User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:31:20 AM EDT
[#1]
Jihadi top gun
Conflict News ?@rConflictNews 1h1 hour ago Video showing the jets captured at Jarrah airbase last November by Jaish al Islam now used by #ISIS 
Memlik Pasha ?@MemlikPasha 1h1 hour ago Re reports of IS flying captured MiGs, total Coalition and SyAAF air superiority means the aircraft are little more then flying deathtraps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:41:58 AM EDT
[#2]
interesting that they are expending the resources into flying.
i figured ISIS air force would be dead on arrival. but it would give them the kamikaze option. certainly wouldn't put it past them to try. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 12:08:38 PM EDT
[#3]
Al Qaeda portrays US-led bombing campaign as 'Crusade' against Islam
By THOMAS JOSCELYN October 17, 2014 Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a branch of al Qaeda's international organization, has issued another statement denouncing the US-led bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria. And the group once again calls on rival jihadist factions to come together against their common enemies in the West. The Islamic State, headed by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, has been warring with the Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda's official branch in Syria, and other jihadist organizations since last year. AQAP and other al Qaeda-allied ideologues are portraying the air strikes as part of a "Crusade" against Islam and, therefore, they argue that the jihadists must set aside their differences for now. They are pushing this theme on social media and in their messaging. The AQAP message, a "Statement Regarding the Crusader Coalition," was posted on Twitter earlier today and first translated by the SITE Intelligence Group. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/10/al_qaeda_portrays_us.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 1:28:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean the kind where America brings all the troops and logistics and ships and airplanes, and the Euros bring national caveats and three handed sociologists? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NATO has become an anachronism. The sooner it dies the better. Time to rethink military co-operation in Europe sans Turkey. You mean the kind where America brings all the troops and logistics and ships and airplanes, and the Euros bring national caveats and three handed sociologists? Isn't that what NATO is today? European NATO countries couldn't fight their way out of a wet bag without US assistance. Multi-member military alliances don't survive on European soil; history has shown that time and again. Ententes and triple alliances may function better in shooting wars as they tend to serve particular Staatsräson-ends. When NATO finally shuffles to its grave it will not be replaced by another military alliance but by some kind of modus vivendi between Paris, Berlin and Moscow. The rest of us don't really matter, that's just a harsh fact of life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 1:41:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When NATO finally shuffles to its grave it will not be replaced by another military alliance but by some kind of modus vivendi between Paris, Berlin and Moscow. The rest of us don't really matter, that's just a harsh fact of life. Honestly, probably the only place where some kind of multi-national alliance would work would be among the Nordics. The Swedes were mooting one in the early nineties, before the Balts joined NATO. Were I a Nordic nation, I'd be looking for a way to permanently base US troops. I think the only real debate within the Auswärtiges Amt is how to best accomidate the Russians. Its Finlandization, without the hard long view to national interest of the Finns. Do I think that Russia is a viable nation on the 50 year+ time frame? No. I think the Russians actions are completely understandable in that context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 7:44:37 PM EDT
[#6]
This is what I was thinking. Flight training.They are not training to land.
The L-39A aircraftare typically used as trainers, but they've been pressed into service in Syria as light ground-attack aircraft. (The photo at the top of this VICE News story shows one of those planes firing on a target.) The jets are also used by the fledgling Afghan Air Force; the photos at the top of this story is a pair of Afghan L-39s in flight. https://news.vice.com/article/the-islamic-state-may-now-have-slightly-more-than-no-air-force?utm_source=vicenewstwitter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 2:00:44 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 2:29:44 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 11:41:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryEvery good plan has assumptions. This article is neither good, nor a plan, but let's look at the assumptions and see if they are true. Is the American definition of help acceptable to Iran? What help can we give? At the operational to tactical level, what is it that we'd be doing, exactly? What is the backlash and cost to our critical relationships in the Sunni world, especially with countries like Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain that support our efforts at no small cost to themselves? Why should the Americans be the Syrian Air Force, and is the end state any different than being AQ's Air Force, that was COA rejected after the Sarin attack in Syria? What is the endstate, exactly? The article doesn't say. Iran and Syria are described by the author as "self-protective powers." Is pursuing multiple campaigns of destabilizing regional neighbors in Lebanon and Yemen, conducting terror attacks in Asia and South America, and attacking US forces for decades in the ME "self-protective?" If so, this loops back to question 1, namely if the Iranians have tried to get us out of the ME for so long, why will they let us back in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:48:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every good plan has assumptions. This article is neither good, nor a plan, but let's look at the assumptions and see if they are true. Is the American definition of help acceptable to Iran? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every good plan has assumptions. This article is neither good, nor a plan, but let's look at the assumptions and see if they are true. Is the American definition of help acceptable to Iran? As long as it excludes the American desire (really the Sunni desire) to overthrow Assad, Iran's willing to be "helpful". What help can we give? At the operational to tactical level, what is it that we'd be doing, exactly? CAS, ISR What is the backlash and cost to our critical relationships in the Sunni world, especially with countries like Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain that support our efforts at no small cost to themselves? They'll get over it. Jordan and Bahrain are too scared of Iran to go it alone without the U.S., and Uncle Sam pays really well. Plus, it's more likely the Saudis would go ape shit more than anyone else. Let them get fucked. What have they done for us recently? They are too fucking cozy with the Chinese anyway. Why should the Americans be the Syrian Air Force Because it is in our interest to... Unless you think letting Iraq fall and letting ISIS thrive is more in our interest. and is the end state any different than being AQ's Air Force I would certainly say so... Especially since working with shi'ites and Alawites is pretty much anathema to Sunni jihadists... But I take it you weren't being literal. Ha. I'm not going to convince you it is, so I'm not going to bother making the argument it is. And it doesn't really matter whether you think it is or not, it's still the only real option we have at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:54:25 AM EDT
