Iran agents 'planned US terror attacks'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joel`
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 175
  • Views Views 9K
Right now I doubt Israel would have such an easy task were they to take on the Arab world. And while they do retain a friendship with Israel, the U.S. has over 2.5 million muslims in their country, which could get pretty angry were they to be involved in what will certainly be perceived as a religious war.

Last bit is especially true, but frankly the US has turned the War on Terror into more or less a religious war as it is. SOMEone is going to get offended. It's a very difficult situation.
 
Right now I doubt Israel would have such an easy task were they to take on the Arab world. And while they do retain a friendship with Israel, the U.S. has over 2.5 million muslims in their country, which could get pretty angry were they to be involved in what will certainly be perceived as a religious war.



Thing is, I'm not sure the Saudis would side with them if the arab world as a whole decides to join forces. They won't join an anti-israeli coalition that's for sure, but siding with them would be too extreme.

Yes they would, they are the ones putting pressure on the US to act on Iran.

And Israel would tank the Arab worlds Forces.

Also dont think its fair to generalise the muslims in the US. It's not a religious war nor would they see it as that. Not to mention that they are also Americans
 
Things have changed.

The Israelis now have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Arabs won't stand a chance.

I'm pretty sure the Arabs also have Bio/Chemical weapons. Nukes... unlikely, for the time being.
 
I think NATO going in would be a disastrous move. Relations with the Russians are becoming unstable as it is (esepcially with this country), and if NATO went in....there'd be **** to pay diplomatically. The implications would be very long term for all involved. And tbh, as NATO stands internally, I think there'd be far too much infighting for them to do anything. If we disbanded NATO once the cold war finished, and offered some form of peace keeping alliance with Russia and there former allies, maybe things wouldn't have turned so cool as they have now. We had a chance to move closer with Russia than we are now. And we blew it majorly I think. We have have improved business relations etc, but still. That didn't solve the root of the problem. Distrust. And for NATO get involved would just entrenchen it even deeper
 
Right now I doubt Israel would have such an easy task were they to take on the Arab world. And while they do retain a friendship with Israel, the U.S. has over 2.5 million muslims in their country, which could get pretty angry were they to be involved in what will certainly be perceived as a religious war.



Thing is, I'm not sure the Saudis would side with them if the arab world as a whole decides to join forces. They won't join an anti-israeli coalition that's for sure, but siding with them would be too extreme.

Why would they perceive it as a religious war if Iran sponsored what would be terrorism against the States?
 
Yes they would, they are the ones putting pressure on the US to act on Iran.

And Israel would tank the Arab worlds Forces.

Also dont generalise the muslims in the US. It's not a religious war nor would they see it as that. Not to mention that they are also Armericans
So is one of the alledged terrorists willing to plant a bomb in the Saudi embassy. You don't need those 2.5 million, but if a few thousand get ****** off we are looking at trouble. And remember, when dealing with 'terrorism', and I'll paraphrase the IRA here, they only have to be lucky once, while we will have to be lucky always.
 
And even if they did have a couple of nukes, it'd take some serious cahonas to fire one when you have literally thousands of nukes pointed at you.

Who has less (insane) cahonas than Ahmadinejad?
 
Why would they perceive it as a religious war if Iran sponsored what would be terrorism against the States?

First of all, we don't know if that happened, but second and most importantly, even if it did happen, they have to believe that it happened.
 
So is one of the alledged terrorists willing to plant a bomb in the Saudi embassy. You don't need those 2.5 million, but if a few thousand get ****** off we are looking at trouble. And remember, when dealing with 'terrorism', and I'll paraphrase the IRA here, they only have to be lucky once, while we will have to be lucky always.

but you unfairly assume that they will rise up as 2.5 million, its that kind of thinking that led to the nasty treament they got post 9/11. terrorism isnt restricted to muslims
 
Who has less (insane) cahonas than Ahmadinejad?

There's alwasy North Korea. I'd like to think that Ahmadinejad/khameni isnt that crazy, but he keeps pushing the nuclear plans forward, thats gonna lead to an inevitable clash with Israel
 
First of all, we don't know if that happened, but second and most importantly, even if it did happen, they have to believe that it happened.

Just like if you want to get treatment, you have to believe what your doctor is telling you. Christ, nothing would ever get done if you want to play with random assumptions like that.
 
but you unfairly assume that they will rise up as 2.5 million, its that kind of thinking that led to the nasty treament they got post 9/11. terrorism isnt restricted to muslims

You're getting me wrong - when I said they could get ****** off I wasn't talking of the as a unit, but rather to 2.5 million individuals with their own personal thoughts, ideals, level of fanatism, discontent with the government... it's a lottery.
 
Could very well be, but I'd rather not put all my trust in one article from a comedy site.

Well... it's a indisputable fact, no matter the source. You can read it anywhere. Ahmadinejad has no real power to order attacks in any way, and his enemies are circling. The article is whimsical and amusing, but the points it makes are valid.
 
Just like if you want to get treatment, you have to believe what your doctor is telling you. Christ, nothing would ever get done if you want to play with random assumptions like that.

~65 years after the end of WW2 people still deny the holocaust. Am I really making random assumptions?
 
You're getting me wrong - when I said they could get ****** off I wasn't talking of the as a unit, but rather to 2.5 million individuals with their own personal thoughts, ideals, level of fanatism, discontent with the government... it's a lottery.

Its a lottery with anyone would might be unhappy with it though, plenty of crazy radicals in the US, though i see where you are coming from
 
~65 years after the end of WW2 people still deny the holocaust. Am I really making random assumptions?

But if you want to base a reason for not doing something on assuming certain people in a large statistical group will make irrational and illogical decisions, then over that large statistical group every action would lead to a possible consequence as there's probability that action would **** off a group of the minority irrationals. Thus, nothing would ever get done.
 
Back
Top