[unmalryAlalry]

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration accused Iranian government agents Tuesday of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and immediately used the thwarted plot to ratchet up sanctions and recruit international allies to try to further isolate Tehran." http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...plomat-101111/

So, the fools in Iran have moved to plotting assassination of ambassadors to the United States from Saudi Arabia and possibly from Israel.

Wouldn't this be considered an "act of war"? Are more sanctions and diplomatic pressure enough as reactions from us?

I feel that Iran has our number and feels we are loath to consider direct force or retaliation and is therefore emboldened to take increasingly risky acts. Warships in the western hemisphere, funding Hezbolah, funding the killing of U.S forces in Iraq and A'stan, kidnapping U.S. citizens, developing nuclear weapons, threatening Israel, etc., are just a few overt acts of belligerence.

What say you?

[Styparty]

I say bring it on. I'm starting to get the itch. Although I'm DNIC so I'd just be a REMF coordinating the retaliations.

[Ceakicknunk]

Everybody knows the US is the only country allowed to knock off people we don't like.

And wait, before we all get a War Hard-on... since when was thinking about killing a SAUDI diplomat an act of war against US?

[ValdisSeroff]

Everybody knows the US is the only country allowed to knock off people we don't like.

And wait, before we all get a War Hard-on... since when was thinking about killing a SAUDI diplomat an act of war against US?

Because it was to be on U.S. soil against a sovereign nation's ambassador & residence which we are responsible to protect by International treaty.

Also... is war your only thought? T'wasn't mine. Pretty shallow on your part.

"Members of Congress were quick to condemn Iran over the plot. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said if it was indeed sponsored by the Iranian government, “this would constitute an act of war not only against the Saudis and Israelis but against the United States as well.”"

[avappyboalt]

Because it was to be on U.S. soil against a sovereign nation's ambassador & residence which we are responsible to protect by International treaty.

Sorry if I don't share your hysteria over this.

Also - doesn't this incident sound a little familiar?

Or this?

Or how about this?

Or perhaps this rings a bell?

This wouldn't be the first time an "attack" of dubious nature was used to whip up hysteria towards a certain "enemy".

Also... is war your only thought? T'wasn't mine. Pretty shallow on your part. War seemed to be what you were implying with this little gem here:

"Wouldn't this be considered an "act of war"? Are more sanctions and diplomatic pressure enough as reactions from us?"

If you're just another concerned citizen trying to avoid American entry into yet another pointless and unwinnable war... then my apologies.
"Members of Congress were quick to condemn Iran over the plot. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said if it was indeed sponsored by the Iranian government, “this would constitute an act of war not only against the Saudis and Israelis but against the United States as well.”" A Republican said that? And a TEXAN no less. Big surprise.

[rvadipoldkov]

Sorry if I don't share your hysteria over this.

Also - doesn't this incident sound a little familiar?

Or this?

Or how about this?

Or perhaps this rings a bell?

This wouldn't be the first time an "attack" of dubious nature was used to whip up hysteria towards a certain "enemy".



War seemed to be what you were implying with this little gem here:

"Wouldn't this be considered an "act of war"? Are more sanctions and diplomatic pressure enough as reactions from us?"

If you're just another concerned citizen trying to avoid American entry into yet another pointless and unwinnable war... then my apologies.


A Republican said that? And a TEXAN no less. Big surprise.

No hysteria here. Asking the question "wouldn't this be considered an act of war" has no implication of my thoughts of war. It relates to what was to be perpetrated on U.S. soil. In no line that I wrote did I imply or suggest we go to war. I did ask this question... "Are more sanctions and diplomatic pressure enough as reactions from us?". If you infer that I suggested war with this line, you are mistaken.

The fact that you loath Republicans and Texans is well known. Big surprise.

My personal opinion in entering another "war" is not no but hell no. But, there are other ways to deal with Iran... What may they be?

Now that you've attempted to attack the messenger why don't you try to give a civil answer to the OP?

