Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully

[AfonsoAlves]

I get what you're saying but we're talking about a legit nation with the backing of a superpower, it's not comparable to the actions of an irregular militia.

Oh I'm definitely desensitised to it following the horrific shit I've heard described to me first hand in Iraq. But I'm used to the culprits being Al-Qaeda/Taliban/ISIS affiliated cells. Though I suppose the Israeli lot have better uniforms and the ultimate boast of being the most moral army on the planet™

You think its limited to Salafi extremists and irregular Militia?

Wait until you see what Afghan Commando's used to do to captured Al-Qaeda grunts.
Fecking Afghan National Army soldiers used to finish 6 weeks of basic, leave base, get high as a damn kite off whatever weird herb they used to chew, rock up to some tribal village where they have grievances with, and do some unspeakable horrific things to them. These guys were backed, funded, armed and trained by the West.
What the media didn't tell you was why the Taliban were so brutal towards so commanders in the ANA after the Coalition forces left - the ANA committed some fecked up atrocities.

Then we get to the trusty western allies...the Kurds. Yeah their tribal culture and honour system makes the Taliban and Afghan tribal system seem like Amnesty International.

 

[glazed]

They have been skirmishing since last year’s attack, so there was bound to be an escalation at some point, especially given Hezbollah’s fealty towards Tehran and the back and forth between Israel and Iran lately.

Iran itself has been fairly reluctant to do anything more than fire missiles that got shot down. There's no beating Israel in a shooting war right now which is maybe why Israel would like one, certainly why Iran and Hezbollah don't. The war they are fighting is a propaganda war. And they are doing rather well on that front if we're honest. Whether it amounts to anything is another question.

 

[That_Bloke]

Sorry, maybe I'm desensitized to it all, but:

- Literally seen, in person, the after effect of someone placing tens of thousands of ballbearings in a small explosive man-made device placed in a crowded marketplace in downtown Kabul.
- Sift through AAR's of hundreds of kids under the age of 16 forced to charge Iraqi Army lines strapped with remotely detonated suicide vests.
- Examine the site of where 15 people were executed by being crushed by a T-62 tank.
- Watched a man forced to execute another man with a spade, in a crowded square in a village because tribal law dictates that the victim must be the one to punish the perp.

Calling people "sociopathic" because they don't think this is anything extreme or special is very naive.

This is actually more humane than most of the shit that happens on a daily basis in the Middle East, and if you believe otherwise, honestly good for you because you probably sleep better at night and don't need a lifetime of therapy.

I witnessed something similar live, among an awful lot of horrors, albeit done with a BTR and not a T-62. Those were captured islamist militants after a fight that took out quite a few soldiers and who were summarily executed on the spot by having their head crushed. And that was long before islamist terrorism, let alone the War on Terror, were mainstream.

No, it's not. They are not only sociopaths, but straight psychopaths. You can try to sugarcoat it all you want, but that's what they are.

There is nothing human in what they did. You're not going to get any brownie points by trying to downplay what Israel just did just by saying that the other side is worse, or that's your every day llife in the Middle-East. That's not how it works.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I witnessed something similar live, among an awful lot of horrors, albeit done with a BTR and not a T-62. Those were captured islamist militants after a fight that took out quite a few soldiers and who were summarily executed on the spot by having their head crushed. And that was long before islamist terrorism, let alone the War on Terror, were mainstream.

No, it's not. They are not only sociopaths, but straight psychopaths. You can try to sugarcoat it all you want, but that's what they are.

There is nothing human in what they did. You're not going to get any brownie points by trying to downplay what Israel just did just by saying that the other side is worse, or that's your every day llife in the Middle-East. That's not how it works.

You think that I'm a psychopath because I think what happened today is nothing special for the outrageously low standards of Middle Eastern conduct? Someone literally said anyone who doesn't seem to think this is extreme depravity is a sociopath. I responded by pointing out that this is pretty run-of-the-mill bog-standard for Middle Eastern brutality, and it gets a lot, lot, lot worse.

No, I'm not a sociopath/psychopath because I think what happened today is pretty "meh" for middle eastern standards.

Also, regarding the bolded, were you around the Caucasus region during the 1st Chechnyan war? That sounds eerily similar to 1st hand accounts I've read.

 

[That_Bloke]

You think its limited to Salafi extremists and irregular Militia?