[#11]
MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:03:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:14:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
that was COA rejected after the Sarin attack in Syria? What is the endstate, exactly? The article doesn't say. It may have been ruled out after the gas attacks, but it has been ruled back in; just as the article states, we are "currently working with Assad to de-conflict forces". I assure you, we are doing more than that. Quoted:
Iran and Syria are described by the author as "self-protective powers." Is pursuing multiple campaigns of destabilizing regional neighbors in Lebanon and Yemen, conducting terror attacks in Asia and South America, and attacking US forces for decades in the ME "self-protective?" They haven't attempted to expand their territory or start wars with neighbors; they have exerted influence and provided assistance to various groups to create regional dynamics that are favorable to them. Attempting to bring to power governments that are friendly to their interests is no different than what the U.S. Has done around the world. Would you call the U.S. an expansionist power? Quoted:
If so, this loops back to question 1, namely if the Iranians have tried to get us out of the ME for so long, why will they let us back in? They likely won't, especially if we don't make attempts to use cooperation on ISIS as a means to build future cooperation in other areas. If we were to actually build some mutual trust and goodwill, who knows what might take place. But, knowing the obstacles to the U.S. ever having a rational Mideast policy, the Iranians will likely be snubbed again for their assistance, and after our mutual ISIS problem is solved, we'll likely revert back to killing each other. Which, even if that is the outcome, ISIS will still be crushed... Which is our current objective. Battling Iran for influence from Baghdad to Beirut can then continue where we left off. Iran may be in a slightly better position having successfully defended its allies in Baghdad, but we should already know we lost our hopes of maintaining influence in Iraq the day we pulled our forces out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:14:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. I'm crushed you feel that way. Really. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:15:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:16:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:17:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:54:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? But, but, they held our HOSTAGES! And did other stuff! And they have an anti-America day! And unlike our highly reliable European allies, they can actually fight and already have troops on the ground in Baghdad! Oh, wait... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:30:36 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:35:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:45:35 AM EDT
[#21]
The Associated Press ?@AP 3m3 minutes ago
BREAKING: Iraq officials: Triple car bombing in revered Shiite city of Karbala kills at least 16 people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:50:06 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? And, why didn't that relationship continue? If you say "The Axis of Evil Speech," you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:31:19 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:08:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. We're all well aware of Iranian sponsorship of Shi'a militias in Iraq. That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. I didn't enjoy being shot @ with rockets that I presume were shipped from Iran - but that doesn't mean I preclude ever working with them when the situation changes. The situation has changed, and not for the better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:12:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Conflict News ?@rConflictNews 5m5 minutes ago
#ISIS is launching a major attack on #Sinjar right now (began early this morning) with a renewed siege to defeat local #Yazidi defenders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:16:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're all well aware of Iranian sponsorship of Shi'a militias in Iraq. That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. I didn't enjoy being shot @ with rockets that I presume were shipped from Iran - but that doesn't mean I preclude ever working with them when the situation changes. The situation has changed, and not for the better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: MK262, your responses/ideas are bad, and you should feel bad. Intellectualism at its HEIGHT up here in GD! Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. We're all well aware of Iranian sponsorship of Shi'a militias in Iraq. That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. I didn't enjoy being shot @ with rockets that I presume were shipped from Iran - but that doesn't mean I preclude ever working with them when the situation changes. The situation has changed, and not for the better. So. What will we achieve? We will help the Iranian government seize control of Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria. And then what? Peace will descend upon the heavens and all will be right with the world? Shias already controlled Iraq and Syria. Why would they be successful a second time? Or should we simply subordinate US forces indefinately to Iranian policy objectives? Or will allowing the Iranians to develop their nuclear capability lead to a more stable middle east as opposed to the pre-nuclear era of Iranian domination of Sunni arabs in the Levant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:39:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:43:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So. What will we achieve? We will help the Iranian government seize control of Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria. And then what? Peace will descend upon the heavens and all will be right with the world? Shias already controlled Iraq and Syria. Why would they be successful a second time? Or should we simply subordinate US forces indefinately to Iranian policy objectives? Or will allowing the Iranians to develop their nuclear capability lead to a more stable middle east as opposed to the pre-nuclear era of Iranian domination of Sunni arabs in the Levant? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism?
