Military Operations Underway In Iran says Colonel

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
the answer is really very simple, if Iran uses terrorists bombers, the US should start targeting the major city's of Iran.

Fore every american or american allie civillian killed, let Iran lose a city. Start with the most populated and work your way on down. Iran wants to play a game of attrition, lets rock! I wonder how many cites they will lose before they stop.

I admire you passion, but the problem that occurs with this approach is; there is a good society of people within those cities that are not in control of the government that they may oppose. It would be an unfortunate approach to hurt the people that have no choice on what is occuring.

Originally posted by blobby
Yes i noticed Blair said we not going to support the Iran war if it happens, BUT what if Iran lobs missiles over into Iraq and kills Brit units and Soldiers WTF will Blair do then cause im UK and i would sure want to see action taken if Brit units or Soldiers came to harm from Iranian actions for USA strikes, so the Iranians better know wtf they are attacking 1st in Iraq cause it could suck some European Countrys into war if their soldiers are harmed by Iranian counter attacks.

Thats why the US has to prepare for a war. In case the worst scenario occurs. They have to have a plan of action if major unrest occurs in the Gaza strip as a result of bombs in Iran. They have to account for attacks on troops in Iraq. They have to account for Syria poking their nose in the business. I'm sure they thought about it for a long time in the past and continue to each day. At least I hope they are planning. This is a big move to take. If/When there are airstrikes, there will be a lot of wonder over what will happen next. Hopefully nothing but the removal of the ability to create nuclear weapons, an agreement to undergo monitoring and the reinstallation of more cameras. And more importantly, no innocent civilians injured. Thats a lot to hope for.

Sounds like a PR probe to me, cmon pop media and a guy is talking about "covert" activites, and he is prior military (ret. col), what ever. Maybe there are, maybe there arnt, I would wager the latter, what does it matter, we are in alot of peoples back yards (S. America ; Africa ; Asia ; Austraila ; ...)

Originally posted by infinite8

So the question is, Is the US military already creating acts of war in the attempt to spark civil war and create an uprising?

I would say that if the US knows about the situation with the MUK and the aytatollahs in Iran, then the US is aiming on creating a bit of an irritant to the Iranians within their own borders. Creating act of war? Perhaps by doing this, the US is hoping Iran will do something in retaliation to give a pretext for a US attack on Iran. Uprising? Only amongst the Sunni Arab and Sunni Persian communities in predominatly Shia Persian Iran. The MUK would not be enough to topple Iran's government. If anything, it would lead to the Iranians rallying round the government.

The MUK are similar to the religious Sunni factions in Iraq collectively and conveniantly known as 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq'. Like those factions, the MUK have kidnapped, the last incident I heard was of the kidnapping of Iranian soldiers and threatening to behead them.

Sound familiar?

'Terrorists' in Iraq, 'freedom fighters' in Iran.

Funny how these terms are used conveniantly to dismiss in one theatre or circumstance, and advocate in the other theatre and circumstance.

Mujahadeen in Iran.

Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Anyone remember those chaps funded by the CIA? What became of that Bin Laden fellow?

The extreme Sunni belief is that the Shias are not muslims and deserve to die because of the Sunni-Shia split after the Prophet Muhammad's death in which a split arose over who should succeed him. The Sunnis decided it was one man, the Shias decided it was another man.

The extreme Sunnis bomb Shia mosques because of the belief that Shias are dogs for claiming to be Muslim, when according to the Sunnis, they do not believe the right man and his line of successors to be the true succession to Muhammad.

It's the sort of viewpoint that does not really understandably warm Shia Iranians to the MUK.

Further, add that the MUK were used by Saddam to fight a guerilla war against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War....no, they won't be a threat to the Iranian government.

Originally posted by infinite8
If yes, will it be successful, or will the people of Iran hope that this most definite series of air strikes won't occur with the existing rule in power?

Some Iranians want for there to be air strikes to destablise the Iranian government, whilst others against the government feel the government would be rallied around because Iran is being attacked.