Wait until you see what Afghan Commando's used to do to captured Al-Qaeda grunts.
Fecking Afghan National Army soldiers used to finish 6 weeks of basic, leave base, get high as a damn kite off whatever weird herb they used to chew, rock up to some tribal village where they have grievances with, and do some unspeakable horrific things to them. These guys were backed, funded, armed and trained by the West.
What the media didn't tell you was why the Taliban were so brutal towards so commanders in the ANA after the Coalition forces left - the ANA committed some fecked up atrocities.

Then we get to the trusty western allies...the Kurds. Yeah their tribal culture and honour system makes the Taliban and Afghan tribal system seem like Amnesty International.

I don't understand your game here.

It looks like you're somehow trying to paint the natives as even worse and by doing so, let the West and its white Ally in the region can keep the moral high ground. I might be wrong by that's the vibe I'm getting.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I don't understand your game here.

It looks like you're somehow trying to paint the natives as even worse and by doing so, let the West and its white Ally in the region can keep the moral high ground. I might be wrong by that's the vibe I'm getting.

My game is that someone posted here that anyone who doesn't think this is absolutely horrifying is a sociopath.

I'm pointing out that worse shit happens on a regular basis, by other people who the west back, and that I'm making a point that what happened today does not set a new barometer for cruelty or whatnot, and that this shit is nowhere close to being as bad as what already happens on a regular basis.

So yeah, I don't find this horrifying. This doesn't even make my top 50 most horrifying things in the middle East.

(The Gaza bombing is much more horrifying than exploding pagers, for example)

 

[That_Bloke]

You think that I'm a psychopath because I think what happened today is nothing special for the outrageously low standards of Middle Eastern conduct? Someone literally said anyone who doesn't seem to think this is extreme depravity is a sociopath. I responded by pointing out that this is pretty run-of-the-mill bog-standard for Middle Eastern brutality, and it gets a lot, lot, lot worse.

No, I'm not a sociopath/psychopath because I think what happened today is pretty "meh" for middle eastern standards.

Also, regarding the bolded, were you around the Caucasus region during the 1st Chechnyan war? That sounds eerily similar to 1st hand accounts I've read.

I never said that.

No, it was in North Africa. The incident I mentioned happened in 1998, and I survived that particular night ambush.

 

[11101]

It's a fairly incredible attack in many ways. The precision and scale is astounding. I'd love to know how they pulled it off.

This does seem like a big escalation though, given that Hezbollah has actually done the square root of nothing much to help Hamas. There is a rumour that the operation was compromised and the Israelis went earlier than they intended. Or maybe Netanyahu really does want to go to war with Iran now before their nuclear program is complete. All seems a bit weird, though very impressive technically.

I think we won't see an end to this war until Israel has somehow compromised Iran's nuclear program. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I never said that.

No, it was in North Africa. The incident I mentioned happened in 1998, and I survived that particular night ambush.

I think you misread the discussion.

I never said the people who conducted this mission were humane, i was responding to a poster who said that anyone who doesn't think this is extremely horrific (paraphrasing) is a sociopath.

 

[That_Bloke]

I think you misread the discussion.

I never said the people who conducted this mission were humane, i was responding to a poster who said that anyone who doesn't think this is extremely horrific (paraphrasing) is a sociopath.

Having re-read your posts, I did indeed.

My apologies.

 

[dumbo]

Will be interesting to see what Israel cooks up next. Maybe mass produce some exploding hair barrettes to hand out to children to save on sniper bullets, or perhaps some self raping undepants for anyone they detain.

I'm just glad that Israel's creative innovation matches their degeneracy.

 

[Raoul]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

Hungary-based company.

 

[africanspur]

So it seems that it wasn't as high tech as we'd initially assumed and that they were set off because some lower members of Hezbollah had become aware of the espionage and Israel wanted to use them before they lost the opportunity to.

Would have certainly caused maximum chaos if used just before a major attack against HA in southern Lebanon.

Regardless, must be a big hit to the morale of Hezbollah.

 

[matherto]

There is nothing human in what they did.

That's a cop out. Humans did that, humans do that, we're animals.

 

[Tibs]

I suppose the most important thing to remember is that the real victims here are Israel, they are always the victims, so it's only right that they go and mass murder children in Gaza now.

Never again or something.

 

[Mike Smalling]

That whole pager attack is wild. But I suppose Israel has a right to defend itself, or something.

