PDA

View Full Version : Iranians may be resposible for karbala attack



Gaffer
01-29-2007, 10:29 PM
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/the_karbala_attack_a.php

I thought this was real interesting cause it describes al ot of what I thought immediately after reading about the attack.

Bush has basically given the go ahead to kill any iranians they come up against from now on.

I suspected it was an iranian operation from the start because the iraqis thought they were Americans. They looked and dressed like Americans and since iranians aren't arabs they could be mistaken for Americans if not closely looked at.

It looks like a kidnapping that got screwed up somehow and the victims were executed since they couldn't get them back across the border. I would like to think that if they snatched one of our guys and took him into iran we would go after him with everything we have got.

darin
01-29-2007, 10:36 PM
I've heard stories of battles like that - where hundreds? many? most of the graves immediately following the deaths of the terrorists were written in Farsi.

Gunny
01-29-2007, 10:49 PM
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/the_karbala_attack_a.php

I thought this was real interesting cause it describes al ot of what I thought immediately after reading about the attack.

Bush has basically given the go ahead to kill any iranians they come up against from now on.

I suspected it was an iranian operation from the start because the iraqis thought they were Americans. They looked and dressed like Americans and since iranians aren't arabs they could be mistaken for Americans if not closely looked at.

It looks like a kidnapping that got screwed up somehow and the victims were executed since they couldn't get them back across the border. I would like to think that if they snatched one of our guys and took him into iran we would go after him with everything we have got.

It's too bad we don't have any balls anymore. Iran's deserved a first-class ass-whooping since 1979.

Gaffer
01-29-2007, 10:52 PM
The article states this is the same type of operation that hizbollah used to start the war with Israel last year. Has all the earmarks of the same guys. This is something that will be worth following and I would love to be listening in on the intelligence gather they are doing right now.

Looks like iran is stepping up their operations.

Gaffer
01-29-2007, 10:54 PM
It's too bad we don't have any balls anymore. Iran's deserved a first-class ass-whooping since 1979.

That's for sure. And its very likely they are going to get it before the year is out.I thought we have gone after them long before this.

Gunny
01-29-2007, 10:56 PM
The article states this is the same type of operation that hizbollah used to start the war with Israel last year. Has all the earmarks of the same guys. This is something that will be worth following and I would love to be listening in on the intelligence gather they are doing right now.

Looks like iran is stepping up their operations.

Iran's playing its same stupid little game of trying to provoke us, knowing we won't do anything. They think it makes them look tough.

Saddam played the same game .... one time too many, IIRC.

Gunny
01-29-2007, 10:58 PM
That's for sure. And its very likely they are going to get it before the year is out.I thought we have gone after them long before this.

You'd think. I thought we'd go after them in 1980 .... why I enlisted initially. Closest I ever got was "next door."

Gaffer
01-29-2007, 11:02 PM
Iran's playing its same stupid little game of trying to provoke us, knowing we won't do anything. They think it makes them look tough.

Saddam played the same game .... one time too many, IIRC.

Yep they are definately trying to see how far they can push. And when we push back they will scream bloody murder.

iran might be bigger than iraq but it will go down just as easily.

Gunny
01-29-2007, 11:21 PM
Yep they are definately trying to see how far they can push. And when we push back they will scream bloody murder.

iran might be bigger than iraq but it will go down just as easily.

On that one, I'm not so sure. We keep looking at Iran as just the Islamofascists that run it. One poster kept arguing with me that the people in Iran would turn on their own government.

I don't think so. IMO, Iranians are every bit as Nationalistic as we are. They may hate their own government, but it is theirs, and their problem. If we invade, they will close ranks with their government to repel a foreign invasion.

It doesn't matter to me whether they do or they don't ... only that if we go in, we don't go in with this "they'll welcome us with open arms" mentality we went into Iraq with.

If we go into Iran, we need to be ready to fight a war, to the end, to win, and none of this BS, politically correct glad-handling bullshit. Go in, f*ck 'em up, and let them fix their own shit.

CSM
01-30-2007, 08:12 AM
On that one, I'm not so sure. We keep looking at Iran as just the Islamofascists that run it. One poster kept arguing with me that the people in Iran would turn on their own government.

I don't think so. IMO, Iranians are every bit as Nationalistic as we are. They may hate their own government, but it is theirs, and their problem. If we invade, they will close ranks with their government to repel a foreign invasion.

It doesn't matter to me whether they do or they don't ... only that if we go in, we don't go in with this "they'll welcome us with open arms" mentality we went into Iraq with.