[hansen384cbh]

Concerning the topic, its not the work of a friend, that's for sure. Iran is Shi'ite, Sauda royal family is Sunni. Sounds like there plan went a bit off the script. Iran's hatred of Isreal is well documented, combined with a strong dislike of the Sunnis, again not the work of a friend.

[stuntduood]

What say I?

I'll be pretty pissed if they call me off Terminal Leave as a result of this B.S.....!

[asivisepo]

Let the Saudis bomb Iran. We'll just keep protecting their diplomats like we're supposed to.

[Allbrunette]

No hysteria here. Asking the question "wouldn't this be considered an act of war" has no implication of my thoughts of war. It relates to what was to be perpetrated on U.S. soil. In no line that I wrote did I imply or suggest we go to war. I did ask this question... "Are more sanctions and diplomatic pressure enough as reactions from us?". If you infer that I suggested war with this line, you are mistaken.

Fair enough.
The fact that you loath Republicans and Texans is well known. Big surprise. Well, they keep giving me reasons to loath them.

My personal opinion in entering another "war" is not no but hell no. But, there are other ways to deal with Iran... What may they be? We could mind our own business and leave Iran alone. There's a thought.

Now that you've attempted to attack the messenger why don't you try to give a civil answer to the OP? Are you actually going to respond to what I said - or did you not get the list of bogus "attacks" I just listed off?

Iran in league with a random Mexican criminal in an assassination plot that, if successful, would accomplish absolutely nothing? Ninja please.

[aNoBVsUW]

So many questions coming to mind here.

First we have the statement "the Obama Administration accused..." we know these people are at least being tried, have they been found guilty based on concrete evidence? Another question of course is whether the individuals are in fact operating under the direct Auspices of the government of Iran? Before we even discuss escalating a situation with another sovereign nation I think it's important we know that they were in fact directly responsible.

Iran is a touchy situation, I can imagine few countries in the world with more legitimate reason to resent our actions in world politics and we as a people need to put into perspective whether actions taken should be categorized as "aggression" or "retaliation". It actually does matter believe it or not.

[brraverishhh]

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration accused Iranian government agents Tuesday of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and immediately used the thwarted plot to ratchet up sanctions and recruit international allies to try to further isolate Tehran." http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...plomat-101111/

So, the fools in Iran have moved to plotting assassination of ambassadors to the United States from Saudi Arabia and possibly from Israel.

Wouldn't this be considered an "act of war"? Are more sanctions and diplomatic pressure enough as reactions from us?

I feel that Iran has our number and feels we are loath to consider direct force or retaliation and is therefore emboldened to take increasingly risky acts. Warships in the western hemisphere, funding Hezbolah, funding the killing of U.S forces in Iraq and A'stan, kidnapping U.S. citizens, developing nuclear weapons, threatening Israel, etc., are just a few overt acts of belligerence.

What say you?

The aren't able to project naval forces to our borders. Maybe something got lost in translation and Navy equals terrorism?

[neeclindy]

Let the Saudis bomb Iran. We'll just keep protecting their diplomats like we're supposed to.

The Saudis are lazy and incompetent. They rely on their wealth to buy themselves out of any trouble.

[tigoCeree]

The Saudis are lazy and incompetent. They rely on their wealth to buy themselves out of any trouble.

Awesome! Then lets let them buy Iran!

[BodeOmissemia]

The aren't able to project naval forces to our borders. Maybe something got lost in translation and Navy equals terrorism?

Its worse than that... its a terrorist navy. Suicide bomber battleships.

[VemyhemiHef]

Fair enough.


Well, they keep giving me reasons to loath them.



We could mind our own business and leave Iran alone. There's a thought.



Are you actually going to respond to what I said - or did you not get the list of bogus "attacks" I just listed off?

Iran in league with a random Mexican criminal in an assassination plot that, if successful, would accomplish absolutely nothing? Ninja please.

Joe... I get your links points... I am not recommending any action, yet... but I do feel that there is more to this threat than some "sky is falling" incident of the past.

