Given that this whole conflict is basically based on religious tensions, it certainly make sense for Israel to strike at the religious heart of Islam should they be attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
:smg::surrender2::hmg:
Printable View
Given that this whole conflict is basically based on religious tensions, it certainly make sense for Israel to strike at the religious heart of Islam should they be attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
:smg::surrender2::hmg:
When it comes to SAM systems it is standard procedure to launch more than one missile against a single incoming target. There is none of this 'one shot, one kill' nonsense. The best SAM systems are far from 100% effective so you increase the number of missiles fired to maximize your chance of a kill. The more effective each missile is the fewer you need to fire to ensure a hit. This method is particularly effective against piloted enemy aircraft because even the best pilot has trouble dealing with one SAM, let alone two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Furthermore I believe most SAMs are purposefully not launched simultaneously. By slightly delaying the time between each missile launch (ripple fire) you lower the chance that all of the missiles in your salvo will interfere with one another... while increasing chance that the second or third missile will target & hit the debris created by the successful missile that preceded it (I could swear the Patriot system uses this 'ripple fire' method). This also allows for missiles whose target was terminated to automatically search & track a new target or, depending on the system, be assigned a new target by the fire control radar to avoid wastage (I believe the Aegis system is capable of this). So that's probably why many Patriot missiles targeted falling debris from Scud kills, they were simply doing what they were programmed to do; acquiring and terminating the nearest target.
FYI, the Patriot system has been improved greatly since the first Gulf War.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
Israel and the US love the myth that Iran is desperate to wipe them off the map. It justifies their own aggression and threats in the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Can you point to a speech in the past year or two where President Ajay DIDN'T specifically threaten to wipe Israel off the map? The phrase itself, "wipe them off the map", it's HIS. He put it into popular usage as it applies to Israel. How is that a self-perpetrated myth generated by Israel & the USA?
I'm really curious, Idaho. A guy walks up to you on the street with a carving knife and threatens your life .... you chuckle at him, pat him on the head and say "you don't really mean it" ???:dizzy2: When you call the cops on him, you overreacted ???:dizzy2:
As I recall, he didn't use those words, but there was something in a translation. If only I could find the article...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
EDIT: Wiki will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...22_translation
Quote:
The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the confusion:
One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.
Don't quibble , if Don wants to keep "quoting" words that were never said then let him .Quote:
As I recall, he didn't use those words,
Whats even funnier is the non quote Don saysisn't even his .Quote:
it's HIS.
The quote (the real one not the one Don "quotes") was not HIS as dinnerjacket was quoting someone else who is dead .
Well you could try MEMRI that Israeli propoganda outfit , if even they don't have the same quote as Don it should be pretty conclusive:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
If only I could find the article...
Oh and you might just discover that in their translation they attribute the actual quote to the person who said it many many years ago , he is dead now but I think I may have mentioned that .
Barking. Nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Hoy maloy. Okay, you got me, Tribesman. Since he doesn't give speeches in English, President Ahmadinejad never technically used the phrase 'wiped off the map'. What he has said in Farsi has been translated to mean that, however.
I mean, Spiegel, that CIA propganda machine, can't be telling the truth.
Hmmm
And Micheal Bloomberg is Jewish, so this MUST be part of the Zionist conspiracy:
Double Hmm.
And dammit all, Mossad must have infiltrated The Independent. Hmm yet again.
But hey, I'm sure you're right. He has no hostility, poses no threat to Israel. I mean, when he says: Israel will disappear, he really means "what a nice bunch of young Jewish lads over there".
So, much like there are "No homosexuals in Iran", there surely is nothing for Israel to fear.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=35
He doesn't pose any threat to Israel, besides working with Hezbollah. Why?
1) Iran is not strong enough. Any attack on Israel will meet a response along the lines of creating a new resort on the side of Lake Tehran.
2) Iran is not that stupid.
Well done Don , in trying to defend your "quote" that was never said you go on to use another "quote" that was never said :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hey Don you can provide whole volume of news articles using those same words , but if they are not what was said they are not what was said .
BTW it isn't a "technicality" as you put it . It is simply that what you are using in "" is not what was said in any language .