 

[hasanejaz88]

So it seems that it wasn't as high tech as we'd initially assumed and that they were set off because some lower members of Hezbollah had become aware of the espionage and Israel wanted to use them before they lost the opportunity to.

Would have certainly caused maximum chaos if used just before a major attack against HA in southern Lebanon.

Regardless, must be a big hit to the morale of Hezbollah.

This would mean Israel was able to intercept communications or had a mole since you would think Hezbollah would quickly remove those pagers if they found out they were compromised.

Hungary-based company.

I think that company better beef up it's security because some people might want to attack it after yesterday.

 

[africanspur]

This would mean Israel was able to intercept communications or had a mole since you would think Hezbollah would quickly remove those pagers if they found out they were compromised.



I think that company better beef up it's security because some people might want to attack it after yesterday.

Yep for sure. The report I'd seen said that 2 Hezbollah members had found out/ had suspicions I guess.

One was....neutralised. And seems they decided to unleash the attack rather than wasting it completely before the 2nd guy could inform his superiors.

 

[Laurencio]

This would mean Israel was able to intercept communications or had a mole since you would think Hezbollah would quickly remove those pagers if they found out they were compromised.



I think that company better beef up it's security because some people might want to attack it after yesterday.

It isn't very likely that the company had anything to do with it. In all likelihood the pagers were intercepted further down the chain.

 

[glazed]

I think we won't see an end to this war until Israel has somehow compromised Iran's nuclear program. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

While it would certainly be a good thing I'm not sure it's possible. Iran likely has the ability to put together a nuclear device already if it wished. You'd hope even the maddest mullah would surely stop short of nuclear war though?

 

[langster]

They have been skirmishing

Eh? They've been having paintball fights? This seems like a tad of an overreaction to someone getting shot with some paint.

 

[langster]

I think we won't see an end to this war until Israel has somehow compromised Iran's nuclear program. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

Yeah because it's working so well for everyone that only one country in the Middle East has nukes, and that country also being backed by one big country and several other ones who all have nukes too.

As much as I'm considered a hippy simply because I don't like nuclear weapons and personally don't think or want anyone to have them, I understand why they have them and understand why people think they are a good thing. I just don't agree.

Personally I think the best thing that could possibly happen is Iran remove these stuck in the past, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, bigoted, sexist, transphonic, modern society and culture phobic, religious text brainwashed fruitcakes in charge, get a new more modern acceptant, progressive, democratic government that will actually listen to its people...... And complete their nuclear programme.

Maybe then if someone else in the region, especially their arch nemesis had nukes too, Israel would back the feck down and stop trying to bully everyone and they would be forced to talk and listen to their neighbours and make compromises. It might be the wake up call needed for Israel to finally accept they can't always get their own way and stop being a big bully that continually plays the victim card as a defence. The people in the region would be able to breath a sigh of relief at not having to worry constantly about terrorist attacks and the various terrorist groups would be forced to step back, or come to the table and negotiate, especially if the new government requested it and the people were backing them.

See, hippy. Idealist. But also realist as I know there is more chance of England winning the world cup than any of that happening any time soon.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Yeah because it's working so well for everyone that only one country in the Middle East has nukes, and that country also being backed by one big country and several other ones who all have nukes too.

As much as I'm considered a hippy simply because I don't like nuclear weapons and personally don't think or want anyone to have them, I understand why they have them and understand why people think they are a good thing. I just don't agree.

Personally I think the best thing that could possibly happen is Iran remove these stuck in the past, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, bigoted, sexist, transphonic, modern society and culture phobic, religious text brainwashed fruitcakes in charge, get a new more modern acceptant, progressive, democratic government that will actually listen to its people...... And complete their nuclear programme.

Maybe then if someone else in the region, especially their arch nemesis had nukes too, Israel would back the feck down and stop trying to bully everyone and they would be forced to talk and listen to their neighbours and make compromises. It might be the wake up call needed for Israel to finally accept they can't always get their own way and stop being a big bully that continually plays the victim card as a defence. The people in the region would be able to breath a sigh of relief at not having to worry constantly about terrorist attacks and the various terrorist groups would be forced to step back, or come to the table and negotiate, especially if the new government requested it and the people were backing them.

See, hippy. Idealist. But also realist as I know there is more chance of England winning the world cup than any of that happening any time soon.

Iran is one of the most pro-trans countries in the world.

