3 ms·

Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "

Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. (It's not terrorism if you're in war, it's just special units behind enemy lines). Looking at eg. texas, it doesn't take a lot to bring the whole power grid down, especially if properly planned. If you bomb water supply facilities in eg. new york, how many people will you have to evacuate? How hard would it be for those special forces to start forest fires in california? Or poison food supply for the army? Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? > Why is attacking one's enemies suddenly controversial? Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... it took a few years of vietnam war for americans to figure it out and a few decades to forget it all again and now you're repeating it against a stronger adversary. It's no wonder most of the world hates americans. edit: looking at his comment history, commenter above me seems to be from israel, not US, but same applies to them too, with the exception of having to ask trump (and the brits and others) for help when iran fights back.

dotancohen 4mo ago
> Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties. > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... You could either argue that Iranian assets in the US could attack American civilians, or you could argue that Iran does not endanger the US. But not both. I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US.
- ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
  Luxembourg has assets in US that could endanger the US, but Luxembourg as a country is not endangering US. But if US attacked Luxembourg, all those people seeing their family being killed by the US might behave differently. > I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US. Yes, what used to be my country (yugoslavia), did the same during the first half of the 1940s, including what the germans called terrorist attacks, attacks on infrastructure, "death to fascism" chants, mining roads, etc. Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped. And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    > Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped. Yes, that's the problem with Israel. While we are under attack, the world is silent. But as soon as we gain the upper hand in any conflict, the world bodies start pressure for a ceasefire. We are never allowed to "push back and teach a lesson" as you put it. The middle east conflict could have been over in the 1970s and the Palestinians could already have a state. > And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked. Lots of countries are attacked, both those with nukes (Israel is heavily suspected of having nukes) and those without. The difference with Iran is that they regularly call for the destruction of several other peoples, and they also arm and fund regular terrorist attacks. I personally have lost friends and coworkers in Iranian-sponsored terrorism. And I personally have been injured in an Iranian missile attack. This is not some theory and news for us. For my family it is reality.
dotancohen 4mo ago
> Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. I would like to hijack your comment to point out a small detail. I was attacked in other threads for asking why glassing Iran is not an option. Either this comment supports my assertion that the term glassing does not clearly refer to nuclear weapons, or this comment makes it clear that Iran is a nuclear threat to the United States. Either way, thank you.

dotancohen 4mo ago

> Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties. > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... You could either argue that Iranian assets in the US could attack American civilians, or you could argue that Iran does not endanger the US. But not both. I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US.

ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
Luxembourg has assets in US that could endanger the US, but Luxembourg as a country is not endangering US. But if US attacked Luxembourg, all those people seeing their family being killed by the US might behave differently. > I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US. Yes, what used to be my country (yugoslavia), did the same during the first half of the 1940s, including what the germans called terrorist attacks, attacks on infrastructure, "death to fascism" chants, mining roads, etc. Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped. And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked.
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  > Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped. Yes, that's the problem with Israel. While we are under attack, the world is silent. But as soon as we gain the upper hand in any conflict, the world bodies start pressure for a ceasefire. We are never allowed to "push back and teach a lesson" as you put it. The middle east conflict could have been over in the 1970s and the Palestinians could already have a state. > And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked. Lots of countries are attacked, both those with nukes (Israel is heavily suspected of having nukes) and those without. The difference with Iran is that they regularly call for the destruction of several other peoples, and they also arm and fund regular terrorist attacks. I personally have lost friends and coworkers in Iranian-sponsored terrorism. And I personally have been injured in an Iranian missile attack. This is not some theory and news for us. For my family it is reality.

dotancohen 4mo ago

> Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. I would like to hijack your comment to point out a small detail. I was attacked in other threads for asking why glassing Iran is not an option. Either this comment supports my assertion that the term glassing does not clearly refer to nuclear weapons, or this comment makes it clear that Iran is a nuclear threat to the United States. Either way, thank you.