/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Is Iran the next target?



Hashim_507
01-19-2006, 10:41 AM
Since Iran became media attention around the world. Its not proof Iran is developing Nuclear arms in my opinion, but its proof the president of Iran being more aggressive on his defense. What is your opinion on nuclear arms in the world? Does Iran want more power in the middle east getting nuclear? Do you think there will be war on Iran? or Just war of words and power......
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
mahdisoldier19
01-20-2006, 04:41 AM
Assalam alaikam

I tell you one thing, Iran is no joke. Afghanistan and iraq obviously america is losing if you keep your data with the war. And your talking about Iran? My friend Iran is a country i tell you right now to start with them theyre the last people. They have very very strong Mujhadeen
Reply

imaad_udeen
01-20-2006, 05:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Assalam alaikam

I tell you one thing, Iran is no joke. Afghanistan and iraq obviously america is losing if you keep your data with the war. And your talking about Iran? My friend Iran is a country i tell you right now to start with them theyre the last people. They have very very strong Mujhadeen

LOL, the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe in the eyes of the media, but not on the ground. Far from it.

Anyways, an invasion of Iran is not an option, but the US does not have to invade Iran to bring it to its knees. A few weeks of carpet bombing would do the trick.
Reply

akulion
01-20-2006, 06:36 AM
I sincerely believe Sirya may be next
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
akulion
01-20-2006, 11:23 AM
Syria is next because the US nation has to serve its masters the Isrealis and to help then form the Greater Isreal.and Syria definately stands in the way
Reply

MetSudaisTwice
01-20-2006, 11:51 AM
salam
the two holy cities of saudi arabia, makkah and madinah, are so heavily protected that no-one can imagine how to, allah forbid, destroy the cities. as allah says that His House will be protected and the city and the prophet SAW mosque will too be protected. no-one not even the kuffars of USA can touch or imagine to destroy the holy city of makkah and madinah. no one has more power than allah.
and by the end of the century, islam will grow to such a large number, people are gonna wish why didn't they revert before.
its obvious Faust that you hate islam and muslims
wasalam
Reply

Duhaa
01-20-2006, 12:27 PM
From his intro page this Faust guy seemed like someone good and now he writes all this stuff :rollseyes
I dont get it, is it the same person? :confused:

But on topic, maybe iran is the next target coz remember what happened in iraq, they blamed them of having weapons of mass destruction and now in iran they are blaming them for the nuclear stuff.
All we can do is pray for the muslims, I.A. :sister:
Reply

Genius
01-21-2006, 01:36 AM
If the Saudi cult never invited American soldiers to Iraq in 1991 none of this ever would have happened. No 9/11, No Gulf war, No Afghanistan, Nothing. Blame them for the crimes against the ummah nobody else.

The Americans are just barbarian herds they will graze wherever they are allowed to.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
01-21-2006, 02:58 AM
Salam Alakam

Imad i want to know whats your political statues in knowing whats going in Afghanistan and Iraq? I have first hand experience and knowledge of whats reall y going on. If you think you know your politics, you should really understand what you say and whats really going on

First of all, Iraq the US will pullout and once they do the Mujahadeen of Iraq will take it all Again similiar to Vietnam

Afghanistan, if you think karzai govt is strong? My friend he owns kabul not Afghanistan, the taliban are just waiting

Trust me you think you know whats really going on? you have no clue

The min the US leaves Iraq you will see what happens
Reply

salman128
01-21-2006, 08:26 PM
I dont think the US has enough personnel to initiate a war against iran, and the iranians know that. The Iraq war is pretty unpopular, so I doubt if Bush will go for it
Reply

Mawaddah
01-21-2006, 11:04 PM
Assalamu'alaikum
My dad was doing some reading up on this, and he says that what the sources are saying is that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran this March Wallahu a'lam. Boy, I just can't wait till the U.S. is brought down and humiliated one day,....but dont know when? :(
Reply

Genius
01-22-2006, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AsilahRana
Assalamu'alaikum
My dad was doing some reading up on this, and he says that what the sources are saying is that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran this March Wallahu a'lam. Boy, I just can't wait till the U.S. is brought down and humiliated one day,....but dont know when? :(
Maybe when people stop whining and actually did something?
Reply

Wahid
01-22-2006, 11:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
LOL, the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe in the eyes of the media, but not on the ground. Far from it.