Partly because they are so homophobic that they make gay dudes get a sex-change.

 

[11101]

While it would certainly be a good thing I'm not sure it's possible. Iran likely has the ability to put together a nuclear device already if it wished. You'd hope even the maddest mullah would surely stop short of nuclear war though?

They're hellbent on the destruction of Israel even more than Israel wants to destroy them. The only difference in this conflict is Israel has the bigger stick, I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome if Iran got hold of that same stick. I think they'd be quite happy to put a rudimentary low yield bomb in the middle of Tel Aviv.

Yeah because it's working so well for everyone that only one country in the Middle East has nukes, and that country also being backed by one big country and several other ones who all have nukes too.

As much as I'm considered a hippy simply because I don't like nuclear weapons and personally don't think or want anyone to have them, I understand why they have them and understand why people think they are a good thing. I just don't agree.

Personally I think the best thing that could possibly happen is Iran remove these stuck in the past, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, bigoted, sexist, transphonic, modern society and culture phobic, religious text brainwashed fruitcakes in charge, get a new more modern acceptant, progressive, democratic government that will actually listen to its people...... And complete their nuclear programme.

Maybe then if someone else in the region, especially their arch nemesis had nukes too, Israel would back the feck down and stop trying to bully everyone and they would be forced to talk and listen to their neighbours and make compromises. It might be the wake up call needed for Israel to finally accept they can't always get their own way and stop being a big bully that continually plays the victim card as a defence. The people in the region would be able to breath a sigh of relief at not having to worry constantly about terrorist attacks and the various terrorist groups would be forced to step back, or come to the table and negotiate, especially if the new government requested it and the people were backing them.

See, hippy. Idealist. But also realist as I know there is more chance of England winning the world cup than any of that happening any time soon.

Any new countries acquiring nuclear weapons is a bad thing, a despotic lunatic regime acquiring them is a disaster.

Iran has been the thorn in the Middle East's side for decades. Ever since the Iran Iraq war they have been present in every single conflict making sure to stir the pot as much as they possibly can.

 

[langster]

Any new countries acquiring nuclear weapons is a bad thing, a despotic lunatic regime acquiring them is a disaster.

I disagree vehemently.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is a deterrent. Nobody (aside from you know who) would ever use them as they surely understand by doing so brings an end to pretty much all of us and definitely the world as we know it.

I don't buy this nonsense of other countries getting them and using them. They can't be that fecking stupid. If they are, well we are fecked. We are all fecked anyway, that would just quicken the inevitable outcome, but that's a conversation for a different thread.

The trouble with the status quo as we know it is.......... People like Trump can get elected. Now you would hope that there are enough protocols in place to prevent President feck nuts from ever launching them, unless it's at hurricanes. But can you be sure? I despise Trump but even I don't think he's that stupid on a normal day, but he's impulsive and if a foreign leader upset him and pushed him enough I reckon he would. But even if he didn't how can people say they don't want somewhere to have nukes yet can be ok or accept Trump is in charge of one of the biggest nukes cache on earth? Whose to say the next Trump won't be more of a nihilist?

The trouble you have at the moment is that it's unbalanced. While most countries get on with things, others throw their weight around and abuse their military power. And when that power is abused by the only country in the entire region that has nukes, and has a lunatic in charge, a vindictive, nasty, spiteful, vengeful, arrogant, narcissistic cnut of a man who wants to defeat all his enemies such as Netanyahu does, and when he's also backed by the other countries that have nukes, well then that's not right nor is fair and ultimately it won't resolve anything except more hatred and contempt for that big bully country.

Even things out a little and give the others a chance to defend themselves fairly and you have far more chance of achieving a peaceful resolution rather than continued terrorist groups forming backed by the country without nukes and persistent terrorist attacks and citizens continually shit scared of the threat of attack.

Do I think Iran should have nukes? feck no! But Israel shouldn't either. Nobody should. But all the time Israel have them, then yeah, Iran should get them, if only to force Israel to acquiesce and try accepting and negotiating rather than constantly bullying, antagonising and threatening and imho, especially with Netanyahu irn charge, just looking and forcing any excuse to wipe their enemies off the face of the earth. The excuse HAMAS have them and the way since the October attacks they have literally obliterated Gaza, infiltrated and are slowly taking over the West Bank and wiping the Palestinians off the face of the Earth.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I disagree vehemently.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is a deterrent. Nobody (aside from you know who) would ever use them as they surely understand by doing so brings an end to pretty much all of us and definitely the world as we know it.