If we go into Iran, we need to be ready to fight a war, to the end, to win, and none of this BS, politically correct glad-handling bullshit. Go in, f*ck 'em up, and let them fix their own shit.

That won't happen.

The United States will fold and make concessions. Heck, we will even sell them the stuff they need to make nuclear weapons based on the promise they won't make nuclear weapons! That is the Democrat's concept of "diplomacy". They should have bumper stickers that say "Surrender at any price!" They would sell real well in Maine!

dirt mcgirt
01-30-2007, 10:45 AM
On that one, I'm not so sure. We keep looking at Iran as just the Islamofascists that run it. One poster kept arguing with me that the people in Iran would turn on their own government.

I don't think so. IMO, Iranians are every bit as Nationalistic as we are. They may hate their own government, but it is theirs, and their problem. If we invade, they will close ranks with their government to repel a foreign invasion.

It doesn't matter to me whether they do or they don't ... only that if we go in, we don't go in with this "they'll welcome us with open arms" mentality we went into Iraq with.

If we go into Iran, we need to be ready to fight a war, to the end, to win, and none of this BS, politically correct glad-handling bullshit. Go in, f*ck 'em up, and let them fix their own shit.
I think the conflict with Iran will happen through the air. Cruise missiles and precision bombs on suspected nuclear facilities and military/government targets will be the extent of it. I don't see a major ground war happening. I agree 100% that we should have no nation building goals when the conflict with Iran arises.

Gaffer
01-30-2007, 08:30 PM
On that one, I'm not so sure. We keep looking at Iran as just the Islamofascists that run it. One poster kept arguing with me that the people in Iran would turn on their own government.

I don't think so. IMO, Iranians are every bit as Nationalistic as we are. They may hate their own government, but it is theirs, and their problem. If we invade, they will close ranks with their government to repel a foreign invasion.

It doesn't matter to me whether they do or they don't ... only that if we go in, we don't go in with this "they'll welcome us with open arms" mentality we went into Iraq with.

If we go into Iran, we need to be ready to fight a war, to the end, to win, and none of this BS, politically correct glad-handling bullshit. Go in, f*ck 'em up, and let them fix their own shit.

I'm with you on that, I don't think they will run to join us if we invade either. Nationalist or fundimentalists they will join together. Just as al queda will work with iran to fight a common enemy. shites and sunni will band together the same way.

If we do it strickly from the air it might inspire the nationalist to take down the clerics to end the war. But definately we need to fuckem up and leave em to rebuild themselves.

jillian
01-30-2007, 08:35 PM
On that one, I'm not so sure. We keep looking at Iran as just the Islamofascists that run it. One poster kept arguing with me that the people in Iran would turn on their own government.

I don't think so. IMO, Iranians are every bit as Nationalistic as we are. They may hate their own government, but it is theirs, and their problem. If we invade, they will close ranks with their government to repel a foreign invasion.

It doesn't matter to me whether they do or they don't ... only that if we go in, we don't go in with this "they'll welcome us with open arms" mentality we went into Iraq with.

If we go into Iran, we need to be ready to fight a war, to the end, to win, and none of this BS, politically correct glad-handling bullshit. Go in, f*ck 'em up, and let them fix their own shit.

The "welcome us with open arms" and "flowers and candy" garbage didn't come from the "politically correct". It came from your admin and the PNAC guys who didn't have a clue. Now, perhaps you might have known better than that having your military background. But it was always an absurd paradigm.

And you're correct about the Iranis. Their leader is an animal, but he's *their* animal. Why would we have expected anything less than an insurgency in Iraq when the same rules applied? The additional problem in Iraq is that it's an artificial country drawn by people who had no understanding, and less interest, in the differences between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd.

Gaffer
01-30-2007, 08:55 PM
The "welcome us with open arms" and "flowers and candy" garbage didn't come from the "politically correct". It came from your admin and the PNAC guys who didn't have a clue. Now, perhaps you might have known better than that having your military background. But it was always an absurd paradigm.

And you're correct about the Iranis. Their leader is an animal, but he's *their* animal. Why would we have expected anything less than an insurgency in Iraq when the same rules applied? The additional problem in Iraq is that it's an artificial country drawn by people who had no understanding, and less interest, in the differences between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd.

Your right about not understanding. The administration didn't understand the middle east period. Begining with 9/11. I don't think they do today. Islam is the enemy. It's important to understand what islam is about to understand how to defeat them.