Genius. Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. We're all well aware of Iranian sponsorship of Shi'a militias in Iraq. That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. I didn't enjoy being shot @ with rockets that I presume were shipped from Iran - but that doesn't mean I preclude ever working with them when the situation changes. The situation has changed, and not for the better. So. What will we achieve? We will help the Iranian government seize control of Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria. And then what? Peace will descend upon the heavens and all will be right with the world? Shias already controlled Iraq and Syria. Why would they be successful a second time? Or should we simply subordinate US forces indefinately to Iranian policy objectives? Or will allowing the Iranians to develop their nuclear capability lead to a more stable middle east as opposed to the pre-nuclear era of Iranian domination of Sunni arabs in the Levant? No - the Islamic State's radical Sunni theology will squirt into Saudi Arabia, and destabilize our very dear friends and reliable allies, the poor Saud family. Ultimately, the Islamic State is a theological problem of Sunni Islam that Muslims have to resolve. We - or the Iranians - can conquer the Islamic State, but the theology will just squirt into Saudi Arabia and destabilize that country - as our victory in Columbia squirted the drug gangs into Mexico. But if you feel SOMETHING must be done about the Islamic State, there is no other available ally against the Islamic State more willing than the Iranians or the Syrians. I'll go to the Islamic State if I get orders to do so - and I'll work w/ the Iranians if you tell me to do so, and very carefully watch my back while doing so - or I'll work against them if you tell me to do so, and working against them will be counter-productive in the fight against the Islamic State. Or I can just sit here and watch the whole thing while eating popcorn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:44:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism?
Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? Perhaps Ronald Reagan's? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:58:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So. What will we achieve? The destruction of ISIS. We will help the Iranian government seize control of Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria. No, we won't. The destruction of ISIS won't result in the settlement of Iraq's internal conflicts. It won't pacify the Sunni areas for Iran. The Sunnis aren't just going to roll over and accept Iranian control. And then what?
Peace will descend upon the heavens and all will be right with the world? Obviously not. But it will certainly benefit the United States, its allies in the region, and Iran to be rid of ISIS. Shias already controlled Iraq and Syria. Why would they be successful a second time? They never fully controlled Iraq. They never will fully control Iraq. They will continue to have substantial influence there, as they always have since Saddam's fall. So what will have changed in that regard? Or should we simply subordinate US forces indefinately to Iranian policy objectives?
Or will allowing the Iranians to develop their nuclear capability lead to a more stable middle east as opposed to the pre-nuclear era of Iranian domination of Sunni arabs in the Levant? Iran already has a nuclear capability. We are negotiating with them on the limits of the program and how much we're ok with them retaining. The way you phrase it, it's as if you believe they couldn't go nuclear if they so chose. As if we are currently letting them develop the capability to control the fuel cycle right now, and it doesn't already exist. To your other point, Iran hasn't dominated the Sunni Arabs in any shape or form. The US has backed and protected the Arabs for the last 30+ years, and prevented Iranian domination in the region. This will remain the case whether we cooperate with Iran on destroying ISIS or not. Your points are weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:00:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:03:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No - the Islamic State's radical Sunni theology will squirt into Saudi Arabia, and destabilize our very dear friends and reliable allies, the poor Saud family. Ultimately, the Islamic State is a theological problem of Sunni Islam that Muslims have to resolve. We - or the Iranians - can conquer the Islamic State, but the theology will just squirt into Saudi Arabia and destabilize that country - as our victory in Columbia squirted the drug gangs into Mexico. But if you feel SOMETHING must be done about the Islamic State, there is no other available ally against the Islamic State more willing than the Iranians or the Syrians. I'll go to the Islamic State if I get orders to do so - and I'll work w/ the Iranians if you tell me to do so, and very carefully watch my back while doing so - or I'll work against them if you tell me to do so, and working against them will be counter-productive in the fight against the Islamic State. Or I can just sit here and watch the whole thing while eating popcorn. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism?