I don't buy this nonsense of other countries getting them and using them. They can't be that fecking stupid. If they are, well we are fecked. We are all fecked anyway, that would just quicken the inevitable outcome, but that's a conversation for a different thread.

The trouble with the status quo as we know it is.......... People like Trump can get elected. Now you would hope that there are enough protocols in place to prevent President feck nuts from ever launching them, unless it's at hurricanes. But can you be sure? I despise Trump but even I don't think he's that stupid on a normal day, but he's impulsive and if a foreign leader upset him and pushed him enough I reckon he would. But even if he didn't how can people say they don't want somewhere to have nukes yet can be ok or accept Trump is in charge of one of the biggest nukes cache on earth? Whose to say the next Trump might be more of a nihilist?

The trouble you have at the moment is that it's unbalanced. While most countries get on with things, others throw their weight around and abuse their military power. And when that power is abused by the only country in the entire region that has nukes, and has a lunatic in charge, a vindictive, nasty, spiteful, vengeful, arrogant, narcissistic cnut of a man who wants to defeat all his enemies such as Netanyahu does, and when he's also backed by the other countries that have nukes, well then that's not right nor is fair and ultimately it won't resolve anything except more hatred and contempt for that big bully country.

Even things out a little and give the others a chance to defend themselves fairly and you have far more chance of achieving a peaceful resolution rather than continued terrorist groups forming backed by the country without nukes and persistent terrorist attacks and citizens continually shit scared of the threat of attack.

Do I think Iran should have nukes? feck no! But Israel shouldn't either. Nobody should. But all the time Israel have them, then yeah, Iran should get them, if only to force Israel to acquiesce and try accepting and negotiating rather than constantly bullying, antagonising and threatening and imho, especially with Netanyahu on charge, just looking and forcing any excuse to wipe their enemies off the face of the earth. The excuse HAMAS have them and the way since the October attacks they have literally obliterated Gaza, infiltrated and are slowly taking over the West Bank and wiping the Palestinians off the face of the Earth.

Right, there have been 6 occasions where Islamic extremists have tried to make and set off a nuclear bomb. Whilst all six have been Salafist in nature, It's very naive to assume that Shia conservatives would not do the same thing.

Three in Chechnya. Two Attempts by Al-Qaeda and hilariously (and terrifyingly) a Japanese cult.

 

[Gehrman]

I disagree vehemently.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is a deterrent. Nobody (aside from you know who) would ever use them as they surely understand by doing so brings an end to pretty much all of us and definitely the world as we know it.

I don't buy this nonsense of other countries getting them and using them. They can't be that fecking stupid. If they are, well we are fecked. We are all fecked anyway, that would just quicken the inevitable outcome, but that's a conversation for a different thread.

The trouble with the status quo as we know it is.......... People like Trump can get elected. Now you would hope that there are enough protocols in place to prevent President feck nuts from ever launching them, unless it's at hurricanes. But can you be sure? I despise Trump but even I don't think he's that stupid on a normal day, but he's impulsive and if a foreign leader upset him and pushed him enough I reckon he would. But even if he didn't how can people say they don't want somewhere to have nukes yet can be ok or accept Trump is in charge of one of the biggest nukes cache on earth? Whose to say the next Trump won't be more of a nihilist?

The trouble you have at the moment is that it's unbalanced. While most countries get on with things, others throw their weight around and abuse their military power. And when that power is abused by the only country in the entire region that has nukes, and has a lunatic in charge, a vindictive, nasty, spiteful, vengeful, arrogant, narcissistic cnut of a man who wants to defeat all his enemies such as Netanyahu does, and when he's also backed by the other countries that have nukes, well then that's not right nor is fair and ultimately it won't resolve anything except more hatred and contempt for that big bully country.

Even things out a little and give the others a chance to defend themselves fairly and you have far more chance of achieving a peaceful resolution rather than continued terrorist groups forming backed by the country without nukes and persistent terrorist attacks and citizens continually shit scared of the threat of attack.

