Iran Absurd Arguments

[CrusaderFrank]

Please explain how this ends

Reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) is a logical technique that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an impossible, illogical, or absurd conclusion.

We agree the war is ongoing. Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation, there is no off ramp and that the war will only end when one side is clearly victorious?

From Iran's POV they want USA out of the Middle East. They've already made a good case for it by rendering many of our bases inoperative. They are backed by Russia and China who are providing ISR, but, so far no weapons. Their capacity to continue the fight is robust.

From the USA/Israel "Alliance" POV we have to default to what Bibi and Greater Israel wants. If you had any doubts before, it is now embarrassingly obvious that Bibi is the lead partner in the USA/Israeli relationship. Trump crafted an off-ramp through Pakistan, Bibi vetoed it. From our senior partners POV, they want Iran, the entire Middle East destabilized so that they will rule the world. They want to destroy Iran as a nation and take down the GCC in the process and thought that Trump would do it for them.

How does this end, who "wins"?

 

[1srelluc]

I suspect we will end-up having to kill them in wholesale lots.

 

[DGS49]

As I have typed in this space before, the NORMAL way that a war ends is, one side punishes the other side so severely that the punished State finally says, "I give up; please stop." In diplomatic terms, this is often described as "sues for peace."

But in the Islamic world, belligerence is a religious mandate, so they are constitutionally unable to say, "I give up." And they accept massive death and destruction as "par for the course."

Iran is defeated, but not totally. In a country of ninety-plus million, where a major portion of the population is an armed part of the ruling "mafia," it would be necessary to kill every one of the fukkers to "win." We could do that, but Americans would be outraged.

Even at 90% defeated, they have the means to continue to take "potshots" at their adversaries, and apparently to control traffic through the infamous Strait. The objective would be to find a way to HURT them such that they feel the pain, so to speak. Any civilized country would have passed that point when we killed all their top leaders, eh?

Our Beloved President and the Secretary of War must find this point of vulnerability and attack it, and SOON. The bullshit "cease fire" was breached before the figurative ink was dry, and the Administration is hemming and hawing about how it's still "working." NOBODY is buying it. Time to declare it a failure and move on to Death & Destruction, as Trump threatened for the past two weeks.

 

[Churchill]

As I have typed in this space before, the NORMAL way that a war ends is, one side punishes the other side so severely that the punished State finally says, "I give up; please stop." In diplomatic terms, this is often described as "sues for peace."

But in the Islamic world, belligerence is a religious mandate, so they are constitutionally unable to say, "I give up." And they accept massive death and destruction as "par for the course."

Iran is defeated, but not totally. In a country of ninety-plus million, where a major portion of the population is an armed part of the ruling "mafia," it would be necessary to kill every one of the fukkers to "win." We could do that, but Americans would be outraged.

Even at 90% defeated, they have the means to continue to take "potshots" at their adversaries, and apparently to control traffic through the infamous Strait. The objective would be to find a way to HURT them such that they feel the pain, so to speak. Any civilized country would have passed that point when we killed all their top leaders, eh?

Our Beloved President and the Secretary of War must find this point of vulnerability and attack it, and SOON. The bullshit "cease fire" was breached before the figurative ink was dry, and the Administration is hemming and hawing about how it's still "working." NOBODY is buying it. Time to declare it a failure and move on to Death & Destruction, as Trump threatened for the past two weeks.

If any supporters of this insanity have sons/daughters between 18 and 25, make sure they know what's coming, time for them to step up and do their duty for Israel.

Automatic military draft registration starts this year: What to know

A new rule passed by Congress will automatically register eligible men in the Selective Service, or military draft system, instead of requiring them to register themselves.

www.livenowfox.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At the end McGregor tells that we bombed the Tehran neighborhoods most likely to support a secular Iran

 

[jackflash]

As I have typed in this space before, the NORMAL way that a war ends is, one side punishes the other side so severely that the punished State finally says, "I give up; please stop." In diplomatic terms, this is often described as "sues for peace."

But in the Islamic world, belligerence is a religious mandate, so they are constitutionally unable to say, "I give up." And they accept massive death and destruction as "par for the course."

Iran is defeated, but not totally. In a country of ninety-plus million, where a major portion of the population is an armed part of the ruling "mafia," it would be necessary to kill every one of the fukkers to "win." We could do that, but Americans would be outraged.

Even at 90% defeated, they have the means to continue to take "potshots" at their adversaries, and apparently to control traffic through the infamous Strait. The objective would be to find a way to HURT them such that they feel the pain, so to speak. Any civilized country would have passed that point when we killed all their top leaders, eh?

Our Beloved President and the Secretary of War must find this point of vulnerability and attack it, and SOON. The bullshit "cease fire" was breached before the figurative ink was dry, and the Administration is hemming and hawing about how it's still "working." NOBODY is buying it. Time to declare it a failure and move on to Death & Destruction, as Trump threatened for the past two weeks.

I would not be outraged if all the allah boys evaporated from iran. Global islam is a verified death cult just as hitler's nutzi political party was. If one has a cancerous tumor the only way to eliminate the spread of the cancer is to remove it 100%. The only people residing in our America that would be offended by cleansing the allah boys out of iran would be the blue bells of the statist left political movement in our America.

Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Darkwind]

They've already made a good case for it by rendering many of our bases inoperative.

Not a single base of ours is inoperative. Seek help.

How does this end, who "wins"?

Not Iran, not Hezbollah, not Hamas, not Islam.

 

[Rawley]

Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation

Because they're Jooos?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Please explain how this ends

Reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) is a logical technique that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an impossible, illogical, or absurd conclusion.

We agree the war is ongoing. Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation, there is no off ramp and that the war will only end when one side is clearly victorious?

From Iran's POV they want USA out of the Middle East. They've already made a good case for it by rendering many of our bases inoperative. They are backed by Russia and China who are providing ISR, but, so far no weapons. Their capacity to continue the fight is robust.

From the USA/Israel "Alliance" POV we have to default to what Bibi and Greater Israel wants. If you had any doubts before, it is now embarrassingly obvious that Bibi is the lead partner in the USA/Israeli relationship. Trump crafted an off-ramp through Pakistan, Bibi vetoed it. From our senior partners POV, they want Iran, the entire Middle East destabilized so that they will rule the world. They want to destroy Iran as a nation and take down the GCC in the process and thought that Trump would do it for them.

How does this end, who "wins"?

The whole idea of negotiations with Iran is absurd. Iran's current supreme leader is in a coma and no one knows who is in charge, so it is impossible to assess the value of any negotiations.

 

[OldFlame]

Please explain how this ends

Reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) is a logical technique that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an impossible, illogical, or absurd conclusion.

We agree the war is ongoing. Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation, there is no off ramp and that the war will only end when one side is clearly victorious?

From Iran's POV they want USA out of the Middle East. They've already made a good case for it by rendering many of our bases inoperative. They are backed by Russia and China who are providing ISR, but, so far no weapons. Their capacity to continue the fight is robust.

From the USA/Israel "Alliance" POV we have to default to what Bibi and Greater Israel wants. If you had any doubts before, it is now embarrassingly obvious that Bibi is the lead partner in the USA/Israeli relationship. Trump crafted an off-ramp through Pakistan, Bibi vetoed it. From our senior partners POV, they want Iran, the entire Middle East destabilized so that they will rule the world. They want to destroy Iran as a nation and take down the GCC in the process and thought that Trump would do it for them.

How does this end, who "wins"?

Thinks Israel either wants to or will 'rule the world'.

 

[TNHarley]

Thinks Israel either wants to or will 'rule the world'.

The believe they will run the world when their messiah comes.
They believe all of us will be their slaves during that time.
You sell your soul for a people that you dont even understand.
Dumbass.

 

[OldFlame]

Please explain how this ends

Reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) is a logical technique that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an impossible, illogical, or absurd conclusion.

We agree the war is ongoing. Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation, there is no off ramp and that the war will only end when one side is clearly victorious?

From Iran's POV they want USA out of the Middle East. They've already made a good case for it by rendering many of our bases inoperative. They are backed by Russia and China who are providing ISR, but, so far no weapons. Their capacity to continue the fight is robust.

From the USA/Israel "Alliance" POV we have to default to what Bibi and Greater Israel wants. If you had any doubts before, it is now embarrassingly obvious that Bibi is the lead partner in the USA/Israeli relationship. Trump crafted an off-ramp through Pakistan, Bibi vetoed it. From our senior partners POV, they want Iran, the entire Middle East destabilized so that they will rule the world. They want to destroy Iran as a nation and take down the GCC in the process and thought that Trump would do it for them.

How does this end, who "wins"?

In one sentence you say we're sending negotiators, and then in another you're saying Bibi vetoed it. Which is it?

 

[TNHarley]

Ignore fail Darkwind
What are you fake newsing? The bible?
DERP

 

[Zavulon]

If any supporters of this insanity have sons/daughters between 18 and 25, make sure they know what's coming, time for them to step up and do their duty for Israel.

Automatic military draft registration starts this year: What to know

A new rule passed by Congress will automatically register eligible men in the Selective Service, or military draft system, instead of requiring them to register themselves.

www.livenowfox.com

View attachment 1241695

 

[1srelluc]

View attachment 1241735

Bugger-off you POS.

 

[BackAgain]

Please explain how this ends

Reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) is a logical technique that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an impossible, illogical, or absurd conclusion.

So far, so good.

We agree the war is ongoing. Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation,

No.

there is no off ramp

No.

and that the war will only end when one side is clearly victorious?

A clear possibility not a certainty.

From Iran's POV they want USA out of the Middle East.

That seems likely.

They've already made a good case for it by rendering many of our bases inoperative.

A not particularly well established claim.

They are backed by Russia and China who are providing ISR, but, so far no weapons.

That we know of.

Their capacity to continue the fight is robust.

Very very doubtful. Certainly not supported. A

From the USA/Israel "Alliance" POV we have to default to what Bibi and Greater Israel wants.

Not at all supported.

If you had any doubts before, it is now embarrassingly obvious that Bibi is the lead partner in the USA/Israeli relationship.