Genius. Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. We're all well aware of Iranian sponsorship of Shi'a militias in Iraq. That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. I didn't enjoy being shot @ with rockets that I presume were shipped from Iran - but that doesn't mean I preclude ever working with them when the situation changes. The situation has changed, and not for the better. So. What will we achieve? We will help the Iranian government seize control of Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria. And then what? Peace will descend upon the heavens and all will be right with the world? Shias already controlled Iraq and Syria. Why would they be successful a second time? Or should we simply subordinate US forces indefinately to Iranian policy objectives? Or will allowing the Iranians to develop their nuclear capability lead to a more stable middle east as opposed to the pre-nuclear era of Iranian domination of Sunni arabs in the Levant? No - the Islamic State's radical Sunni theology will squirt into Saudi Arabia, and destabilize our very dear friends and reliable allies, the poor Saud family. Ultimately, the Islamic State is a theological problem of Sunni Islam that Muslims have to resolve. We - or the Iranians - can conquer the Islamic State, but the theology will just squirt into Saudi Arabia and destabilize that country - as our victory in Columbia squirted the drug gangs into Mexico. But if you feel SOMETHING must be done about the Islamic State, there is no other available ally against the Islamic State more willing than the Iranians or the Syrians. I'll go to the Islamic State if I get orders to do so - and I'll work w/ the Iranians if you tell me to do so, and very carefully watch my back while doing so - or I'll work against them if you tell me to do so, and working against them will be counter-productive in the fight against the Islamic State. Or I can just sit here and watch the whole thing while eating popcorn. so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia? I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:05:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Numerous photographs have circulated on social media and in Iran's state press showing Suleimani in Iraq and Syria. They are notable largely because until now, Suleimani has been an elusive figure, a subject of great media interest and speculation but also great secrecy. Suleimani's name has appeared frequently in the Western press, but usually accompanied by the description "shadowy," as in "shadowy figure," or even "Shadow Commander."
Yet this month, the hitherto rarely glimpsed Suleimani has been snapped in Irbil, grinning with Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters; meeting with a top Shiite commander, Mohammad Kazmi, at the Quds Force headquarters in Iraq; and hanging out with Shiite militias while wearing a reversed baseball cap and Palestinian keffiyeh: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/irans-shadow-commander-steps-into-the-limelight/381558/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:10:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia? I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. Not gonna happen. I'll leave it at that because apparently you're special and when I call you out on your views I end up getting time outs from the site.
It also warms the heart you're willing to let all the people ISIS is currently persecuting and killing en mass continue to die in an apparent attempted genocide just to bloody Iran's nose a little bit. Awesome Sylvan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:12:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps Ronald Reagan's? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism?
Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? Perhaps Ronald Reagan's? So, I guess we can agree then that the history of rapproachment with Iran has been a disaster. Now, the foreign policy left is rummaging through the glue factory trying to their horse marked "playing nice with Iran." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:29:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Not gonna happen. I'll leave it at that because apparently you're special and when I call you out on your views I end up getting time outs from the site.
It also warms the heart you're willing to let all the people ISIS is currently persecuting and killing en mass continue to die in an apparent attempted genocide just to bloody Iran's nose a little bit. Awesome Sylvan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia? I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. Not gonna happen. I'll leave it at that because apparently you're special and when I call you out on your views I end up getting time outs from the site.
