# Iran's Defiance



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

What do you think is really going to happen? Gohon,Bob,Plainsman, and everyone else. If Iran is not running a bluff,and put's all thier chips in, Bush will have no choice but to call!! Is it's Iran agenda to get the whole Muslem world alined against the west? I have come to the point I don't belive a dam thing that is said on CNN,ABC,CBS,or ABC. Do you think the common, family type Muslems want an all out war against the US?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

My take on it is ... This is a response from Iran to our taking five Iranian Military elite working in Iraq.

I resort back to my previous statement of two years ago ...

"This is a war with Iran, it's taking place on Iraqi soil, but it will become a full on war with Iran and Syria at some point. It's just a matter of when and under what circumstances."

This is simply another point of escalation.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)




----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

280IM

I have some of the same questions. First off about the common family Muslim. In my mind there is conflicting evidence. On one hand I want to think they are much like us, more concerned that their wife and children are happy etc. On the other hand if you read the Koran this religion isn't the peaceful religion our media would like us to believe. If you have the patience listen to the entire clip that hunt1 posted under the thread heading How Liberals Think. It will give you some insight into why our media portrays Islam as they do.

If the leaders of Iran were like the common family Muslim I would say the guy is bluffing, because if you have someone who cares about their wife and children you would expect them to make rational decisions. If you have someone who has little value in women or children, and thinks the direct path to heaven is to kill an infidel then you have a problem. Iran's abduction of British soldiers is an affront that can not be ignored and still retain the respect of the world. It holds serious implications as far as our allies having respect for us, and our ability to help protect each other. This is not simply an abduction, but a play by Iran to bring our integrity into question.

Yes, I think there are many Muslims that want to suck the whole world into this conflict. Containment will be a real challenge. Cutting and running as our current congress wants to do isn't the answer. There will be no easy road, but we must face a very serious problem now, or we will face a much greater threat in the future. Nancy and gang think this can be ignored, but it is like a one inch diameter cancerous tumor now, ignore it and it will be a ten inch in the future, and ignoring it further will result in ----- well, use your imagination. I don't know about everyone else, but as a child I was taught that the sooner you face your problems the sooner you solve them. The longer you let them go, the larger they become. If I could learn this at six years old what is wrong with adults in Washington D. C. ?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Since this thread was started I've sat back and tried to digest what the hell Iran is thinking. Still don't know but, a few things that I think are in play.

Iran's economy has been going into the dumpster for many months now and the public (theirs) is not happy.

Further proof of the Iranian economy is their failure to pay the Russians as promised for the reactor work the Russians were doing. Since they are all about money the Russians pulled the plug and work has stopped. Oh well... there goes the we will soon be nuclear card Iran was playing up.

The real power in Iran are the Mullah clerical regime such as the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini who put President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power, are getting tired of Ahmadinejads public grandstanding and constant poking a finger in the west's eye just for attention. Make no mistake, they want the west to fall but they know when to poke and when not to poke. Ahmadinejad is less skilled in that area.

The kidnapping of the British sailors is I believe the result of several things. One is since the hard liners have been openly criticizing Ahmadinejad, he is making a move to appease them. Another factor is probable pay back for the disappearance of leading Iranian military intelligence officers who are talking their heads off and spilling the beans.

The biggest reason I believe is the Iranians have been paying attention to the British Parliament and the US Congress and they see a weakness that tells them nothing will be done. They may very well be right on the US part but if the British can get the Germans to go along with closing of exports to Iran which Germany is the largest supplier, and shutting/freezing bank accounts which Germany again is the big card holder, I think Iran would actually collapse within in just a few short months if not weeks. Especially if Britain decided to blockade and bomb the one and only gasoline refinery in Iran. Tony Blair may just decide to leave Parliament in style..........


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

If Britian goes after Iran in a big way will Syria standby and do nothing or do you think they will come to Irans side?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Syria can't even dislodge Hezbollah from within it's own boarders so I seriously doubt they could cross Iraq to aid Iran. No, I think Syria is a non issue in any confrontation.


----------



## scott (Oct 11, 2002)

Not to mention the US Military is kind of in the way of Syria. :sniper:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

With all due respect here ...

Anyone who thinks Syria would need to somehow "Get to Iran" in order to insert themselves into this problem has not paid attention to how Syria operates.

Syria is the conduit for attacks on Israel and is an entrance to Iraq for insurgents.

I have to believe any action against Iran would be followed by action on the part of Syria toward Israel and also stepped up activities in Iraq from the western border.

Without Iran ... Syria is nothing, Syria can not stand back and watch the Islamic leadership in Iran fall. Assuming any action against Iran were "smaller in nature" the part Syria would play might be more covert and less noticable.

Never forget Hezzbolla (in Lebanon and Syria) *IS* Iran.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

280IM said:


> Is it's Iran agenda to get the whole Muslem world alined against the west?


This is old and it's been posted by me a few times ... but it seems some may still need to see it inorder to understand exactly what is on the table here.

Al Qaeda and Iran are not "one in the same" but they share the exact same goal and events are turning in ways where Al Qaeda has been beaten down to a large degree "The Hiarchy of Isalm" (which resides in Iran) are now taking over the fight themselves.

