Iran Attempts Bombing Raid on America Which Would Have Killed Dozens in Washington DC

[jordan179]

Yesterday we learned that Iranian agents plotted to bomb a crowded Washington, DC restaurant at lunchtime, in an incredibly-bloodthirsty plot to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States of America. This attempt, if backed or even sheltered by the Iranian government, is of course an act of war against both America and Saudi Arabia, and (

Comments

[kalance]

Augh!

This must have been an act of war. It's not like there aren't a hundred easier ways to kill an ambassador with nil risk of collateral damage. Nor is it like the Saudis don't have other ambassadors in other countries. This was a chance for them to kill US citizens "innocently".

When I think about the prospect of invading Iran, the only thing I feel is annoyance. I certainly see no reason for concern. It took us about two months to eradicate the fourth largest military force in the world...twice. We can sweep Iran in six weeks.

The REAL challenge will be finding the manpower to keep Iran under occupation. We're stretched beyond the breaking point as it is. And if Congress abolishes the military's pension, like they're talking about, we'll lose our Reserve forces almost completely, along with about half of the troops we have available for that occupation

[ext_531464]

And may Iran be the Saudi's Stalingrad.

[jordan179]

Because the right of nations to attempt to bomb crowded restaurants in the capital of other nations to kill the ambassadors of third nations must be preserved at all cost? Seriously, Yama, do you ever think these things through?

[ext_531464]

I don't give a shit about sovereignty. I just want to see the Saudis destroyed.

[jordan179]

Nice to see that you are so motivated by blind hatred that you've missed the point that the restaurant which Iran was trying to bomb was located in Washington, DC. If the plot had carried through, it would have killed around a hundred people, most of whom would have been Americans and members of the very same upper-middle to upper class to which YOU belong. Why, the list of victims might have included members of your family, or their friends.

[ext_531464]

I still wouldn't want to fight a war for Saudi Arabia's benefit and would still be happy to see Saudi Arabia fail.

[jordan179]

I still wouldn't want to fight a war for Saudi Arabia's benefit ...

Who's talking about "fighting a war for Saudi Arabia's benefit"? If we fought a war over the attempted Iranian bombing raid, it would be for our own benefit -- we can't let the precedent be established that it is safe and acceptable for foreign Powers to set off bombs in and kill dozens in America's capital city.

I'd be happy to see Saudi Arabia fall, too, but I don't hate the Saudis enough to sacrifice American interests to see them go down. And the most important American interest is to be be secure in our own persons and property on our own soil.

[ext_531464]

It would benefit the Saudis. Bah, to hell with them. For the Arab people, may Iran destroy that pissant kingdom.

[jordan179]

It would benefit the Saudis.

So do many things that America does, for instance keeping the sea lanes open for trade; and many other things that we might do, such as stopping an asteroid from hitting the Earth. Refusing to protect our own interests because they might coincide with the interests of an evil foreign regime is stupid: should we have refused to fight Hitler in World War II on the grounds that fighting Hitler constituted helping Stalin?

For the Arab people, may Iran destroy that pissant kingdom.

Why do you assume that the destruction of Saudi Arabia would help the Arab people? It's quite possible that any successor state would be far worse. Keep in mind that religious fanaticism and extreme misogyny constitute Saudi concessions to popular sentiment: the Saudi regime is more enlightened than most of its subjects!

And you're ignoring the rather large point that this is about an Iranian attempt to bomb America to harm Saudi Arabia.

[ext_531464]

Because Saudi Arabia is engaging in counterrevolutionary activities in Bahrain and Yemen.

[oronoda]

While Saudi did send troops to Bahrain to help, it was in response to Iran stirring the pot. As for Yemen, that is actually factually incorrect.

[cutelildrow]

yama's been factually incorrect about... 99.99% of the time.

Comes from his total inability to read and having his fantasies dictate his reality. Still am mildly surprised he hasn't stood in front of an oncoming train and screamed at it "I DENY YOUR EXISTENCE."

[jordan179]

You are making the rather huge assumption that "revolutionary=good" and from that deducing that "counterrevolutionary=bad." On what do you base your assumption? I don't know about the Bahraini rebels, but the Yemeni rebels are flat-out Al Qaeda, and would presumably impose a regime more murderous and oppressive than the existing one.

Furthermore, even if the revolution was good and hence the coutnerrevolution bad, why should we for this reason tolerate an Iranian attempt to bomb our own soil? Our own national interest requires that we protect American citizens on American soil, not allow other countries and factions to get away with treating them as acceptable collateral damage in a war with a third party. Preventing JUST that situation is one of the aims for which we maintain a powerful military.

[ext_531464]

The Yemeni rebels are Al-Qaeda? Did Saleh offer Gaddafi's propagandist a job in Yemen or something?

Bahrain's revolutionaries is anti-monarchist (I can get behind that) and against discrimination of Shi'ites (another thing I'll support),and so are Saudi Arabia's revolutionaries.

[jordan179]

The Yemeni rebels are Al-Qaeda?

A significant portion of them are, yes.

Bahrain's revolutionaries is anti-monarchist (I can get behind that)

Well, Robespierre was "anti-monarchist." Could you get behind him?

[cutelildrow]

Love how yama's displaying his typical lack of intelligence as usual. I wonder if he gets his sources straight from CAIR. He sides with the people who actively send their children to blow up mines so that soldiers can walk in their wake safely.

Kinda tells us what he'll support for the sake of simply opposing, doesn't it? (if nothing else, it reaffirms us of his inability to read...)