People who scream about Iranians signing up to be 'matyrs' fail to see that these Iranians are willing to use one horrible method of warfare in the horror that is war to defend their country if attacked.

Iranians who do this are driven not only by religious fervour, but nationalistic fervour too, the nuclear programme being threatened, India and Pakistan nearby having nukes when the mere suggestion that Iran may get any leads to statements that Iran is a "danger!" and "evil", which some Iranians see as double standards, the thought of their country being attacked, their families bombed.

It can certainly ratchet up anger, these factors.

Originally posted by Regensturm
What became of that Bin Laden fellow?

Well, when he had contact with the CIA, as I'm sure your aware of. He acquired some "CIA" bunker/underground-complex blueprints. If everything adds up the way it should, that construction company he had ties with, probably found good work in a mountain region. Or better, under it. Hence requirements for better "bunker busters".

Originally posted by ADVISOR


Well, when he had contact with the CIA, as I'm sure your aware of. He acquired some "CIA" bunker/underground-complex blueprints. If everything adds up the way it should, that construction company he had ties with, probably found good work in a mountain region. Or better, under it. Hence requirements for better "bunker busters".

Ah, that's where Osama Bin Hiding.

Nonsense, people love being bombed by the USA.

They'll be greeting us with flowers and praising Bush as we bomb them.

Certainly Iranian parents will be swelling with pride after having their kids bombed to smithereens in the name of "freedom!"

... sorry, had a neocon moment...

I say it is a must our goverments must act now and take these mad men out of power even if it means all out war they showed there hand now we must call it and hold back nothing or life as we know it will be changed by madmen you and i know the outcome of iran geting a Nuclear bomb they are going take the usa and uk out.

Think the time has come for our goverments to act

I say it is a must our goverments must act now and take these mad men out of power even if it means all out war they showed there hand now we must call it and hold back nothing or life as we know it will be changed by madmen you and i know the outcome of iran geting a Nuclear bomb they are going take the usa and uk out.

It's going to be a long time before they have a nuke, even longer before they find a method of deploying it.

Now dont get me wrong, i'm not a fan of american foriegn policy but war's a dirty business. IMO a US/UK sponsored uprising would be a better option than any ground led invasion or bombing campaign ever could. the reason for this is, as mentioned earlier, there are already hundreds of thousands of angry Muslims in this country. If a cartoon is going to have them protest in recorded numbers imagine what a blatant preemptive strike would do.

Originally posted by ArchangelOfCool
It's gotta be a messed up country to have found 40,000 people willing to blow themselves up...so basically...lobbing missles from 10,000 miles away? I see no problem with it, if we are getting rid of a nut case country.

yes sacrifice 40k warriors so we can be rid of a the nut case country usa.

Originally posted by bigspud
[yes sacrifice 40k warriors so we can be rid of a the nut case country usa.

Now this type of thinking won't go any good. This is what I would like for the US to avoid, this same mentality. Try your best to seperate a country and the people within it from its leaders. Bigspud, where are you really from? Do you not think that there is a better approach?

An American or British aircraft drops bombs on Iranian targets and kills civilians, who are brushed off as "colatteral damage".. so that's ok then.

An Iranian suicide bomber reacts and kills American or British troops or civilians in retaliation and he's a terrorist?

Sounds a little cockeyed to me. Simple action and reaction. If the Iranians are attacked first without provocation then they will fight back using whatever means they have. I don't support suicide bombings, especially against civilians but what makes the lives of our civvies any more precious than Iranian civvies?

Murder is murder, no matter how it's dressed up or reported.

Civilian lives should be a concern, and I do believe are a concern for the US in their approach to war. Now having said that, I believe this is mostly for diplomatic reasons, not really because they feel it is the best approach. Civilians actually make war extremely difficult. Having to worry about who you shoot and bomb only complicates things during war. Every war or invasion is different though. The approach for Iran is not for the destruction of a country and its people, but for the removal of leadership and the prevention of future nuclear weapon capabilities. This specific case the US has to be careful of whom they hurt.

Looks like there is now a few more operations brought to light and that the Iranians have released more info regarding this to the Asian Times.
www.atimes.com...