BTW2 can you guess who it was that dinnerjacket was quoting ? as in quoting not "quoting" when he said that , a good clue might be found in your 4th link .:yes:
I don't know what you're trying to say, Tribesman, and I'm in no mood to try to figure it out.
Sometimes you're not supposedly allegedly negatively inversely the opposite of the converse of the obstruction of the obtusion of something and you should definitely maybe possibly invariably unlikely know just what that something might be.
Yep, understood you too there, Chief. Iran poses no threat to anybody. Ajay is all about peace. :2thumbsup: :hippie:
But, if you translate it instead as "Israel should vanish from the pages of history" it just sounds so much nicer than 'wiped off the map'. Totally changes the meaning doesnt it? :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Post #35Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Iran is hardly a peaceful nation, but I disagree that they're a significant threat. They're just not powerful enough to stand up to Israel alone, much less America and Israel.Quote:
Yep, understood you too there, Chief. Iran poses no threat to anybody. Ajay is all about peace. :2thumbsup: :hippie:
But as that isn't what was said either what was your point again ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
But, if you translate it instead as "Israel should vanish from the pages of history" it just sounds so much nicer than 'wiped off the map'. Totally changes the meaning doesnt it?
Come on Xiahou give the proper quote and then try and explain how your governments stance on the issue is so very different:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So reading the link that EMFM supplied (thank you, btw) in post #35, Iran's offiical information minsitry said that what Ajay said meant was 'wipe Israel off the map', turns out it doesn't, Tribesman is on everyone for not speaking fluent Farsi so that we would know what Ajay actually said, and Idaho blames the USA and Israel in an anti-Iranian propaganda move for the misunderstanding.
God I love the Backroom on Friday afternoons. Makes me really need that quittin time beer. ~:cheers:
Drudge Reports
A big charade? Yes.
A threat to Israel and US interests? Undecided.
Awesome. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Ahmadinejad has clarified his statement time and again. Because I don't want to do the work that the usual rightwing suspects in this thread are too lazy for, let me just point to the Wiki:
Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.Idaho is right that the U.S. and Israel are the agressors on the ground as well as in diplomacy and in public statements. That is why Iran needs the atomic bomb. I hope Iran will demonstrate its possession of a nuclear device one of these days and then we can put this circus behind us.
I don't know if it's as cut and dry as you and Idaho would have it, Adrian. I do agree that the US and Israel act pretty beligerently towards Iran, and we do a lot of things privately that we claim publicly we would never do. But it strikes me as a two way street, and Iran gives as good as it gets.
And you're really looking forward to Iran having the bomb, huh? You don't see Hezbollah getting their hands on a bomb weeks after Iran does?
What nuclear missiles? Iran doesn't have nukes much less nuclear missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The Iranian missile test is in response to an Israeli wargame where they demonstrated (using 900 aircraft) that the had the capability to perform an air strike on an Iranian nuclear facility. The missile test had a failure and only included one missile capable of reaching israel (not very threatening), and yet they talk a lot of bluster. That's what DA is laughing at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Quote:
"We want to tell the world that those who conduct their foreign policy by using the language of threat against Iran have to know that our finger is always on the trigger and we have hundreds and even thousands of missiles ready to be fired against predetermined targets," Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the Revolutionary Guard ground forces, said on state TV.
The USSR and Saddam were the examples given (before the pages of history line) of regimes that seemed permanent but were now gone. I'm going by the MEMRI translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Which goes to show that you are headless indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Most of the American bravado in this thread reflects some deep insecurity about the need or wisdom to engage in yet another intractable, extremely costly local war over a bunch of intelligence mistakes or lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
When and where did I write this....:inquisitive:
Though the chap has more than a fair point in Israel collapsing on its own in the somewhat near future. Massive sociological and religious strains on their politics.