Anyways, an invasion of Iran is not an option, but the US does not have to invade Iran to bring it to its knees. A few weeks of carpet bombing would do the trick.
now its the medias fualt? ur getting into conspiricy theories now, i thought bush supporters detest them? ur own generals said the war in iraq is unwinable militraly and i watched em say it on PBS and ABC.. google it

US militrey cant even control and have security in bagdad(even in green zone) much the less the sunni Part of iraq, wat kinda winning is that? :giggling: in afganistan they atleast have control of kabul somewhat but that because the mujahdeens focus are on iraq now..

its a matter of time and persistance , but it will take more lives unfortunatly
Reply

Wahid
01-23-2006, 12:10 AM
Wheels starting to crack eh?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1692158,00.html
Colin Powell: US will pull troops out this year

Former Bush aide who urged caution over Iraq signals start of withdrawal by end of 2006

Ned Temko
Sunday January 22, 2006
The Observer

Colin Powell, who warned President Bush on the eve of the Iraq war that US forces would have to stay for the long haul after toppling Saddam, yesterday predicted that troop withdrawals would begin by the end of this year.

He spoke as final results of the elections for a new Iraqi government left the Shia Muslim alliance 10 seats short of an outright parliamentary majority - boosting US and British hopes of a coalition including Sunni and Kurdish groups. Britain's ambassador to Iraq, William Patey, said after the results were announced that an 'inclusive government of national unity' would help chances of a 'significant' withdrawal of the UK's 8,000 troops.

Powell, the former Secretary of State, told The Observer that, while the 'characteristics of the new government' would be clearer in the weeks ahead, the US role was to 'make sure the process [of transition] unfolds successfully'.

During his policy battles with Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon hawks in the run-up to the Iraq war, Powell at one point reportedly cautioned Bush: 'If you break it, you own it.' Since stepping down as the administration's senior diplomat after the 2004 presidential election, he has reiterated his view that America must not cut and run.

But asked whether his 'break-it-and-own it' remark implied staying for as long as it takes to get a fully functioning and stable Iraq, Powell replied: 'No. It means fixing it to the point where we can give ownership back,' - a process which he suggested had taken a major step forward with the election of the new Iraqi government.

'We did break that [Saddam] government and I'm glad we broke it,' he said. 'It was a rotten government and something that should be broken. But we then immediately assumed ownership - and we've been working hard for the past two-plus years to return that ownership.'

Powell, who also served as America's military chief-of-staff, said the specific numbers and pace of US troop pull-outs would be decided by 'my junior officers', generals whom he said he had trained as lieutenants. But he said: 'I think we'll probably see some drawdown in numbers in 2006.

'I hope we'll see a reduction in forces as the Iraqi forces become more competent and the Iraqi political system begins to take hold,' he added.

His remarks came amid growing pressure on Bush's administration over Iraq, where 160,000 US troops form by far the largest share of the international military force and where more than 2,000 American soldiers have been killed.

Recent media reports have suggested the Pentagon has plans in place to begin to reduce the number of US troops, but Bush has emphasised that he remains committed to ensuring that a democratic government in Baghdad and Iraq's own security forces can exert control before any full-scale pull-out.

Powell was speaking after a visit to Britain last week to address a series of fundraising dinners for the JNF, a British Jewish charity. In remarks during his visit, he said that in retrospect he felt the Americans should have committed more troops to the Iraqi invasion and ensured that law, order and a functioning government were in place when Saddam's regime collapsed. In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, he added that 'when the insurgency started, we didn't act quickly enough to try to stop it'. But, he added, 'that's all history... the more important issue is what we do now'.

Speaking to The Observer, Powell was generally upbeat about the prosects for early progress in the move to hand over ownership to the Iraqis.

He also said that while military force to prevent neighbouring Iran getting nuclear arms remained 'an option', he was confident the Iranians remained some distance from getting a nuclear weapon. The emphasis now, he said, was on intense diplomacy by the international community on the Iranians.
Reply

Hashim_507
04-11-2006, 02:58 AM
I was right the u.s is preparing war with Iran.....There is alot of rumors becoming true.
Reply

Knut Hamsun
04-11-2006, 04:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim_507
I was right the u.s is preparing war with Iran.....There is alot of rumors becoming true.
Easy with the self-congratulations. They have contingency plans for Iran, just like they have for any other "hot spot" with potential to wreak havoc. Seeing as though Russia and China would be losing too much money if they back emphatic attempts at "curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions", the USA is doing only what is sensible(at maintaining their interests): devising their own plans of "diplomatic alternatives" heh should they be needed.
Reply

knuckles
04-11-2006, 02:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Knut Hamsun
Easy with the self-congratulations. They have contingency plans for Iran, just like they have for any other "hot spot" with potential to wreak havoc. Seeing as though Russia and China would be losing too much money if they back emphatic attempts at "curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions", the USA is doing only what is sensible(at maintaining their interests): devising their own plans of "diplomatic alternatives" heh should they be needed.
It would be stupid not to have contigencies for all of them. We got invasionplans for Britian, Austrailia, Canada, France, Germany and so on. Look up War Plan Orange, Black, Red, and so on.
Reply

al-fateh
04-11-2006, 02:20 PM
there is no signs that show that syria is the next target as much as it is showing that Iran is.

