Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Good. Now consider an Iran that harbors terrorists and acquires nukes.

Where's the connection? You think the Iranians won't be able to protect their nuclear arsenal from the prying hands of terrorists?

I'm trying to understand: the Iranians keep their terrorists under control, and only allow them a few attacks on Israel. Why would they suddenly allow them to perform a nuclear terrorist strike?

[Az]

I'm trying to understand: the Iranians keep their terrorists under control, and only allow them a few attacks on Israel. Why would they suddenly allow them to perform a nuclear terrorist strike?

Doesn't matter. Do you really want Iran with such an amount of geopolitical power?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
Doesn't matter. Do you really want Iran with such an amount of geopolitical power?

I don't want Iran with nukes, because Iran has a strong potential for being rules by unpredictable nutcases. If Iran has nukes, the real danger will come from their leaders more than from their terrorists.

But the connection between nukes and the harboring of terrorists is very slim. I don't expect the Iranian government to trust nukes in the hands of terrorists;

[Az]

But the connection between nukes and the harboring of terrorists is very slim. I don't expect the Iranian government to trust nukes in the hands of terrorists;

Depends. "Hizbullah" is practically a branch of the Iranian regime. I wouldn't see any problem with them recieving nukes ( from the Iranian perspective, that is. )

[dannubis]

i don't know about that.

teheran could end up glowing in the dark from an israeli counter strike (with the nuclear weapons which officially don't exist of course)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BeBro
Didn't read all the posts since yesterday, but I wonder how they'll hunt down terrorists "everywhere" as long they don't get them even in their own country.....

The terrorist once in your own country can be very hard to find since if unknown, they can be anywhere.

However, traditionally terrorists spend some time being trained. I think it is these types of camps that are contemplated being hit, as well as any nation which affords them support.

If a nation has very strong evidence of a terrorist camp, I have few qualms if a strike force goes in to take them out. If the Iranian goverment is directly supporting terrorists, they essentially are waging an undeclared war against the terrorists targets. What else can you call it when a nation state takes action to help kill people of and within another nation-state? If the "target" wishes to change the "war" to a declared one and bomb the crap out of the military bases of its enemy, I call that fair ball.

If nation A declares war on nation B we should have no problem with nation B responding. The problem with terrorism is that there are no such declarations and it is often hard to know or prove that a nation state is supporting terrorism as compared to support from a faction or powerful individual in that nation state.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


I seem to remember it has been proven than an AQ member was researched in Iran.

Saif el adel, operation chief in Al Qaeeda, is under house arrest in Iran, as is Saad Bin Laden, OBLs son who also had an operational role. Saudi has asked for extradition, and has been denied. Neo con sources allege that these two are in fact running AQ operations in Iraq, Saudi, and elsewhere in the region.

I suspect that for Putin to turn against Iran, which has been something of a geopolitical ally of Russia, both in Afghanistan and the Trans-causasus, Putin would require very solid proof of the AQ connection.

[dojoboy]

Give me a "R"! etc.

Go RUSSIA!

:followed by chant:

"Nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, ...."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
hmm. I support strong response to terrorism, but even I have my doubts.

I've asked if terrorism has ever worked.

Another important questions to ask is: has strong violent responses to terrorism ever worked? That is the more important question. I don't think it has. It just breeds more terrorists.

Terrorism cannot be defeated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Dissident, shooting missiles at terrorists will not end terrorism. I agree -- which is why the Clinton approach had no hope and which is why Israel cannot solve the problem of Hamas solely through the use of bombs.

But, when governments oppose terrorists within their own borders and offer their citizens hope through democracy, terrorism can be suppressed and ended.

This is why the Palestinian problem, for example, will only be solved with the government of Palestine is democratic.

The Bush plan of bringing democracy to an portion of the world that has never know freedom is the only plan, the only plan, that has a hope of prevailing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Saif el adel, operation chief in Al Qaeeda, is under house arrest in Iran, as is Saad Bin Laden, OBLs son who also had an operational role. Saudi has asked for extradition, and has been denied. Neo con sources allege that these two are in fact running AQ operations in Iraq, Saudi, and elsewhere in the region.

