Brill
SOF Support
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
One more thing about Ho Chi Minh: I am, I repeat, NOT a Ho Chi Minh apologist. There are those who believe that both Patti and Thomas were sincere but out of their depth; Ho was charming but a brilliant strategist who told Westerners what they wanted to hear in service to his ultimate goals. There are many who believe to this day that Ho was a Leninist communist and furthermore, a dedicated agent to and from the Soviets.
At any rate, no matter what Ho's true convictions, he wasn't a benevolent leader of Vietnam or a fun time for the United States. I'm not a fan.
I can't help but wonder, as do others, if at least exploring some option with his early correspondence could have lead to a different outcome- but I'm not a fan.
At any rate, no matter what Ho's true convictions, he wasn't a benevolent leader of Vietnam or a fun time for the United States. I'm not a fan.
I can't help but wonder, as do others, if at least exploring some option with his early correspondence could have lead to a different outcome- but I'm not a fan.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
Bullshit is not charm.
The "disagreement" is that you are talking shit about what I quoted from you.
Clearly you didn't do what I suggested you do and google the untrue statements that you spouted on here. Instead you went on a side tracked long winded blather about Ho Chi Minh.
DON'T Highjack the thread, keep it on topic. Understood?
Let me clarify things as you seem incapable of comprehending the obvious in this case.
1st point. The Industrial Revolution was long over before WWI even started.
2nd point. The modern assembly line started in 1913. That is pre WWI, NOTHING to do with WWII.
That is the bullshit, untruths you were trying to spread here.
Don't do that!
Understood?
You're not offending me, you're pissing me off by breaking the house rules of posting bullshit, and highjacking a serious thread, and just blathering on like someone in the early stages of senility when called out about doing so.
Stop it!
Shas...(irony there guys)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-threat-us-policymakers-admit-iran-is-defending-itself/5436937
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-threat-us-policymakers-admit-iran-is-defending-itself/5436937
The Rand Corporation seems to have a lot more confidence in Iran's Revolutionary Guards than Netanyahu does. The fact that they've done a bang-up job containing Iran's arsenal of WMDs so far doesn't mean they'll be so restrained once they have a nuclear backbone. At the heart of the IRG is jihad. Dealing with Iran depends, I think, upon how you interpret its reliability.
Heard an interesting opinion from a high level executive at a commodity trading firm in regards to Iran and their quest for nukes. He believes Iran's primary desire for the nuke is far from destroying Israel. He thinks oil fields, pipelines, and refineries of surrounding Arab countries would be the first targets.
A few questions for anyone willing to give feedback:
- Is this actually Iran's primary reason for nuclear development?
- How would the United States and allies react to Iranian nuclear strikes? Likelihood of direct intervention?
- Would Iran actually be able to benefit from this? (would such a sudden drop in supply deem international sanctions ineffective because of countries lacking other buying options?)
Reason for posting: I'm a student with an extreme interest in geopolitics and energy (about to enter the industry as a trader). These forums provide great insight by people who have a much greater understanding behind militaristic motives than some CEO. I understand the nature of these forums and I'm half expecting responses to be inline with "piss off kid, do some googling" but any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
*Intro post completed two years ago and have avidly followed ever since.
A few questions for anyone willing to give feedback:
- Is this actually Iran's primary reason for nuclear development?
- How would the United States and allies react to Iranian nuclear strikes? Likelihood of direct intervention?
- Would Iran actually be able to benefit from this? (would such a sudden drop in supply deem international sanctions ineffective because of countries lacking other buying options?)
Reason for posting: I'm a student with an extreme interest in geopolitics and energy (about to enter the industry as a trader). These forums provide great insight by people who have a much greater understanding behind militaristic motives than some CEO. I understand the nature of these forums and I'm half expecting responses to be inline with "piss off kid, do some googling" but any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
*Intro post completed two years ago and have avidly followed ever since.
What it all boils down to quite simply is Iran, the threats they've made in the past, their ties to terrorists. And those, are the last ones on earth, who ever need to get their hands on a nuke, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with Bibi. And FWIW, it's not the people of Iran, it's those in their government, who say one thing on a given day and flip flop on it the next. They've long established the same sword wielding and saber rattling as NK and others. If it ever stops, and they begin to show consistency, more than likely it will be because they now have a nuke or........have a change in regime to something and someone more moderate.
Unless something changes, Iran will always be a threat and should be treated as such.
Unless something changes, Iran will always be a threat and should be treated as such.
Brill
SOF Support
Their belief that Middle East turmoil will predicate the Mahdi's arrival is troubling. Shia's want the Mahdi to come...in order for him to show up, there must be trials and tribulations, fire and brimstone, etc...an irradiated Israel and following warfare would SURELY cause his arrival.