Iranian development of a nuclear warhead or three, along with the development of a platform that can reach some target of value to the USA [Tel Aviv, the Saudi Oil fields, etc.] is a logical step in according themselves better treatment and better security. With the threat of a nuclear reprisal, the use of punitive air strikes and the like by the USA would be much less likely. As the USA simply doesn't have the "boots" needed to conquer Iran and topple its regime in a conventional conflict, stopping the air strike risk will enhance security and stability for the existing regime and allow them to project power, tweak the US's nose, etc. with much greater freedom. Moreover, possession of such weapons almost always means better treatment diplomatically by the USA as well as regional neighbors (many of whom are not close friends of the shiite regime in Iran. Iran's continuing efforts are a highly rational response to the current situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
US fears center around weapon security. I'd be willing to bet that few in our government truly think the Iranian regime to be unstable enough to develop a weapon and launch it as a first strike at Israel to start the next pogromattic war. Our real fears are that as weapons spread, sooner or later a weapon will slip through the security of the nation state possessing it and become a tool for some terrorist NGO. Such a group would be well served in USING the weapon, which a nation-state might not for fear of reprisal, and we're reasonably certain that the USA or GB would be the target -- not an end result we'd like to see.
Would you be including me in this group, because if so, I'm not communicating my views very well at all. I don't feel much bravado, I have a creeping sense of doom that nuclear war is about 6 years away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I know Ajay has played foot loose and fancy free with "Did I threaten them, or didn't I", but do you really think all his statements are more a matter of predicting a self-inflicted implosion within the Israeli government? I'm seriously asking, not making a point here.
I know our media seizes on anything he says and sexes it up some. And I do notice a lot of parallels to the sort of press Iran gets now and the press Iraq was getting in the Fall of 2002. But I also know Iran has been getting it for a long while, and thus far, it hasn't come to much.
Do you think our government (and the Brits, and the Israelis, and truth be told, yours, to a lesser extent) are pulling a 'Polish Invasion' on Iran?
For the record, I DO understand Iran's desire to join the nuclear club, and I wouldn't deny it to them. It would in many ways be a great stabalizer to have a nuclear power in the Mideast besides Israel, but even if it wasn't pragmatic for me, as a sovereign nation, self defense is their right. But I am deeply afraid that the Iranians would actually release an albeit small but fusible device to Hizbollah or Hamas, probably just enough to get the world's attention, but not cause any real disasters, directly. But then what? :skull:
Do you really think that your own President believes that a "war on terrorism" can ever be won? I guess we will never know the answer to such questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
For comparison, look at Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Syria has the military capacity to destroy the entire Israeli population through chemical means, specifically chemically loaded missiles. It has had this capacity for at least two decades now. Yet not a single capsule of poison gas has ever been released by any of Syria's terrorist connections.
Why do you think that is?
If Iran didn't have a history of financing & supporting terrorist groups in the region and wasn't enriching uranium and developing and procuring intermediate ranged missiles do you think the US or Israel would give as big a damn over their threats and propaganda, much less make a huge international stink over them? Whether this 'myth' is real or imagined can Israel (and to a much lesser extent the US) afford to ignore it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What does Israel have to gain from wiping out Iran? Cheap real estate? Nope. Oil? Nope. Arable land? Nope. Water? Nope. Raw materials? Nope. Clearly Israel is reacting to conditions which it believes will lead to a situation where it will be under direct threat of nuclear weapons. Iran's repeated saber rattling with respect to Israel goes back much farther than our little adventure in Iraq. If Iran's threats directed at Israel are its own weird way of getting back at the US then they're clearly playing with fire. Historically Israel has shown that it is quite willing to go after any threat that it believes will pose a serious threat to its existence, especially after being attacked several times since its creation.
Considering you're not the God fearing/spiritual type I find it odd that you insist on looking at this situation using a black and white compass of morality or weighing it on some cosmic karmic scales. Whatever Israel did or did not do to its Arab neighbors in the past (i.e. its 'aggression') the idea that it is supposed to sit back and let a Persian nation openly threaten it while deploying medium range missles and refining uranium because of some perceived karmic payback for current & past sins is ridiculous. Israel feels seriously threatened and it is taking steps to eliminate the threat, period. The US happens to be an ally of Israel and is taking measures to protect its own interests in the region.
:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You sure those aren't Patriots, Lemur?