I suspect that for Putin to turn against Iran, which has been something of a geopolitical ally of Russia, both in Afghanistan and the Trans-causasus, Putin would require very solid proof of the AQ connection.

Putin already knows the truth about Iran. Come on.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Putin is really hugely pissed, the Russians are marching in the streets for action. It would be great if the US and Russia could combine to kick Iran's tail. The US supplying the mobile forces and air while the Russians did the heavy ground work."

I agree. Only a combined effort on the part of the US and Russians could work. The US heavy stuff is tied up right now but our airforce and air mobile forces could be cut loose to give the heavy Russian forces a high tech edge.

Yes, I see, and in addition we should give the green light to India settling the Pakistan problem too, though we'd have to neutralize pakistan's nuclear arsenal first. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a joint Airborne, SAS, Spetnatz operation. Following this we could give permission for the Europeans to re-occupy some of the old colonies, giving back Morroco to Spain, Algiers, Tunisia, Mauretania, Mali, and Chad to France, Somalia to Germany, Libya to Italy, Indonesia to the Netherlands, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Aden, Oman, and the UAE to Britain, while the US keeps Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We'd give Turkey and Cyprus to the Greeks, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kighiz and Turkmenistan to China and allow the Israelis to establish a greater Israel consisting of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Flubber

1)If a nation has very strong evidence of a terrorist camp, I have few qualms if a strike force goes in to take them out.

2)If the Iranian goverment is directly supporting terrorists, they essentially are waging an undeclared war against the terrorists targets. What else can you call it when a nation state takes action to help kill people of and within another nation-state? If the "target" wishes to change the "war" to a declared one and bomb the crap out of the military bases of its enemy, I call that fair ball.

1) Taking out a terrorist base is ineffective if that base is located in a country that supports terrorism. The base will be rebuilt or relocated.


2) What do you mean, if Iran is....

Also, bombing bases without taking out the government supporting the bases is more than ineffective, it is stupid and counterproductive.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Yes, I see, and in addition we should give the green light to India settling the Pakistan problem too, though we'd have to neutralize pakistan's nuclear arsenal first. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a joint Airborne, SAS, Spetnatz operation. Following this we could give permission for the Europeans to re-occupy some of the old colonies, giving back Morroco to Spain, Algiers, Tunisia, Mauretania, Mali, and Chad to France, Somalia to Germany, Libya to Italy, Indonesia to the Netherlands, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Aden, Oman, and the UAE to Britain, while the US keeps Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We'd give Turkey and Cyprus to the Greeks, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kighiz and Turkmenistan to China and allow the Israelis to establish a greater Israel consisting of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

That is quite a list of countries. Apart from perhaps syria it doesn't include many countries that have been uncooperative in the counter terrorism effort.

Anyway, given that I don't think we even need a smilie clue to guess that this was meant to be sarcasm, would you spell out directly what your point is? Are you starting from the assumption that Iran is being cooperative in the counterterrorism effort?

[Dr Strangelove]

Pakistan is co-operative and yet there's good evidence that the secret HQ of al Qaeda is in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is co-operative yet most of al Qaeda's money comes from Saudi Arabia.

Let's face it, the time for neo-colonialism has arrived. It's not that we want it, it's just being forced upon us.

Question. Are the peoples of the middle east sentient enough to be sobered by such a prospect, or not?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ned


1) Taking out a terrorist base is ineffective if that base is located in a country that supports terrorism. The base will be rebuilt or relocated.

But those particular terrorists are dead

Originally posted by Ned

2) What do you mean, if Iran is....

Also, bombing bases without taking out the government supporting the bases is more than ineffective, it is stupid and counterproductive.

What's your solution? My idea is simply that a state supporting terrorism against my country makes that country my enemy. In theory you could try to justify unrestricted warfare but I would tend not favor that. I would tend to meet force with force and strike at the nation state that is striking at my country. What would you do ? I'm assuming sanctions etc are already in place and I don't think just taking it is effective either