The british formed the countries at the begining of the 20th century with no concept of what they were doing. And the violence has continued since then. Despotism is the only thing they understand at this point. And that mainly under theocracy. They also have a completely different mindset. Much as the western world would like to think they have the same hopes and dreams as us, they don't. Their first aligence is to allah followed by survival. Betterment of life is not a goal. How they die is.

jillian
01-30-2007, 09:18 PM
Your right about not understanding. The administration didn't understand the middle east period. Begining with 9/11. I don't think they do today. Islam is the enemy. It's important to understand what islam is about to understand how to defeat them.

The british formed the countries at the begining of the 20th century with no concept of what they were doing. And the violence has continued since then. Despotism is the only thing they understand at this point. And that mainly under theocracy. They also have a completely different mindset. Much as the western world would like to think they have the same hopes and dreams as us, they don't. Their first aligence is to allah followed by survival. Betterment of life is not a goal. How they die is.

First, where I think we have agreement:

The admin had and has no understanding of the middle east.
Democracy is not for every country or group and certainly can't be force fed them.
The mindset of the middle east is not like ours.

Where I think we disagree:

I don't think all Islamic people are the same, any more than every sect of Christianity or Judaism is the same.
I don't think the way to deal with terrorism is by invading sovereign nations and overthrowing their leaders.... especially if we're ridiculous enough to assume they're going to embrace democracy when things are blowing up around them and their infrastructure is destroyed and food, water and electricity and jobs are scarce. (OK..we might agree on part of that).
I don't think we can treat every muslim like every other. Turks are not Iranians are not Iraqis.... are not Palestinians...are not Saudis.

retiredman
01-30-2007, 10:22 PM
bingo Jillian... Islam is not the enemy.... members of extremist sub-sects of Islam are the enemy.

However, if we continue to treat the middle east with the Team Bush hamfisted approach, it won't take too many more years before we have turned all of Islam against us.

If we really want to get certain muslims to stop wanting to kill us, we need to find a better way to do that then by killing muslims...unless we are prepared to kill them all - both abroad and at home.

Gunny
01-30-2007, 10:31 PM
The "welcome us with open arms" and "flowers and candy" garbage didn't come from the "politically correct". It came from your admin and the PNAC guys who didn't have a clue. Now, perhaps you might have known better than that having your military background. But it was always an absurd paradigm.

It came from the same mentality that thinks we can negotiate with these morons, and as far as I've seen, that delusional thinking is as bipartisan as it gets.

Problem is, too many Americans, on both sides of the aisle, are so busy feelign superior and thinking everyone envies us, the notion that anyone wouldn't want a shot at being just like us isn't even a consideration. They cannot fathom that anymore than the people they think want to be "just like " can fathom what "just like us" is.

No matter which way you spin it, it is everything about politically correct appeasement. Politicians were going to ensure we looked like the "good guys bearing gifts," no matter what strategic and/or tactical doctrine they had to ignore.

Democrats are just as guilty at playing that game as Republicans, if and when they act.

And you're correct about the Iranis. Their leader is an animal, but he's *their* animal. Why would we have expected anything less than an insurgency in Iraq when the same rules applied? The additional problem in Iraq is that it's an artificial country drawn by people who had no understanding, and less interest, in the differences between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd.

I may be correct. If planning to invade Iran, I would go in under the assumption that the worst possible scenario is likely to happen, and be prepared to react to it, not under the assumption that everything was going to turn out hunky-dory.

Gunny
01-30-2007, 10:37 PM
First, where I think we have agreement:

The admin had and has no understanding of the middle east.
Democracy is not for every country or group and certainly can't be force fed them.
The mindset of the middle east is not like ours.

Where I think we disagree:

I don't think all Islamic people are the same, any more than every sect of Christianity or Judaism is the same.
I don't think the way to deal with terrorism is by invading sovereign nations and overthrowing their leaders.... especially if we're ridiculous enough to assume they're going to embrace democracy when things are blowing up around them and their infrastructure is destroyed and food, water and electricity and jobs are scarce. (OK..we might agree on part of that).
I don't think we can treat every muslim like every other. Turks are not Iranians are not Iraqis.... are not Palestinians...are not Saudis.

Iraqis. so-called Palestinians and Saudis are ALL Arabs. Turks are Turks and Iranians are Persian.

Of those you named, only Turkey is a secular state. Palestine is governed by an internationally recognized terrorist organization, supported openly by the government of Iran, that is run by fundamentalists.

Our so-called allies, the Saudis, preach arguably the most extreme, anti-Western/anti-American version of fundamental Islam -- Wahabbism.

Saddam was taken out for being an idiot, not a fundamental Islamic.

Gaffer
01-31-2007, 12:18 AM
Even the turks are swinging toward more fundimental islamic practices. Attaturk did everything he could to westernize the country. and now its slipping back. They will need to be watch in the future.