list".

Don't tell me "oh, I didn't know that".

reply to post by yourmaker


I bet we rebuilt a few too. Especially schools. Schools were special in Afghanistan before we invaded. Girls were not allowed to go to them.

Not many churches in Afghanistan. They have Mosques. Mosques are different than churches. They don't let the women pray with the men. The women either sit behind the men, divided by a curtain, or in a separate room. Muslim women aren't allowed to pray when they have their period, isn't that nice.

Afghanistan should have been invaded for the way that they treat their women.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by yourmaker

 

I bet we rebuilt a few too. Especially schools. Schools were special in Afghanistan before we invaded. Girls were not allowed to go to them.

Not many churches in Afghanistan. They have Mosques. Mosques are different than churches. They don't let the women pray with the men. The women either sit behind the men, divided by a curtain, or in a separate room. Muslim women aren't allowed to pray when they have their period, isn't that nice.

Afghanistan should have been invaded for the way that they treat their women.

Its not because our culture is different that it makes it wrong for them to do what they did. Should we invade every country that has a difference in culture. Now if they are committing a genocide then yeah I would totally understand it. The reason why we invaded Afghanistan is because they attacked us on sept 11 and I think it was a pretty good reason to do so to begin with.

Even if the US struck Iran (which in my opinion would be a terrible idea) it would prove to be devastating. ESPECIALLY if we underestimate their capabilities. What if they do have nuclear weapons (which i believe they do)? and what if they could smuggle them within our borders? No one really took the idea of terrorists hijacking our own planes into consideration, yet it happened and surprised us all. The point being, NEVER underestimate anothers capabilities. For theres a CHANCE that that could be the last mistake we ever make. History is full of people who made that mistake.

reply to post by NavyNut

It's just my opinion, but I think that the freedom to be educated should be afforded to a person regardless of their gender.

Their culture sucks. This is the 21st century.

Is slavery ok if the slaves are a different race?

reply to post by Jobeycool

reply to post by Jobeycool

True...my friend. The suicide terrorist and sleeper cells are totally different. The terrorist would not stand a chance in the US. With the FBI "sting" operations in place the terrorist would be caught when he/they go asking around for armaments and materials for bomb making. Sleeper cells are those that have been embedded in the US at least for a few years. They can get the materials they want from all over the country through the years so as not to arouse suspicion. And what they do now is just wait for the signal to strike. Each cell would have their specific target and staying in their respective area of operation, they are as knowledgeable about the vicinity as any Americans.

Everybody should read this before something happens- War with Iran is planned to happen-

www.brookings.edu...

If anyone remembers the year 2000 Rebuilding America's Defense's document and the policy requiring a New Pearl Harbour then I advise also reading the above document, from another Zionist funded 'think tank' on American foreign policy. David Icke has spoke about this a lot and as far as I am aware, no one has brought up the more recent think tank ideas.

Type 'absent' into the document and quite shockingly, numerous quotes come up outlining the very same scenario.

Absent some dramatic
Iranian provocation, it seems very unlikely that
those same countries (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and
Britain, in particular) would allow the United States
to use those same facilities for an invasion of Iran,
potentially further lengthening the time required
for the invasion itself.

critical challenge for this policy option is that,
absent a clear Iranian act of aggression, American
airstrikes against Iran would be unpopular in the
region and throughout the world.


The Zionists made the point of mentioning a new 'Pearl Harbour' in their outline for American foreign policy going foward for the 21st century back in 2000. That event, namely 9/11, has seen the progression of their agenda- Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Syria in the pipeline etc.

This 2009 document twice reports the need for Iranian 'provaction' or 'aggression' to 'speed up' the process and to make it accepted amongst the world.

Iran is unwilling to attack any country because they know the consequences- so one of the options, and as seen from 9/11, this appears to be another false flag operation.

If Israel attacks Iran before the summer, the false flag may be claimed to be Iran's response to Israel's attack on them.