It's clear to me that Iran has an agenda in the Mid-east that includes covert actions against American interests. How serious of an impact these actions may have on the U.S. remains to be seen.

My span of interest goes back to the fall of the Shah and the capture of our embassy and hostage taking of our personnel in Tehran, in the '70s. One of my squadron's EC130s was lost in Desert One along with the crew. So my interest goes back a piece and doesn't come just from the newspapers.

[bZEUWO4F]

[QUOTE=iReddit;478370]The aren't able to project naval forces to our borders. Maybe something got lost in translation and Navy equals terrorism?[/QUOTE]

That a fact? ........ CNN) -- "Iran plans to send ships near the Atlantic coast of the United States, state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported Tuesday, quoting a commander."The Navy of the Iranian Army will have a powerful presence near the United States borders," read the headline of the story, in Farsi.

"Commander of the Navy of the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran broke the news about the plans for the presence of this force in the Atlantic Ocean and said that the same way that the world arrogant power is present near our marine borders, we, with the help of our sailors who follow the concept of the supreme jurisprudence, shall also establish a powerful presence near the marine borders of the United States," the story said. The reference to the "world arrogant power" was presumably intended to refer to the United States." http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/27/wo...ast/iran-navy/

[Eromaveabeara]

Joe... I get your links points... I am not recommending any action, yet... but I do feel that there is more to this threat than some "sky is falling" incident of the past.

Why? Because the FBI made up another bogus terrorist attack (enabled by the FBI, using FBI funds, and FBI explosives...) - and once again Obama declared all evidence pertaining to the incident a "secret".

And lets say its all true. For some random reason the Iranians decided to knock off a Saudi on American soil (despite having absolutely NOTHING to gain from it), doesn't that make us hypocrites? We do shit like that all the time, but wail and scream the second it is suggested Iran might have done it too.

That a fact? ........ CNN) -- "Iran plans to send ships near the Atlantic coast of the United States, state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported Tuesday, quoting a commander."The Navy of the Iranian Army will have a powerful presence near the United States borders," read the headline of the story, in Farsi.

"Commander of the Navy of the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran broke the news about the plans for the presence of this force in the Atlantic Ocean and said that the same way that the world arrogant power is present near our marine borders, we, with the help of our sailors who follow the concept of the supreme jurisprudence, shall also establish a powerful presence near the marine borders of the United States," the story said. The reference to the "world arrogant power" was presumably intended to refer to the United States." http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/27/wo...ast/iran-navy/

And how many milliseconds would this "navy" last if we attack it?

[bahrains27]

[QUOTE=Joe Bonham;478571]Why? Because the FBI made up another bogus terrorist attack (enabled by the FBI, using FBI funds, and FBI explosives...) - and once again Obama declared all evidence pertaining to the incident a "secret".

And lets say its all true. For some random reason the Iranians decided to knock off a Saudi on American soil (despite having absolutely NOTHING to gain from it), doesn't that make us hypocrites? We do shit like that all the time, but wail and scream the second it is suggested Iran might have done it too.



And the US doesn't? How dare those dastardly Iranians! Contesting our supreme authority like that.



Let me help you out... ZERO.



And I'm sorry for them... but if our government didn't have such a fascination with violent meddling in Middle Eastern feuds... those men and thousands of others would still be alive today.

And how many milliseconds would this "navy" last if we attack it?

Geez, JB I find myself ill-equipped to defend the FBI against conspiracy concoctions and the President against fictitious secrets and the U.S. against it's subversive International security relations and the Iranians against their lunatic covert actions and their inadequate Navy.

Sorry, I stand defeated.

[SAUNDERSAN]

LOL - just goes to show how some people prefer to be afraid of shadows their whole lives.

A broke used car salesman is approached by a Mexican FBI informant, is given fake explosives, and then caught. Oh Jeezus Iran! Iran!

Gimme a break. Seriously. These "security threats" are a complete joke. And you wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us.