however the campaign is much more dangerous than what it seems

bombing nuclear facilities is not a matter of just one bomb...its a series of bombing.

with the bombing of nuclear facilities it is also important to watch out for nuclear radiation leaks...not safe for the people and will spark an international opinion as well as an enraged Iranian government.

Bombimg Iran would definately mean a new war in the region with so many countries invloved, and definately Israel will have something to do with it.

the bombers will most likely operate from Israel and NOT Iraq.

there is 19 nuclear facilities in Iran most of which are well defensed and some that are underground, bombing these facilites will take at least a week.

Russia and China invested Billions in Iran nuclear campaign and will not tolerate the interference of the US against the benefits they can claim from Iran.

not that Russia and China are both members of the nuclear watch board.

Syria is not the main concern now, and Syria regime will forfeit on its own with international pressure and an internal uprising.
Reply

knuckles
04-11-2006, 02:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by al-fateh
there is no signs that show that syria is the next target as much as it is showing that Iran is.

however the campaign is much more dangerous than what it seems

bombing nuclear facilities is not a matter of just one bomb...its a series of bombing.

with the bombing of nuclear facilities it is also important to watch out for nuclear radiation leaks...not safe for the people and will spark an international opinion as well as an enraged Iranian government.

Bombimg Iran would definately mean a new war in the region with so many countries invloved, and definately Israel will have something to do with it.

the bombers will most likely operate from Israel and NOT Iraq.

there is 19 nuclear facilities in Iran most of which are well defensed and some that are underground, bombing these facilites will take at least a week.

Russia and China invested Billions in Iran nuclear campaign and will not tolerate the interference of the US against the benefits they can claim from Iran.

not that Russia and China are both members of the nuclear watch board.

Syria is not the main concern now, and Syria regime will forfeit on its own with international pressure and an internal uprising.
You don't have to hit the nuclear sites. You destroy infrastructure. You hit power grides. You can't run a reactor with no electricity. You hit oil refineries. You hit supply depots. There 's ways of stopping Iran.
Reply

Shocked
04-11-2006, 02:31 PM
Salaam.

I just want to cry when I think of all the innocent people that could die as a result of all this..... not just in the middle east.
Iran are allowed by law to have nuclear power, if not, what are they supposed to do when fossil fuels run out?
Hmmm... I wonder.. no doubt be buyig some form of new power source from the states!!
Sorry, call me synical, but lets be honest, this whole thign is about money and power, even more of it for even greedier people.

I wish the whitehouse / downing street would stop listening to big business... I wish we all would.

I kinda feel that attacking Iran will be just about the final straw for most westerners... I refuse to vote since the Iraqi invasion, purely because I do not see what the point is as the governements are all corrupt.

The devil has got his hand in this whole affair, but Muslim or Christian or whatever, we all know that that sneaking snidy snake will get whats coming to him at end of days.

Seems to me that the weight of God's will is the thing that will beat this, I just pray that if it is His will, He does.

Ameen /Amen / Hallelujah
Reply

HeiGou
04-11-2006, 02:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
You know what? You've just convinced me. I'm running for President of the US. As my first act of duty I propose we pull out of Iraq and leave nothing but a crater. I would then decree that upon the next attack on US soil by muslims would be followed my a mushroom cloud over Medina. Any attacks after that would be Mecca, Samaria, Damascus...
You know I think I'm becoming pyschic - I forsee....a very short stay at LI.

Medina? Really? Samaria is presumably where the Samaritans come from (i.e. the West Bank). Do you mean Samara which is a town in Iraq which used to be the capital of the Abbasid Empire and where some Shia religious site is located? Why? Damascus I can see.

