Iran Declares War

The New York Sun VIA Little Green Footballs.com ^ | 5-11-06 | editorail

[blasater1960]

Thank you for the insight. Very interesting. But, do you think that Hezbollah is that big of deal for Iran to risk a premptive attack by US, Israel and NATO? Hezbollah has a few thousand missiles to be sure but Israel could squash them in no time. If Hezbollah were truly a threat Arik would have dispatched them, I would think.......?

[blasater1960]

Good question but for this guy to be this beligerent, I think it is highly likely he has a warhead or two already. I think he may, if he has got 'em, try to touch one off in Tel Aviv or NYC?? Who knows. He certainly acts like he has more than a few grams of freshly spun Uranium. If he is bluffing, he is going to lose major face.....

[maine-iac7]

K

[Southack]

"There's always warnings. Osama had a tape in June 2001. They keep releasing tapes, they keep attacking. I guess you haven't paid any attention the last 5+ years. Osama declared war on us originally in the nineties. It WAS covered in the press at the time..."

Those aren't warnings, those are threats.

A jihadist "warning" is a "convert or die" message.

In contrast, a jihadist threat is simply that they are going to attack. In their culture, these differences are not subtle for one thing and for another thing they matter.

Threats are common (e.g. "the Arab street will be enraged").

Convert or die warnings, on the other hand, are much more rare.

In either case, you'd be hard-pressed to show a warning letter to a U.S. President (or major Western leader) prior to the Beirut barracks bombing, Khobar Towers attack, USS Cole bombing, Blackhawk Down in Somalia, African Embassy bombings, 7/7 London subway bombings, Madrid railway bombings, etc. No warning letters. No video warning, either.

What you are doing is aiding Iran's bluff. By pretending that radical jihadists "always give a warning before they attack," you lend undeserved credit/legitimacy to Iran's intentional bluff in their recent letter to President Bush.

Don't do that. Do not aid their bluff.

[maine-iac7]

do you think that Hezbollah is that big of deal for Iran to risk a premptive attack by US, Israel and NATO?

no - just an excuse?

[Southack]

See #224.

[Pukin Dog]

Just when did you go off and get so smart? You know I had a problem with all your incessant posting on Unmanned drones, but I have to tell you, you have been making a lot of sense lately, and I wanted you to know that you have earned my respect. Just don't tell me about drones, and you can consider me a bud. Nice work.

[blasater1960]

I see that movie about once a month, my teen kids love it.

[nutmeg]

Iran declared war on Nov. 4, 1979. We have just not taken them up on it yet.

Exactly.

[blasater1960]

Thanks, that was great. Still true today.

[sageb1]

I like my tagline for this OP. Operation Final Crusade

[sageb1]

"Actually, one of the things that concerns me is that this message may be a personal call to Bush, that is, that the Iranian nutcase has planned some attack on him personally."

That was a thought I had, as well.

[sageb1]

There are also some who think the 12th Imam thing is a ruse and being used by Ahmadinejad to rally more Islamist support.

[The Westerner]

It's a shame Bush didn't take out Iran first. Now they've built themselves a nuclear bargaining chip.

[sageb1]

When Iran "elected" this guy, I took one look at his photograph and knew...just knew.

[txhurl]

Ex-cell-ent.

[Mr. Silverback]

Thank you! You'll like this, too: Napalm sticks to imams.

[Mr. Silverback]

I was going to come back and respond to you point by point, but it comes down to this: We're not assuming the worst about Islam, or even assuming the worst about this letter. What we are doing is making a conclusion from the FACT that an unstable fascist who is hoping to get nukes has promised to wipe Israel out and defeat us in a war. If he is not serious then he is doing a pretty good job of pretending. I wouldn't want to bomb Iran tomorrow, but the time's going to come soon where they will be told to give up the nukes, and if they say "no," we must deal with them militarily right away.

There were folks like you couseling caution when Hitler took the Rhineland. They felt there was no need to take him at his word, or fly off the handle. Sorry, never again.

As for your assertion that American bloggers are screwing this up, see the posts by Mideast translators in this thread. This is no joke. Review the comments in this thread from people who regularly translate Middocuments

[Mr. Silverback]

I was going to respond point by point, but then I realized how out of your depth you are. Wanna know why? Because thinking that the Battle of Mogadishu was a terror attack, especially one they could have warned us about, is like offering an opinion on WWII while thinking that Operation Barbarossa was a Jane Fonda movie.

We are not aiding the enemy, and you should parade your ignorance elsewhere.

[txhurl]

It's the 'nothing left to lose' aura Nutjob projects. He knows full well the ~progressive population under him wants his posse strung up, but as they contemplate the collateral damage inherent in doing so - apparently they want a bloodless coup - he knows he can arrange world opinion along with petro prices such that the potential reformers just plain chicken out.

Then again there is an accumulation of force in Eastern Iraq that may be there in the case they decide not chicken out.