That is scary.
That is scary.
Nations (and people) don't always act in their self interest. It doesn't matter WHY Iran wants the bomb it only matters IF they have the bomb. Possessing nukes is a game changer for a number of reasons. Using a nuke ANYWHERE would cause the West to collectively lose its mind and bomb, bomb, bomb. Iran would cease to exist and even a conventional response would result a decent amount of Persian population control. Let's be honest, Syria's use of WMD didn't cause any great alarm, but a nuke? That's Pandora's box. Benefit from using a nuke? Land would be a buyer's market in the deploying country.
I don't think Iran wants a nuke to use, it wants a nuke for deterrence, pride, and dick measuring.
Ok, I'm with you on the multifaceted "why" but still interested in the likelihood of deployment of nuclear weapons if acquired. With the Shia's desire to usher in the apocalypse, how long do you think they sit on their nukes as deterrents? And lets say one of their terror proxy groups deploys it, does that change the Western response or would we still swiftly bring them the brimstone and fire they desire?
I'd like to think that if Jesus deployed a nuke we'd level Bethlehem.
Going back to your oil field theory, I don't think their designs matter. With a nuke they believe they'll sit at the adult's table and that provides them with greater leverage politically, economically, and domestically. They'll have to rattle the sabre's just enough so we think they'll use it, but not enough to warrant a military response.
Even if they did use the nuke to further some crazy-assed end game we couldn't stop it and that's why killing the program now matters. I think we'll end up with a version of the PK- India situation but with less peace of mind.
Nothing in Shia orthodoxy says that they want to hasten the return of the Mahdi. They wait and prepare themselves, but they don't believe that their personal actions can bring about the Mahdi's return.
Good to hear. If I remember correctly, this is in contrast to Sunni doctrines that believe they'll actively usher it in? (ISIS fought hard to obtain and now control plains in Western Syria where they believe they'll meet the armies of Rome and begin the apocalypse)
Both Sunni and Shia believe in the Mahdi. "Mahdi" just means "Guided", though it's used in reference to *some* kind of messianic figure at the end of days. It's a pretty central concept to Islamic eschatology, along with the second coming of Jesus, and the antichrist, and a few others I can't remember. The five main schools of Sunni jurisprudence believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born, and they're not in any hurry for it to happen. Shia believe that the Mahdi is the 12th Imam, Muahmmad al-Mahdi (sometimes called "The Hidden Imam"), who supposedly went into hiding a little over 1000 years ago. There are somewhere between 10 and 75 signs, both major and minor, that supposedly herald the coming of the Sufyan (some kind of Muslim tyrant from Damascus) and then the Mahdi right before the final battle. There are some that you would kind of expect from apocalyptic portents, such as "Estrangement of Islam" and "Mecca will be attacked and the Kaaba will be destroyed". Some are just strange, like "The Euphrates will uncover a mountain of gold" and "A man obeys his wife and disobeys his mother; and treats his friend kindly whilst shunning his father". Not really sure what those are about, but they all come from the Hadith.
I remember some new piece last year about ISIS expressing a desire to destroy the Kaaba, which is one of the portents. I don't know if that's their intent, but that would be a super stupid thing to do. If I recall, the report was also unverified, so who knows?
I remember some new piece last year about ISIS expressing a desire to destroy the Kaaba, which is one of the portents. I don't know if that's their intent, but that would be a super stupid thing to do. If I recall, the report was also unverified, so who knows?
Brill
SOF Support
You sure about that? Why does ISIL fly the black flag?
I'm going to link that shit here but youtube is FULL of propaganda videos that mujahids from Khorasan will carry the black banner of tawhid to Al Quds. A nuke would allow an enemy army "to be swallowed by the earth" and poof: Mahdi is up in here!
ISIL isn't Shia. Like, not even close.
EDIT: Okay, I see what you mean. The black flag obviously has historical precedence, but references in the Hadith are usually considered "weak" or "inaccurate" due to problems within the isnad. Are you referring to a specific Hadith? The only one I could find rated as "authentic" came from a Sunni Hadith collection.
Last edited:
Brill
SOF Support
Argh...made corrections but Chrome crashed and since this is about Islam, I've lost interest.
The black flag will come from Khorasan, Ummah will be at war with itself, Syria will be in ruins, Iraq in chaos, then "it" happens. These dipshits believe we are IN the end days.
Shit right out of Ghostbusters.
Oh totally. Part of the problem with typifying Salafi groups is that they can kinda define themselves however they feel. They don't have a school of jurisprudence (well, sort of) and outright reject Hadith Science (Ilm al-Hadith).
Last edited:
