15,000 Iranian Troops in Syria!?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TheEconomist, Feb 8, 2012.


  1. TheEconomist

    TheEconomist Creighton Bluejay Site Supporter+

  2. dystopia

    dystopia Monkey+

    I usually look at different news sights around the world and no mention of Iranian troops in Syria. I would think the yamika's would be popping off the Israeli's heads if they had Iranian troops near their borders.
     
  3. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Alpha Dog and dystopia like this.
  4. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    That would condemn a large number of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and others, don't you think?
     
  5. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Adventure Riding Monkey Founding Member

    Agreed. I had no choice. Imagine an eight year old going into the hospital for a tonsilectomy, and waking up with his bedsheets bloody because the circumscision was botched..... eewwww.... was I ever pissed when I finally realised I wasn't gonna DIE! :mad:

    So 'Ahmaragingidiot' wants to play wargames like the Big Boys. Let him.
     
  6. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Clip-on foreskins the solution???

    I don't think the Shiite Iranians would be altogether that discerning....they're all infidels.
     
  7. larryinalabama

    larryinalabama Monkey++

    I would say Iran putting troops throughtout the middleeast is probably true. Do you thing the Obama News Network woule advertise it?

    In my humble opinion WW3 will start in the middle east
     
    Alpha Dog likes this.
  8. carly28043

    carly28043 Monkey+

    While I question the ability to move that many troops in secrecy, I believe it is entirely possible that Iranian troops are there. There was a report on CNN earlier about special Syrian troops being called up. Apparently, they "called up some troops that would not balk at forcefully entering the homes of the people." Makes me wonder where said troops are from.
     
    tulianr likes this.
  9. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    I thought pretty much everyone got that done. :oops:
     
  10. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    tulianr and larryinalabama like this.
  11. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Circumcision was more a medical fad and fashion for a time

    Circumcision was more a medical fad and fashion for a time in much of the Anglophone world.

    It was customary in several countries from the late 19th century for infant males to be routinely circumcised for non religious reasons: for the supposed purpose of penile hygiene and disease prevention...(masturbation being one of those dire diseases that circumcision supposedly prevented....thankyou Dr Kellog!!!)

    Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Through all my childhood, I was one of those uncommon (uncommon in many senses) boys whose foreskin was still intact....which resulted in much unhealthy curiosity, and not a little ridicule directed at my complete member by those with incomplete members. (chelloveck...ever the non conformist).

    As it happens...I subsequently had an adult circumcision...the consequence of a lusty libido, and a highly athlectic (some may suggest olympian )sex life at the time. My Gp suggested a circumcision to avoid irreperable damage to my "pink oboe", which he subsequently performed himself (good jewish doctor that he was) very succesfully and I have never looked back.

    My own boys are all uncircumcised, but if the medical literature had have been available to me at the time, concerning lower HIV transmission rates attributable to male circumcision, I would probably have countenanced their circumcision as infants, but not merely for cosmetic or for religious reasons.
     
  12. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Chell, you apparently know nothing of being a Jew. You are not circumcised at birth, you have a Brit Milah (Yiddish pronunciation Bris) at 8 days of age. I know it sounds like I am nit picking, but circumcision for the Jews is a very HOLY and SERIOUS occasion.

    It is customary for the brit to be held in a synagogue, but it can also be held at home or any other suitable location. The brit is performed on the eighth day from the baby's birth, taking into consideration that according to the Jewish calendar, the day begins at the sunset of the day before. If the baby is born on Sunday before sunset, the Brit will be held the following Sunday. However, if the baby is born on Sunday night after sunset, the Brit is on the following Monday. The brit takes place on the eighth day following birth even if that day is Shabbat or a holiday. A brit is traditionally performed in the morning, but it may be performed any time during daylight hours.

    It is still VERY common for males of the Gentile persuasion to be circumcised at birth or a day after in the US. More common than not.
     
  13. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Moving right along....to the Faith and Religion Forum

    I know somewhat more about ritual circumcision in the Judaic tradition than might be supposed. However, our discussion on circumcision is getting rather tangental to the present OP topic, so I have replied to your post by starting a thread titled "Ritual Circumcision" in the Faith and Religion forum. It seemed to me to be the reasonable thing to do.

    http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum/faith-religion/31758-ritual-circumcision.html

    Now...Back to Iran and Syria...Of course a dictatorship of Iranian Mullahs is going to help a more secular dictatorship of Syrian Baathists...if only because democracy is an anathema for dictatorships...regardless of whether they are theocratic or secular.

    Edit: Using Iranian Shiite "merceanaries" to suppress the Syrian Sunni majority makes sense to me...It's a win-win situation for the ruling Syrian Baath party minority, and the Iranian Shiites who are happy to crack Sunni heads...ah...gotta love sectarian hatred!...the only thing that is likely to interupt that blood bath is if the Israelis get involved...in which case the Shiites and the Sunnis will forget their internicine blood letting temporarily to close ranks against the common foe (Israel)....ah....gotta love sectarian hatred!, And once either the Israelis have been defeated (long odds there) or The Israelis beat the crap out of the objecting (and or the objectionable) Arabs...then the Shiites and the Sunnis will get back to mutually cracking each other's heads...ah...gotta love sectarian hatred!
     
  14. sgt peppersass

    sgt peppersass Monkey+

    how did we get to start talking about our junk getting snipped? I thought this was about Iran starting crap lol
     
    Alpha Dog and TheEconomist like this.
  15. TheEconomist

    TheEconomist Creighton Bluejay Site Supporter+

    One thing that some of you need to understand is the power structure in Iran.

    First lesson....Ahmadinejad might not even be in the top 100 of most powerful people in Iran.

    Do a little research...it may be shocking.

    (I used to have a sick position paper on this...trying to dig it up)


    [​IMG]


    This is SOMEWHAT acurate.
     
    tulianr and chelloveck like this.
  16. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Oh, yes, I am fully aware of the power Khomeini holds. Amajenabutthead is a figurehead, a mouth peice. A political lackey. Khomeini has ruled that Muslims must wage a Jihad against an enemy who attacks an Islamic nation. He is the one who galvanized the entire Nation of Iran against the us in the late 70's. Smoke and mirrors. Once Khomeini decides it is time, he will issue a Fatwā, a religious legal order (Iran is under Sharia Law), and that will, as they say, be that.
     
    TheEconomist likes this.
  17. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Agreed Falcon.

    Agreed,......"Amajenabutthead" is but a mere cypher for the mad mullahs, to give the illusion to the world, that Iran is led by a secular parliamentary government, when in fact the actual power is held and exercised by the clerics. Make no mistake...real, actual power is held by a dictatorial theocracy....all the rest is mere window dressing.

    Any stirrings of democratic inclinations by the masses close to home, is a direct threat to the cleric's retention of power and ultimate control...so better to do a deal with the virtually secular devil worshipers in Syria (Assad and his gang of bullies) thereby keeping dangerously infectious inclinations towards democracy and personal freedom well away from home.
     
  18. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Adventure Riding Monkey Founding Member

    Falc, that was a different Ayatollah (who is now long dead), but the point is taken.
     
  19. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Yeah, the current dude is Sayyed Ali Khamenei. It was part of an evil plan on the Iranians' part to confuse the heck out of us westerners. The next guy will be Khemenei.

     
    chelloveck likes this.
  20. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    The only problem with that scenario is that the Iranians are Shia, a minority in the Muslim world and considered by most Sunni's to be heretics and not true Muslims. So the event that the majority of Muslims would rush to their defense or even care about a "fatwah" they issued is pretty remote.
    It would be the equivalent of all the Christians in Texas rushing to defend the Branch Davidians. And they are not even Arabs, they're Persians. The majority, Arab Muslims have little love or regard for the Iranians.
     
    ColtCarbine and tulianr like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7