It also warms the heart you're willing to let all the people ISIS is currently persecuting and killing en mass continue to die in an apparent attempted genocide just to bloody Iran's nose a little bit. Awesome Sylvan. You got a time out? go figure. Oh. We suddenly give a shit about people dying? When did that start? Assad has still killed more than ISIS. Albiet with a little less PR in it. Assad just kills them and doesn't post videos of it on Youtube. How many died summer 2009 in Tehran? R2P is that you? You are quite the humanitarian. Who knew? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:30:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, I guess we can agree then that the history of rapproachment with Iran has been a disaster. Now, the foreign policy left is rummaging through the glue factory trying to their horse marked "playing nice with Iran." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism?
Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? Perhaps Ronald Reagan's? So, I guess we can agree then that the history of rapproachment with Iran has been a disaster. Now, the foreign policy left is rummaging through the glue factory trying to their horse marked "playing nice with Iran." That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:31:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, I guess we can agree then that the history of rapproachment with Iran has been a disaster. Now, the foreign policy left is rummaging through the glue factory trying to their horse marked "playing nice with Iran." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism?
Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? Perhaps Ronald Reagan's? So, I guess we can agree then that the history of rapproachment with Iran has been a disaster. Now, the foreign policy left is rummaging through the glue factory trying to their horse marked "playing nice with Iran." Its different this time. I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. I somehow keep imagining Charlie Brown and Lucy playing football. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:32:17 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:40:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You got a time out? go figure. Oh. We suddenly give a shit about people dying? When did that start? Assad has still killed more than ISIS. Albiet with a little less PR in it. Assad just kills them and doesn't post videos of it on Youtube. How many died summer 2009 in Tehran? R2P is that you? You are quite the humanitarian. Who knew? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia? I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. Not gonna happen. I'll leave it at that because apparently you're special and when I call you out on your views I end up getting time outs from the site.
It also warms the heart you're willing to let all the people ISIS is currently persecuting and killing en mass continue to die in an apparent attempted genocide just to bloody Iran's nose a little bit. Awesome Sylvan. You got a time out? go figure. Oh. We suddenly give a shit about people dying? When did that start? Assad has still killed more than ISIS. Albiet with a little less PR in it. Assad just kills them and doesn't post videos of it on Youtube. How many died summer 2009 in Tehran? R2P is that you? You are quite the humanitarian. Who knew? And the alternative to Assad is what? Hand Syria over to the various Islamist factions that currently make up the "moderate Syrian opposition"? Give it to Al Nursa Front and Al-Queda? ISIS?Let's just double down on that Libya strategy that worked out so well. As if you really give two shits about how many people died in Tehran, or anywhere else in the region. You have no problem letting the whole region burn...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:47:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. You think you could get me a gig guest writing for Cicero Online magazine? Then I can tout bona fides as stellar as yours. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:47:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its different this time. I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. There were EFP attacks and attempted kidnappings as well as numerous other dealings associated with the Iranians post DOD withdrawal as well. But I'm sure they've turned over a new leaf in the past couple months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:00:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think you could get me a gig guest writing for Cicero Online magazine? Then I can tout bona fides as stellar as yours. Lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. You think you could get me a gig guest writing for Cicero Online magazine? Then I can tout bona fides as stellar as yours. Lol so get published. Or at least join the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:06:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia?
I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:07:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. Its the summation of a strategy of hope, against 30 years of US engagement in the ME WRT Iran. You really think you're the first guy to build an Iranian strategy that's completely self-referential to the US, with little or no consideration of what the Iranians want, think or act upon? For example, do you really think that the destruction of IS is an acheivable Iranian endstate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:07:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. With what you've posted in this thread, I think your forward thinking would fit in well. Accomplish half assed short term goals at the cost of long term strategic blunders that will take decades to fix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:09:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its different this time.
I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. I somehow keep imagining Charlie Brown and Lucy playing football. Wait a sec. WHO just spent the better part of a decade deliberately destabilizing Iraq? Let's be very honest here. WE destabilized Iraq. We swept up some of the pieces, but let's not pretend that we didn't upset the apple cart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:10:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so get published. Or at least join the military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. You think you could get me a gig guest writing for Cicero Online magazine? Then I can tout bona fides as stellar as yours. Lol so get published. Or at least join the military. The first has already been done. The second doesn't equate with making someone competent to speak on US foreign policy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:12:16 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With what you've posted in this thread, I think your forward thinking would fit in well. Accomplish half assed short term goals at the cost of long term strategic blunders that will take decades to fix. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. With what you've posted in this thread, I think your forward thinking would fit in well. Accomplish half assed short term goals at the cost of long term strategic blunders that will take decades to fix. Were you referring to 1953? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:23:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were you referring to 1953? Try 2015. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