Read on if you want ... This was written in early 2004 and contained some "old distracting political" banter which I have tried to edit out without changing the substance of the message.

Dictionary definition of CALIPH ... successor of Muhammad as temporal and spiritual head of Islam.

CALIPHITE ... the office or dominion of a CALIPH

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE 
By Larry Abraham January 29,2004

The war against terror did not begin on September 11,2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of it's existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in it's infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of it's early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the church.

What Islam offered was "the carrot or the sword." If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making.

In the beginning, even the theology was not hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish Prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book" ... the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for the former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading "the word" Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First Great Jihad" and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula.

This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The "Second Great Jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured in to warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet."

By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any future territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into Sheikdoms, Emir dominated principalities and roving tribes of Nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming it's internal failures on everyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam, which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds it's most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. It's Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is known as Osama bin Ladin, the leader of the "Third Jihad" who is Wahhabi as were his 911 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "Westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S and subdued acceptance of the state of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Remember "America Held Hostage"?

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate."

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "Occupied Territory" Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the Jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals.

First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam.

Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves.

Third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel.

A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies, but to send a message to the Jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, worldwide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point - Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determination resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished&#8230;"two steps forward, one step back".

A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable little hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I have to believe any action against Iran would be followed by action on the part of Syria toward Israel and also stepped up activities in Iraq from the western border.


This is very true and I certainly agree with the first part, however I think Israel can take care of Syria. As for the western boarder, Syria doesn't appear to posses the strength to have a two front confrontation, especially since we are really talking about Hezbollah going against Israel and not the Syrian military. There seems to me be a real possibility that the people of Lebanon would not stand for Syria marching across their country to get at Israel and it would in my opinion provide a opportunity the people of Lebanon have long dreamed of and that is to dislodge Hezbollah and once and for all break the hold that Syria has over the Lebanese government. .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have to tell you guys, you are really putting some thought into this. Great food for thought.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Gohon said:


> This is very true and I certainly agree with the first part, however I think Israel can take care of Syria. As for the western boarder, Syria doesn't appear to posses the strength to have a two front confrontation, especially since we are really talking about Hezbollah going against Israel and not the Syrian military. There seems to me be a real possibility that the people of Lebanon would not stand for Syria marching across their country to get at Israel and it would in my opinion provide a opportunity the people of Lebanon have long dreamed of and that is to dislodge Hezbollah and once and for all break the hold that Syria has over the Lebanese government. .


Syria has more continuous border adjoining Israel than does Lebanon ...

Also note as I said ... Syria is a "Conduit" for Hezzbolla and Insurgents.

Also keep in mind this is not so much a war of Militaries as a war against Islamic Jihadists without regard to nationality.

And ... I don't think in terms of Syria having hold of Lebanon ... I believe Iran has hold of Lebanon through its "Proxy / Conduit" Syria.

Syria has much more sugnificance than just it's Military. It's military would likely come into play especially once Syria's activities are underway and they need to defend themselves.

And clearly I'm no Military Stratigist, but my general observations lead me to think this way.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I know it is splitting hairs now but I think Lebanon has more actual frontage than Syria, maybe not, plus Lebanon would provide closer access to the sea. Nevertheless without crossing the tip of Jordan and Lebanon they would put themselves in a bottle neck situation if confronting Israel. I don't think they would survive such a military tactic with their forces.

I understand what you are saying and agree in part but in my opinion Syria has the strangle hold on Lebanon with the support of Iran's backing but I don't know if Iran is actually powerful enough to call the shots with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I guess the thinking is if Iran falls then Syria falls. If Syria falls then Hezbollah falls so they will all work together for one common goal and that is the fall of Israel and then the West. After that they kill each other for.

Like you I'm no Military Strategist and trying to pin point where the beginning and the end will occur to what I see as a certain mid east meltdown affecting the entire world is challenging to say the least. I think we're both in agreement here as to the bottom line, just seperatly viewing causes of the problem. As long as we are on the same team it really doesn't matter..... :beer:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

They will just keep casting stuff at us as long as we are stupid enough to take the bait!


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

What will Pakistan do if Iran is attacked? I don't understand the structure of all the tribes through out the Muslim world. I do know Iran has influance in a very large area. Are they all cousins but in the time of war become brothers?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I actually heard George W say last night that we should sit down and talk about it instead of saying they better get in line or we will bomb the hell out of them. Sounds like he is finally starting to figure some things out. I had to do a double take and make sure it was actuallyhim and not some guy from Saturday Night Live who was imitating him!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

here what the russian media thinks is going to happen

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Every time I think the liberal media couldn't be more stupid they top themselves. Did you hear today that they didn't like Bush calling the British soldiers hostages? They think Muslims will be angry and we should call them detainees. One went so far as to say that compared to Abu Ghraib they should be called guests. Are we going nuts in this nation or what?

As for the Russians thinking we will attack. Go check your GPS unit and ask yourself why there are so few satellites overhead, and why there are so many on the very southeast horizon. At least this was true last Friday, I have not checked today. I do know some people had to stop surveying because of loss of accuracy last Friday.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

I just hope Jimmy Carter is not incharge of the rescue party!!!!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Good Friday, huh, well I will go to church and pray that we don't start bombing Iran and adding more fuel to the fire. Let's hope that Bush doesn't pull another Bush.


----------