Do I think Iran should have nukes? feck no! But Israel shouldn't either. Nobody should. But all the time Israel have them, then yeah, Iran should get them, if only to force Israel to acquiesce and try accepting and negotiating rather than constantly bullying, antagonising and threatening and imho, especially with Netanyahu irn charge, just looking and forcing any excuse to wipe their enemies off the face of the earth. The excuse HAMAS have them and the way since the October attacks they have literally obliterated Gaza, infiltrated and are slowly taking over the West Bank and wiping the Palestinians off the face of the Earth.

You know the more nukes exist the higher the chance is of nuclear proliferation to terrorist groups who are into the day judgement and stuff. Israel might have nukes, but i certainly wouldn't feel more comfortable about Iran having them just because Israel does.

The fewer people who can end the world one way or another the better.

Otherwise you could make the case if only Hitler had the bomb, Imperial Japan and Italy etc. It was very fortunate they didnt.

 

[langster]

Right, there have been 6 occasions where Islamic extremists have tried to make and set off a nuclear bomb. Whilst all six have been Salafist in nature, It's very naive to assume that Shia conservatives would not do the same thing.

Three in Chechnya. Two Attempts by Al-Qaeda and hilariously (and terrifyingly) a Japanese cult.

Yeah, I meant to mention in my post that the biggest threat to the world regarding nukes is terrorists getting hold of them. You're absolutely right.

But that's not a government, in charge of a country. It's a bit different when you know launching a nuke will at the very least result in your own country being obliterated, and probably part of if not the rest of the world too, than a terrorist organisation doing it for whatever reason they want to do it. They are fighting for a cause, right or wrong they believe that's the best way to achieve their goals. Hence why I said it would be preferable if Iran ousted this lot of archaic religious fruitloops first. However, I don't see the difference between Iran having nukes or Trump. If his bestie in China publically embarrassed him in front of the world I'd be more worried about Trump starting a war than Iran just suddenly trying to wipe Israel out.

They may want to but it doesn't mean they would do it and destroy themselves at the same time. It's no different to Mr Un in North Korea. They just want to be recognised and treated fairly., but if that's not going to happen then at the very least not live under the constant threat of annihilation from their enemies and have parity with them so they each respect each other even if they don't like each other.

I'm sorry but this whole we are the good guys they are the bad guys so we can have nukes because we are responsible and they can't is fecking dog shit.

 

[Kaos]

They're hellbent on the destruction of Israel even more than Israel wants to destroy them. The only difference in this conflict is Israel has the bigger stick, I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome if Iran got hold of that same stick. I think they'd be quite happy to put a rudimentary low yield bomb in the middle of Tel Aviv.



Any new countries acquiring nuclear weapons is a bad thing, a despotic lunatic regime acquiring them is a disaster.

Iran has been the thorn in the Middle East's side for decades. Ever since the Iran Iraq war they have been present in every single conflict making sure to stir the pot as much as they possibly can.

Which wars have Iran started in the middle east?

Absolutely insane you think they've been more damaging than the US who have singlehandedly caused millions of deaths in the region. Not to mention their genocidal partners who seem hell bent on using Palestinian women, children aid workers and journalists as target practice.

 

[Raoul]

Which wars have Iran started in the middle east?

Absolutely insane you think they've been more damaging than the US who have singlehandedly caused millions of deaths in the region.

They've been militarily involved in wars, either covertly or overtly, in at least half a dozen middle eastern countries since Khomeinite Iran took over in 1979.

 

[Kaos]

They've been militarily involved in wars, either covertly or overtly, in at least half a dozen middle eastern countries since Khomeinite Iran took over in 1979.

As has pretty much every major player in the region. Yes they're a malevolent bunch of cnuts, but to even compare their footprint to that of the US and its allies is neocon nonsense straight out of the John Bolton playbook.

 

[Idxomer]

Which wars have Iran started in the middle east?

Absolutely insane you think they've been more damaging than the US who have singlehandedly caused millions of deaths in the region.

He's a big fan of the Iraq war which tells you all you need to know.

 

[Raoul]

They're hellbent on the destruction of Israel even more than Israel wants to destroy them. The only difference in this conflict is Israel has the bigger stick, I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome if Iran got hold of that same stick. I think they'd be quite happy to put a rudimentary low yield bomb in the middle of Tel Aviv.



Any new countries acquiring nuclear weapons is a bad thing, a despotic lunatic regime acquiring them is a disaster.

Iran has been the thorn in the Middle East's side for decades. Ever since the Iran Iraq war they have been present in every single conflict making sure to stir the pot as much as they possibly can.

