ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

US launches missile attacks against Syrian targets. 07/04/17

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Porkbrain, Apr 7, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. seems ISIL/ISIS will claim to behind anything including running over a puppy in the road if it suits them to stay in the media, free PR
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. They all have a habit of that, the strange one was that daesh, as far as I know, didn't "name" him in their statement, which is highly unusual
     
  3. Good morning. One could argue that the failure to sort the Iran/Iraq war out was part of the problem. There never was a time when the Iraqi's had access to deployable nuclear weapons, but arguably it was the aim of the Iranians to overthrow the KSA regime which probably was the seed of that regime's hostile position to Iran. The news was always full of of Iran's anti Israeli sentiment[ as part of their anti US policy] but very little IIRC of their Sunni/Shia in fighting. And just to clarify- both sides Russia and America had armed both sides at various times as originally both Iran and Iraq were aligned to the allies. We're still fighting that "senseless" war today
     
  4. Alas you assume too much, and incorrectly. No I did not suggest that. What I suggested was that if Saddam had used nuclear weapons the retaliation would have devestated Iraq.

    The fact that he had developed and used WMD...on his own population, and was close to having tactical nuclear weapons, coupled with his invasion of Kuwait, and threat to take the Saudi oilfields triggered the 1st Gulf War which removed and smashed his army. His frustration of the UN inspectors and attempts to continue to develope Nuclear capability triggered the Second Gulf War and his removal,

    Israel, in comparison to Iraq, Iran and N Korea, behaves in a sane coherent manner, and simply protects itself. It does not threaten anyone with nuclear destruction as NK does, or interfere aggressively in regional conflicts as Iran does. When Iran began sowing mines in the gulf and chose a fight with the US Navy by doing so, it's Navy lost a few ships.

    We do however appreciate that your view of world affairs is from a completely different viewpoint, and, from the other side of the fence.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  5. As I said, IS claimed attacks. Your point was that they daren't attack the US and Israel.

    IS claimed and possibly inspired. Your 'Russian google' is inferior to 'capitalist google'
    Attack, by a terrorist group. To cause damage and to terrorise. You define it differently?
    That's a bit like saying Iran is not affiliated to terrorist groups like Hezbollah. They are, just like Russia is
    Russian soil. Has it been proved that it was IS? Or IS affiliated?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. 1) Good morning
    2) Agreed
    3) But in theory it was possible. Saddam could concentrate it efforts and resources on nuclear weapons, on AF and AD against any Israeli attepts to bomb nuclear cites.
    4) MSM create distorted picture of real World. Really Iran didn't make any claim that it could attack Israel. Just try to find exact quotes from speeches of Iranian leaders, not their 'interpretations' in MSM.
    5) Agreed.
    6) It is not far from the truth
     
  7. what part of didn't makes it possible ?
    Bollocks- what part of anti Israeli/US flag burning and death to Israel didn't happen?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Iran threatens to destroy Israel - again
    Did Dehghan (the Iranian defence minister) not say this recently?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I don't see here anything special. There are no any threats. Let's read the quote (maybe very shortened, taken from the context) carefully
    Iranian minister doubts that Washington will attack Iran but doesn't exclude it completely.
    Iran indeed has enemies including the USA, Israel, KSA. Nothing new here. The enemies could unleash a war. It is possible.
    So it is not a threat but rather warning - don't attack us, it will end bitterly for you.
     
  10. A warning which contains a threat ie if Trump's appointees carry on, try and cancel the deal etc. we will see the region in flames and the end of Israel.

    This is the latest threat. There were many more previously. Still, as Russia is allied with Iran and its Shia proxies such as Hezbollah im sure you see it differently
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  11. Probably you haven't understand my point. Saddam could accumulate resources (oil revenues) and spend them not on the senseless and expensive war with Iran but on
    1.Build up of sound Air Forces and Air defense (not to allow Israeli bombings).
    2.On nuclear program. I mean both nuclear power energetics (as the first step) and military program.
    3.Development of own missile systems (medium range would be more than enough)
    As a result potential threat to hit Israel would exclude the war unleashed by Washington.
    Compare it with N.Korea. Without nuclear weapons N.Korea could be 'liberated' in Iraqi style. Why not? Nuclear weapons dramatically change the situation.
     
  12. No, please, read the quote (not its interpretation by US newspaper).
    IF enemies of Iran unleash the war
    THEN the war will end by destruction of Israel
    As for other so called Iranian 'threats' then for years I scrutinize accusations made by Western MSM and as a result I see that meaning of exact quotes from speeches of Iranian officials don't contain any threats - only warning.
    You may search internet for days and I'm sure you would find only false interpretations of MSM as a result. As a rule phrases, words are use to be taken from the context.
     
  13. Iraq in the 90's was thought to have one of the best air forces and a very capable air defence. You don't get experience in war unless you have war. So Iraq would have had no military experience and limited AD because it hadn't been to war.

    None of that, like the current Russian supplied AD in Syria stopped the Israeli's or indeed the coalition twice.

    I do find your new found interest in N Korea interesting :)
     
  14. I have. I'll paraphrase "don't you dare attack us on what we think are false accusations as it will lead to a massive war including the destruction of Israel and some gulf states" Its a warning containing a threat to widen the war on gulf states and Israel
    A warning containing a threat
    Unless you read Farsi.......

    The translations seem clear
    As before, Russian google is not as good as capitalist lap dog google :)
     
  15. ,
    My point is he didn't, end of! Or do you want a what ifsky if Patton had turned his guns on the Russians in Berlin? And just how long, given Pyong Yang's predilection for playing ducks and drakes with missiles is it going to be before someone takes action. Answers on a postage stamp.