Reminder: Iran Warns of Preemptive Strike to Prevent Attack on Nuclear Sites

More than a year ago Iran warned that they may employ preemptive strikes to protect against attacks on their nuclear facilities.

Aug 18, 2004
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned Wednesday that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

Continued....

With the rhetoric rising to new levels, and several events coming together in the next year like Israels estimation on when Iran might have nukes, open threats from the Israeli politicians, and the expected delivery of advanced Russian SAMs, Iran certainly knows that if America/Israel are going to attack it will be before another year passes.

In order to pre-empt the western preventative attack it would have to be coming very soon.

Dozens of Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles, and thousands of Barefoot Cruise Missiles could be launched soon in defense of the Iranian Republic.

in a few seconds this thread will trurn into

Iran will be wiped off the MAP
Iran will be nuked back to the stone age
Iran dont have the power to defend its self
Iran forces are *****
and so forth

back to topic

didnt saddam say the same thing?
Iran do have the forces lets see if they will use them

After what we have seen from the Iranian President who is peace loving and extremely well respected even by Israel. Its a wonder why Israel and the U.S. is pretty much concerned. Of course attacking the American troops is the logical step since they are standing in the way of the true goal which is the destruction of Israel which the Iranian President seems to be proudly spouting out to the world public.

well such an action would give the US an excuse to invade.

deltaboy yet you forget the iraninan president is nothing and holds no true power so no matter how stupid he is in the end he is just mouth unlike another retard of a president who does hold greater power
and you forget to mention he doesnt speak for all iranians

so easy with their goal to destroy isreal

[edit on 19-12-2005 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
deltaboy yet you forget the iraninan president is nothing and holds no true power so no matter how stupid he is in the end he is just mouth unlike another retard of a president who does hold greater power
and you forget to mention he doesnt speak for all iranians

so easy with their goal to destroy isreal

[edit on 19-12-2005 by bodrul]

OK, can I get that in English now?????? When George Bush says something stupid - as we know he does on occassion - he is quickly rebuked by those "Other" power holders that I think you alluded to. However, it appears as if the most reverend President of Iran, with all of his infinite wisdom, has the complete support of those "Others" with the power, eh? Wouldn't that, in and of itself, indicate that perhaps this man is threat to peace and freedom everywhere?

Originally posted by kozmo

OK, can I get that in English now???

??? When George Bush says something stupid - as we know he does on occassion

- he is quickly rebuked by those "Other" power holders that I think you alluded to. However, it appears as if the most reverend President of Iran, with all of his infinite wisdom, has the complete support of those "Others" with the power, eh? Wouldn't that, in and of itself, indicate that perhaps this man is threat to peace and freedom everywhere?

what u saying i cant get what u said
could you retype with paragarpahs and spaces

just got some of it
read my reply again

iraninan president is nothing and holds no true power so no matter how stupid he is

i refer both as idiots just one has the power to do something about it

And who have the "true" power, the Ayatollahs? Dont they share the same view as the Iranian president. For example banning the music like in my post at current invents. Sounds just like one of the Ayatollahs. He just dont have long beards and the hat as the Ayatollahs do.

Originally posted by deltaboy
And who have the "true" power, the Ayatollahs? Dont they share the same view as the Iranian president. For example banning the music like in my post at current invents. Sounds just like one of the Ayatollahs. He just dont have long beards and the hat as the Ayatollahs do.

before i reply prop what does this mean

For example banning the music like in my post at current invents.

Iran Warns of Preemptive Strike to Prevent Attack on Nuclear Sites

Geez, ArchAngel, would this not be interpreted as a --->sneak attack

Originally posted by Seekerof
Iran Warns of Preemptive Strike to Prevent Attack on Nuclear Sites

Geez, ArchAngel, would this not be interpreted as a sneak attack that Iran is thinking of doing?!

seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

to try and prevent the sneak attack that Israel want to do???

Yeah, Harlequin, something like that. Hit the link I provided with the word sneak attack, then associate it with how ArchAngel plays with words [semantics] in relation to Iran then in relation to Israel, k? Must be ArchAngel's denied antisemitic "true colors shining thru."

Cause I find it strange that all Israel can do is commit sneak attacks yet lo and behold, Iran can do pre-emptive strikes.

Semantics example of blatant hypocrisy in this topic on Iran:

Originally posted by ArchAngel
In order to pre-empt the western preventative attack it would have to be coming very soon.

Semantics example of blatant hypocrisy in the linked topic on Israel:

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The 1967 invasion was a sneak attack if there ever was one. There may have been other reasons, but there always are.

As the aggressor later claiming self defence the Israelies have no right to anything more than what they had before the sneak attack.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You better look up the definition of pre-emptive.

seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Yeah, Harlequin, something like that. Hit the link I provided with the word sneak attack, then associate it with how ArchAngel plays with words [semantics] in relation to Iran then in relation to Israel, k? Must be ArchAngel's denied antisemitic "true colors shining thru."