I think we can all do with a lot less threats to murder innocent people. Not just from the kafir side either. Syrians under five have done nothing. Nor have Saudi children. Let's not talk about turning their homeland to glass.
Reply

knuckles
04-11-2006, 02:43 PM
I meant Samara. I'm working under the damned if you do damned if you don't mind set now. No matter what care we take to avoid civilian casualties, no matter what our intentions are we are still considered evil. I'm tired of trying of convincing people.
Reply

HeiGou
04-11-2006, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
I meant Samara. I'm working under the damned if you do damned if you don't mind set now. No matter what care we take to avoid civilian casualties, no matter what our intentions are we are still considered evil. I'm tired of trying of convincing people.
I know the feeling. Just remember: you're a kafir. Everything you do is wrong and everything wrong is your fault.

Like being engaged actually.

But don't let it get you down. Go and read the article I posted yesterday from the Gulf News on blaming the Americans.
Reply

al-fateh
04-11-2006, 02:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
You don't have to hit the nuclear sites. You destroy infrastructure. You hit power grides. You can't run a reactor with no electricity. You hit oil refineries. You hit supply depots. There 's ways of stopping Iran.
its not that simple

to stop the nuclear activity u need to stop the nuclear reactor

Iran is well planned for this, and i do think that there are generators in every facility

hitting infrastructure is simply an OPEN war against Iran...this will cause a new world war no doubt

whenu hit infrastructure, u better expect a response from the Iranian military
Reply

HeiGou
04-11-2006, 03:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by al-fateh
its not that simple

to stop the nuclear activity u need to stop the nuclear reactor
Well sensible people shut nuclear reactors down once there is even a risk someone might shoot it up. Not that the reactors are a problem. Iran has a couple of Russian-designed Light Water reactors which use slightly enriched fuel. They do not pose a proliferation risk.

Iran is well planned for this, and i do think that there are generators in every facility
What America may have trouble hitting is the nuclear enrichment plants. Iran has, I gather, bought centrifuges from Pakistan which stole the technology from Belgium. These are safe things to bomb because they are not in any way radioactive. They are also hugely power-hungry. You could not build a generator large enough to run a full-scale plant without someone noticing. I assume that Iran has, or will, try to excavate tunnels and bury their plants, but even so the power lines would be vunerable.

hitting infrastructure is simply an OPEN war against Iran...this will cause a new world war no doubt
Well there is a lot of doubt as it happens. Iran could not more threaten the US than Belgium could. Actually Belgium is more of a threat. At best Iran might be able to invade Iraq. Compared to the Soviet Union, or Germany, or even Japan and Italy, Iran is no threat to anyone but its neighbors.

whenu hit infrastructure, u better expect a response from the Iranian military
Which, at best, would consist of some terrorism and some disruption of the oil routes. America can survive both.
Reply

Knut Hamsun
04-11-2006, 07:57 PM
Well sensible people shut nuclear reactors down once there is even a risk someone might shoot it up. Not that the reactors are a problem. Iran has a couple of Russian-designed Light Water reactors which use slightly enriched fuel. They do not pose a proliferation risk.
I agree with your statement but I am afraid Ahmadenijad fancies himself such a populist hero that, in the imminence of a "decomissioning strike" on radioactive sites/reactors, he would not shut anything down. His rhetoric in the past 6 months has been based upon a textbook nationalism-cum-"for the glory of our people, Iran", the extension of which would have him win the ultimate victim status if said attacks polluted his fatherland with clouds of radioactivity... "see what they did? Those American terrorists..." You get the idea.

What America may have trouble hitting is the nuclear enrichment plants. Iran has, I gather, bought centrifuges from Pakistan which stole the technology from Belgium. These are safe things to bomb because they are not in any way radioactive. They are also hugely power-hungry. You could not build a generator large enough to run a full-scale plant without someone noticing. I assume that Iran has, or will, try to excavate tunnels and bury their plants, but even so the power lines would be vunerable.
Although he has an axe to grind the size of Paul Bunyan's, Sy Hersch's news breaking piece in today's New Yorker confirms what you say here about the underground facilities. From hazy memory, I believe he asserts the existence of an underground facility boasting floor space/power capability to run 50,000 (yes, 50 thousand!) enrichment centrifuges. Buried some 75 feet in the ground, and protected by massive 4' to 8' thick ceilings, this seems to be the technical reason for US "mention" of employing Tactical Nukes. And I am sure the Iranians are busy digging as I write. The question your point raises is "how many of these things are there, and where?".