This is the general sentiment in the west and Israel. The only people who are pro-Iranian nukes are those seeking to either curb US power in the region and/or those who would like to see it wielded against Israel, probably by threat via Hezbollah or possibly even as a tactical attack in a large Israeli city.

 

[Giggsyking]

Right, there have been 6 occasions where Islamic extremists have tried to make and set off a nuclear bomb. Whilst all six have been Salafist in nature, It's very naive to assume that Shia conservatives would not do the same thing.

Three in Chechnya. Two Attempts by Al-Qaeda and hilariously (and terrifyingly) a Japanese cult.

What are you on about? Not even shia extremists can reach the salafi levels. Let alone conservatives.

 

[Giggsyking]

He's a big fan of the Iraq war which tells you all you need to know.

Yuck.

 

[Raoul]

As has pretty much every major player in the region. Yes they're a malevolent bunch of cnuts, but to even compare their footprint to that of the US and its allies is neocon nonsense straight out of the John Bolton playbook.

Even if you remove the other players, Khomeinite Iran still has an expansionist ideology that seeks to export Iranian power and religious doctrine across the region. Otherwise they wouldn't be involved in everywhere from Iraq to Lebanon to Syria to Yemen to Gaza. American influence is obviously an impediment to this, which is why they would like nukes as a means to balance the power disparity. Therefore anyone calling for Iranian nukes is tacitly in favor of promoting the interests of Khomeinitie Iran, and all of the things that come with it.

 

[langster]

You know the more nukes exist the higher the chance is of nuclear proliferation to terrorist groups who are into the day judgement and stuff. Israel might have nukes, but i certainly wouldn't feel more comfortable about Iran having them just because Israel does.

The fewer people who can end the world one way or another the better.

Otherwise you could make the case if only Hitler had the bomb, Imperial Japan and Italy etc. It was very fortunate they didnt.

I'm pretty sure the USA has lost more nukes than anyone else. 6 from recollection. Maybe Russia is higher but they don't release info as freely or it's not as easily obtainable. But my point stands, the USA has lost a total of SIX nuclear warheads.

Personally I'm more worried about a widespread virus outbreak be it naturally occurring, made in a lab or let loosep terrorists than I am terrorists letting off nukes.

As for your last point, no, you can't make that case at all. It's a ridiculous example to use and Godwin's law is true again. I wondered how long that would take. We are 80 years down the line now. We have seen what nukes (atom bombs) can do. We have all seen the destruction and know the threat. From nuclear power plants that have failed or been damaged, we have all seen the devastating destruction and know the effects of radiation poisoning. We have also lived under the threat of nuclear war and how close it came to it. But in those years we have evolved,.become more educated and understanding of the consequences. They are a deterrent, nobody in their right mind would use them and if they did, as I said above, they would just be speeding up the inevitable. But that aside the point is the current shitshow of who has who can and whomcant have them isn't helping anyone at all and I firmly believe Iran obtaining them would be a good thing as I've explained why numerous times in my previous posts. Agree or not but I don't feel it's worth going back and forth anymore on this issue and tbh, I can't be arsed. I'm off for a few frames of snooker.

 

[Kaos]

Even if you remove the other players, Khomeinite Iran has an expansionist ideology that seeks to export Iranian power and religious doctrine across the region. Otherwise they wouldn't be involved in everywhere from Iraq to Lebanon to Syria to Yemen to Gaza. American influence is obviously an impediment to this, which is why they would like nukes as a means to balance the power disparity. Therefore anyone calling for Iranian nukes is tacitly in favor of promoting the interests of Khomeinitie Iran, and all of the things that come with it.

You act as if the US' regional stance is a reactive one to Iranian meddling in the region. The fact is you indirectly created their heinous regime along with the Brits via your hegemonic meddling in the 50s. To act as if the US are some benevolent counter-balance to this paper tiger theocracy is a little disingeuine too don't you think? More so when you consider your own devastating foot print in the region that puts Iran's to shame.

Again if you're concerned about expansionist religious maniacs running havoc in the region perhaps start by reeling in your own regional ethno-facist genocidal partners first? The same maniacs who are murdering scores of women and children as we speak, all the while boasting about how they intend on ethnically cleansing the territory to make room for their own colonialist ambitions, while echoing a doctrine that would make Goebbels himself blush. Oh and they also happen to have nukes which you seem perfectly comfortable with.