Also not at all established. Indeed, it’s unsupported.

Trump crafted an off-ramp through Pakistan,

No. Iran was clear (publicly) that they were not going to negotiate and would not negotiate. But, obviously, they did rely on a third party (Pakistan) to be the intermediary.

Bibi vetoed it.

Did he? Or did the agreement itself simply fail to include references to Israeli counter strikes against the Iranian proxies?

From our senior partners POV, they want Iran, the entire Middle East destabilized so that they will rule the world.

The Middle East is already destabilized and has been. Of course we retain an interest in maintaining input into how the unstable arena is handled, over there.

They want to destroy Iran as a nation

Another unsupported claim. I deny it.

The nation is fine. It’s the illicit regime that governs the place we would like to change.

and take down the GCC in the process

Acronyms usually get spelled out, before being used. I am guessing that it is a reference to the Gulf Coast Conference.
I’ve seen no evidence for rhat particular guess of yours, though.

and thought that Trump would do it for them.

I believe that our European “allies” did assume that the USA would do all the heavy lifting.

How does this end, who "wins"?

There are no guarantees, of course. But I believe that the Iranian regime (for all its posturing) is going down.

 

[Cassandro]

Reductio ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) is a logical technique that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an impossible, illogical, or absurd conclusion.

We agree the war is ongoing. Can we agree that sending Mossad Jared and Witkoff to Pakistan as "American" negotiators proves we're totally unserious about any negotiation, there is no off ramp and that the war will only end when one side is clearly victorious?

I don't agree with any of your absurd conclusions.

 

[Cassandro]

As I have typed in this space before, the NORMAL way that a war ends is, one side punishes the other side so severely that the punished State finally says, "I give up; please stop." In diplomatic terms, this is often described as "sues for peace."

But in the Islamic world, belligerence is a religious mandate, so they are constitutionally unable to say, "I give up." And they accept massive death and destruction as "par for the course."

Iran is defeated, but not totally. In a country of ninety-plus million, where a major portion of the population is an armed part of the ruling "mafia," it would be necessary to kill every one of the fukkers to "win." We could do that, but Americans would be outraged.

Even at 90% defeated, they have the means to continue to take "potshots" at their adversaries, and apparently to control traffic through the infamous Strait. The objective would be to find a way to HURT them such that they feel the pain, so to speak. Any civilized country would have passed that point when we killed all their top leaders, eh?

Our Beloved President and the Secretary of War must find this point of vulnerability and attack it, and SOON. The bullshit "cease fire" was breached before the figurative ink was dry, and the Administration is hemming and hawing about how it's still "working." NOBODY is buying it. Time to declare it a failure and move on to Death & Destruction, as Trump threatened for the past two weeks.

I think that the Iran situation has some similarities to both Germany and Japan during WW2. In Germany, the population was thoroughly "nazified." That meant its leadership had to be forcibly removed by military occupation.

In Japan, the population was religiously, but not politically, tied to the Emperor. By agreeing to let him remain on the throne, the rest of the leadership accepted surrender and simply resigned their positions.

Is either scenario is appropriate to the current situation? Might the religious element in Iran accept a reduction to titular status to save it from further destruction?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think that the Iran situation has some similarities to both Germany and Japan during WW2. In Germany, the population was thoroughly "nazified." That meant its leadership had to be forcibly removed by military occupation.

In Japan, the population was religiously, but not politically, tied to the Emperor. By agreeing to let him remain on the throne, the rest of the leadership accepted surrender and simply resigned their positions.

Is either scenario is appropriate to the current situation? Might the religious element in Iran accept a reduction to titular status to save it from further destruction?

What is happening now in Iran is unique. The ayatollahs have a process for replacing a supreme leader who has been killed, but not for replacing one who has become incapacitated. The current supreme leader is in a coma and it is unclear if there is a unified leadership in Iran, so there may be no Iranian leader who can play the role the Japanese Emperor did.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So far, so good.

No.

No.

A clear possibility not a certainty.

That seems likely.

A not particularly well established claim.

That we know of.

Very very doubtful. Certainly not supported. A

Not at all supported.

Also not at all established. Indeed, it’s unsupported.

No. Iran was clear (publicly) that they were not going to negotiate and would not negotiate. But, obviously, they did rely on a third party (Pakistan) to be the intermediary.

Did he? Or did the agreement itself simply fail to include references to Israeli counter strikes against the Iranian proxies?

The Middle East is already destabilized and has been. Of course we retain an interest in maintaining input into how the unstable arena is handled, over there.

Another unsupported claim. I deny it.

The nation is fine. It’s the illicit regime that governs the place we would like to change.

Acronyms usually get spelled out, before being used. I am guessing that it is a reference to the Gulf Coast Conference.
I’ve seen no evidence for rhat particular guess of yours, though.

I believe that our European “allies” did assume that the USA would do all the heavy lifting.

There are no guarantees, of course. But I believe that the Iranian regime (for all its posturing) is going down.

We had a ceasefire agreed to one of the conditions was that Lebanon and Israel stand down; Israel attacked 100 targets in Lebanon.

So you tell me who is in charge of the Alliance