Jump to content

Recent Topics
Next Previous
Photo

General terrorism thread 2017

- - - - - terrorism

  • Please log in to reply
211 replies to this topic

#201
kelarius

kelarius

    Forum Legend

  • Legacy Members
  • 1248 posts
  • LocationSomeplace you are not.

So I know I said I'm not debating any more but I will continue to provide news.

We have just seen a very important event occur in the future of the middle east. ISIS attacks the iranian parliament.

http://www.independe...n-a7776411.html

This is a ww3 potential starting event.

 

Why do you think it's going to be WW3? ISIS is far from a global power and they're just turning pretty much everyone against them


I lurk, therefore I am.


#202
Wyzrd

Wyzrd

    ...

  • Legacy Members
  • 3241 posts
1. The Obama admimistration has been funding ISIS indirectly to destabilize syria. Trump may... or may not be. His administration has been... or perhaps has given the appearence of being schizophrenic on this count.

2. It gives Iran excuse to expand into Syria and Iraq, just as 9/11 allowed us to hit Afghanistan. Unlike Afghanistan, this is just over the border for Iran.

This leads to 3.

3. America, in my opinion, is unlikely to allow Iran to expand and gain power within the region, as their foreign policy has had a goal of consistently opposing any sort of arab hegemonic power*.

So there you have it... a tinderbox waiting for a spark. Much depends on irans next move. They also it should be noted have one of the largest standing militaries in the world.

*(Apart from our bestest friends isreal.)

#203
Tarnagh

Tarnagh

    Eldest

  • Legacy Members
  • 8664 posts
  • LocationArkham Assisted Living Center & Shoggoth Refuge

Accurate enough, but I would also factor in the fact that we* have been using Middle Eastern countries to fight proxy wars for us for decades. I don't see any reason to think it's any different now... other than to question whether or not these wars will remain "proxy" and for how much longer.

 

The assassination of an Archduke was the catalyst for WWI... not because people were particularly fond of Ferdinand but because of the treaties amongst the various countries involved at that time. We might find the same to be true here and now.

 

*The US & Russia


It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.

Maybe we should make a universal rule that teal is now the sarcasm colour.

 


#204
Wyzrd

Wyzrd

    ...

  • Legacy Members
  • 3241 posts

Yes. Iran is a big enough 'proxy' that it legitimately could impose its will on the entire region. They now have an excuse, and Russia has their back.



#205
kelarius

kelarius

    Forum Legend

  • Legacy Members
  • 1248 posts
  • LocationSomeplace you are not.

1. The Obama admimistration has been funding ISIS indirectly to destabilize syria. Trump may... or may not be. His administration has been... or perhaps has given the appearence of being schizophrenic on this count.

2. It gives Iran excuse to expand into Syria and Iraq, just as 9/11 allowed us to hit Afghanistan. Unlike Afghanistan, this is just over the border for Iran.

This leads to 3.

3. America, in my opinion, is unlikely to allow Iran to expand and gain power within the region, as their foreign policy has had a goal of consistently opposing any sort of arab hegemonic power*.

So there you have it... a tinderbox waiting for a spark. Much depends on irans next move. They also it should be noted have one of the largest standing militaries in the world.

*(Apart from our bestest friends isreal.)

 

1. I would like to see some (non TFH) proof of that accusation please.

 

2. Iran may have relatively easy access to Iraq however they would have to go through most of the Iraqi army, which happens to be in the area, to get to where ISIS is, let alone Syria. This would require a major invasion on the Iran's part, which also brings me to 

 

3. The US would oppose, effectively, an invasion of Iraq by Iran, and likely with heavy international support. China would stay out and Russia would be alone in their half hearted monetary support, the rest of the Middle East would fall into line with the US, just like in the Iran-Iraq war as the last thing ANYONE in that part of the world wants is Iranian hegemony. 


I lurk, therefore I am.