Well there is a lot of doubt as it happens. Iran could not more threaten the US than Belgium could. Actually Belgium is more of a threat. At best Iran might be able to invade Iraq. Compared to the Soviet Union, or Germany, or even Japan and Italy, Iran is no threat to anyone but its neighbors.
I agree that Iran couldn't directly threaten the USA on its own soil (but actually, a somewhat paranoid case could be made of the length of Iran's reach via the strong arm of Hezbollah et al...worth considering at least). But it is US interests which are mainly the consideration here. I have written in another thread of Iran's threat in/to the Middle East in recent history. This is not to be taken lightly. With growing sectarian violence, border transcending terrorism/insurgency/banditry, this is very much more a problem of the middle east than anyone else's, which makes it a global problem seeing at to the extent to which the world economy runs off of the availability of ME crude.

And a further consideration I am too dumb to speculate upon: What does a nuclear Iran do to certain "balances of power"? What does this scenario do to the Pakistan/India arms race? Saudi Arabia has expressed keen interest in, if not advanced efforts to, develop its own capability to offset an Iranian nuke capability. And Israel? And Egypt? And UAE?
Reply

Hashim_507
04-11-2006, 09:32 PM
Iran is already built the bomb, Iraq invasion was illegal...Now Iran is joining the nuclear club. How dumb is bush invasion on Iraq? now he faces the real wmd theory.
Reply

Knut Hamsun
04-11-2006, 10:18 PM
Iran is already built the bomb
,

No they haven't. Do you actually read the news? They began enriching uranium, a small amount at that, and from that point to a bomb is a lot of engineering (and UN nose-thumbing). PLease stop spreading false information.


Iraq invasion was illegal
Anytime you wish to outline a prosecutable case against USA/UK, I will be happy to read it. With all of the Blair/Bush haters so rabidly circling their prey, why would they not bring suit if the war was so unambiguously illegal?
I've said it 50 times on this board: Either prove that the war was illegal or stop calling it such!

...Now Iran is joining the nuclear club.
See above. You really don't read well, do you?

How dumb is bush invasion on Iraq?
Now, this point is debatable, although you have merely stated your opinion without any argument. Why is...so dumb?

now he faces the real wmd theory.
See above.
Reply

Hashim_507
04-12-2006, 01:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Knut Hamsun
,

No they haven't. Do you actually read the news? They began enriching uranium, a small amount at that, and from that point to a bomb is a lot of engineering (and UN nose-thumbing). PLease stop spreading false information.



Anytime you wish to outline a prosecutable case against USA/UK, I will be happy to read it. With all of the Blair/Bush haters so rabidly circling their prey, why would they not bring suit if the war was so unambiguously illegal?
I've said it 50 times on this board: Either prove that the war was illegal or stop calling it such!


See above. You really don't read well, do you?


Now, this point is debatable, although you have merely stated your opinion without any argument. Why is...so dumb?



See above.
I am u.s citizen, i know bush well better than you. I dont hate u.s or u.k, i love america. Bush policy in u.s is awful, health insurance ,katrina and ect. This president was idiot to invade iraq, why? he naver show any evidance of wmd after the war. Did they found it? Look at Iraq now, civil war is underway, they cant even form government. American soldiers are dieng in Iraq becouse of this illegal war, innocent iraqis are dying. Libby leaked the case now, Bush is in trouble. You just can't believe what this guy always praise on iraq war. Alot of American share my view and they know the truth about bush. If future war is lounch, the draft will comeback like in vietnam days in the 60's, i know i will be drafted. The congress already discussed on draft 2 years ago, they did not approve it.
Reply

Eric H
04-12-2006, 07:03 AM
Greetings and peace Knut Hamsun;

I've said it 50 times on this board: Either prove that the war was illegal or stop calling it such!
You are leaving a small dilemma for yourself, if the war is not illegal it must be legal, but can you prove that the war was legal?

In the spirit of seeking peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

HeiGou
04-12-2006, 09:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim_507
Iran is already built the bomb, Iraq invasion was illegal...Now Iran is joining the nuclear club. How dumb is bush invasion on Iraq? now he faces the real wmd theory.
Well Iran was building the bomb a long time before the Iraq invasion. There is still no reason to think the Iraq invasion was illegal. Iran has a lot more to do before it joins the nuclear club.
Reply

Knut Hamsun
04-12-2006, 09:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace Knut Hamsun;


You are leaving a small dilemma for yourself, if the war is not illegal it must be legal, but can you prove that the war was legal?

In the spirit of seeking peace on Earth

Eric
I see no dilemma at all; I only challange those who robotically chant the mantra "that illegal war" when I have yet to hear anyone's convincing arguments supporting such a claim. Prove it is "illegal" or stop calling it what it "legally" can't be defined as. That is all I am asking.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 07:11 PM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 05:25 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 12:03 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2006, 07:18 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!