All taken out of context.

If Iran does strike first, and does not announce their intentions first it would be a sneak attack.

If they believe an attack from America, or Israel is imminent a sneak attack could be pre-emptive.

If their intentions are aggressive, and they occupy land that was not theirs before the conflict began then they would be the aggressors, and the claims of preemptive defense would be moot.


The RESULTS show Israels intents were hostile when they invaded in a sneak attack.

The two situations here cannot be compared because it has not happened yet.

If it does happen, and Iran takes land then I would agree that they were aggressors.

But even if they did Iran would give the people citizenship, unlike Israel.....

... If Iran did hit Israel, I dont think The US would win...
they might win the physical struggle... but after they drop nukes.. force the draft which causes.. mass.... and I mean MASS public 'resistance', completely ruin there foreign affairs matters with various OIL countries causing mass economic collapse...

Iran I think knows this, if the US really starts pumping out the same rhetoric we heard from Iraq, maybe they'll just say the hell with it, why wait for Shock and Awe, lets start this fight under our rules?

hmmmmm...

Hard to be taken "out of context" when examples are provided and linked.

:shk:





seekerof



[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Iran I think knows this, if the US really starts pumping out the same rhetoric we heard from Iraq, maybe they'll just say the hell with it, why wait for Shock and Awe, lets start this fight under our rules?

What nation in the world has greater reason to fear a military attack than Iran?

What other nation would have greater claim to 'preemptive strike' than them in a sneak attack?

Sink a few carriers and they could make America think twice about spreading even thinner by occupying Iran after losing a large chunk of strategic strike force.

But, as with Iraq, if Iran is invaded the worst part will be the occupation facing thousands of Barefoot Cruise Missiles.

Hard to be taken "out of context" when examples are provided and linked.

Preemptive and sneak attack are not mutually exclusive.

Why not paste that quote?

Preemptive is founded on the idea of self defense which is defeated by aggression after the initial attack.

Israel is still occupying land populated with millions of people two generations after they invaded in a sneak attack.

That is not defense.

Iran, and Israel do not compare as you would like to imply.

Had Israel withdrawn from all occupied territory I would happily admit that it was a defensive preemptive attack, but we all know they did not.

Israel was the aggressor in that war, but the upcoming conflict debated here Iran would be the defender.

bark is worse than the bite

Originally posted by ArchAngel
What nation in the world has greater reason to fear a military attack than Iran?

Certainly is not Israel or the US.
Attacking either will assure Iran's inevitable fate and is exactly what Israel and the US would love to see Iran mistakenly do. I have said it once and I will say it again, the US is not seeking to invade Iran and never has. As such, and in relation to this topic of an Iranian SNEAK ATTACK *cough*, errr pre-emptive strike, the US will sit back and simply pound Iran into the next century, something that those barefoot cruise missiles have no defense against.

What other nation would have greater claim to 'preemptive strike' than them in a sneak attack?

You tell us.

Sink a few carriers and they could make America think twice about spreading even thinner by occupying Iran after losing a large chunk of strategic strike force

Iran will never get close enough to sink a "few carriers".
Nothing more than continued rhetoric of those who think they are in the know.

But, as with Iraq, if Iran is invaded the worst part will be the occupation facing thousands of Barefoot Cruise Missiles.

In all the topics relating to the US and Iran, there has never been one that has presented any type credible evidences that the US was looking or seeking to invade Iran. Speculation continues I see. Since we are in speculation mode, as I have asserted time and time again, the US will not invade Iran; the US is not seeking to invade Iran. If Iran instigates a military attack against either Israel or the US, Iran will be pulverized like a sledgehammer to stone. It is called stand-off warfare and has historically shown to be quite devastating and effective.






seekerof

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Preemptive and sneak attack are not mutually exclusive.

Tell you what ArchAngel, how about you explain both to all of us?
At least educate me, cause obviously those numerous links I provided from .edu sites and other credible sourcing stating what a pre-emptive strike is versus a sneak attack are meaningless.

Why not paste that quote?

Already did.

Preemptive is founded on the idea of self defense which is defeated by aggression after the initial attack.

Been discussed already.
Not going to go back into redundant discussion with you, especially when you did not understand what I or others were trying to get you to understand the first time.

Israel is still occupying land populated with millions of people two generations after they invaded in a sneak attack.

This is not defense.

Been thru this as well. Redundant.

Iran, and Israel do not compare as you would like to imply.

Hypocrite and semantics comes to mind.

Had Israel withdrawn from all occupied territory I would happily admit that it was a defensive preemptive attack, but we all know they did not.

Israel was the aggressor in that war, but the upcoming conflict debated here Iran would be the defender.

And again, been redundantly discussed. The link to the particular topic thread was linked in this topic.






seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]