#206
Hell Fury

Hell Fury

    Infinitum terminus

  • Moderators
  • 3543 posts
  • LocationWestern Australia, Perth
Nothing has changed in terms of mutually assured destruction so I don't see how or why we would have a world war any more than in the last ~80 odd years.

It's fun to theory craft about how x will lead to y which will cause z but when Z is nuclear warfare, I don't believe it's going to happen.

Without a doubt we'll see a lot of really convincing sabre rattling and posturing but it's all sound and fury while the status quo is still unbreakable.

Please note that any statement I make automatically acknowledges exceptions, not all X are Y.

 

Please assume that I agree with you that not all X are Y.

 

Thank you.


#207
Tarnagh

Tarnagh

    Eldest

  • Legacy Members
  • 8664 posts
  • LocationArkham Assisted Living Center & Shoggoth Refuge

Yes. Iran is a big enough 'proxy' that it legitimately could impose its will on the entire region. They now have an excuse, and Russia has their back.

 

Believe it or not, I was agreeing with you. My point was that WWI started primarily because of treaty and/or pact obligations by the countries involved... which is entirely possible today as well. 


  • Wyzrd and Bisected8 like this

It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.

Maybe we should make a universal rule that teal is now the sarcasm colour.

 


#208
wistd

wistd

    Forum myth

  • Legacy Members
  • 9096 posts
  • LocationGlasgow

Believe it or not, I was agreeing with you.

 

Well, not that probably is a portent of the coming apocalypse. :tongue: 

 

As for this leading to WW3, I'm with HF on this.


We've already boiled communication down to acronyms, emoticons and shrtnd sntnces, all of which are simply more efficient ways of transmitting the PLEASE AUTHENTICATE MY EXISTENCE signal from the fragile core of our souls out into the wider world. Maybe the next stage is to reduce it all down to a single noise. I'd favour a short, electronic beep, not unlike the noise emitted each time Pac-Man eats a dot.

#209
Wyzrd

Wyzrd

    ...

  • Legacy Members
  • 3241 posts
Ww3 might be a little extreme. I'll walk it back a bit.

If Iran goes hard after ISIS, which they now have the excuse to do, it could set of a fairly massive, multifaceted war in the region involving 4+ nation states.

The only people who could feasibly oppose Iran if they decide to go hard, are isreal and the united states itself, and if either of those sides get involved the chain reaction of consequences could be severe.

Also, mutually assured destruction is a great concept. Its a strong concept. But its worth remembering, it only needs to fail once... so personally I think it would be unwise to get too comfy relying on it.

#210
Piestein

Piestein

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

So what you mean is that this war just got way worse just when we thought it was already horrible?



#211
Wyzrd

Wyzrd

    ...

  • Legacy Members
  • 3241 posts
Potentially, yes. Everything hinges on Iran, and perhaps cooler heads will prevail. I dont want to call doomsday for sure yet.

But Iranian politicians are serious people, with a deep love of their own people and nation. I can't really see them following the western model of "light up a few buildings, and pray for X" method of responding to terrorism... especially an attack on their parliament, and the tomb of one of the most revered men of their revolution.

Time will tell. Anything could happen, but
potentially this could be the most significant terrorist attack in geopolitical terms, since 9/11 in my estimation.
  • Tarnagh likes this

#212
kelarius

kelarius

    Forum Legend

  • Legacy Members
  • 1248 posts
  • LocationSomeplace you are not.

I think that Iran would still be pretty isolated if they actually invaded Iraq to get at ISIS. They could probably pull off some missile or air strikes without getting anyone too worked up, and I think that's the most likely scenario, however if they try to actually go after them on the ground they just don't have the support. Worst case scenario, I see something akin to GW1 here, Iran invades Iraq to get at ISIS and "Stabilize" the situation, the rest of the world (minus Russia) tells them to fuck off and pushes them out. Trump would undoubtedly be in favor of a ground war, it would get the spotlight off of him for 5 minutes.


I lurk, therefore I am.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: news, terrorism

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users