Posted on 10/30/2023 7:01:43 AM PDT by Red Badger
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi posted said Israel has now crossed the red line as Israeli forces ground deeper into Gaza on Sunday.
Raisi said in a post on X:
“Zionist regime’s crimes have crossed the red lines, which may force everyone to take action. Washington asks us to not do anything, but they keep giving widespread support to Israel.’
“The US sent messages to the Axis of Resistance but received a clear response on the battlefield,” Raisi said, referring to Iran-backed groups that are opposed to Israel and the US.
According to a recent statement from Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, Raisi said the US was hypocritical in supporting Israel in its war on Hamas.
The statement said:
“Americans who claim human rights, who equip and support this fake and anti-human regime with military equipment for crimes in Gaza, what answer do they have to their nation and the nations of the world for these actions?”
Raisi sought to put some distance between Iran and the militia groups it supplies during an interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday.
“Iran considers it its duty to support the resistance groups, but … the resistance groups are independent in their opinion, decision, and action,” he said, according to France 24.
“The United States knows very well our current capabilities and knows that they are impossible to overcome,” he said.
The Jerusalem Post reported that Raisi said Iran-linked groups conducted attacks on US forces in response to messages received from the US.
Raisi went on to claim Israel’s ground troops in Gaza were defeated” and were retreating.
But Israel Defense Forces claimed that ground forces were cleaning out Hamas fighters as they moved towards northern Gaza, the Times of Israel reported.
Israel continued to urge Gaza residents who have not fled to do so.
“To the residents of the Gaza Strip: The Gaza governorate (Gaza City) has become a battlefield. Shelters in northern Gaza and Gaza governorate are not safe,” leaflets dropped by Israeli planes said.
Last week, Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian warned the US it would “not be spared” if it continues to support Israel during a UN General Assembly meeting in New York on Thursday.
“I say frankly to the American statesmen, who are now managing the genocide in Palestine, that we do not welcome expansion of the war in the region,” Amirabdollahian told the UN General Assembly.
“But if the genocide in Gaza continues, they will not be spared from this fire.”
During the same week, Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri, the head of the Iranian Armed Forces, said the American support for Israel could “make other actors intervene” as the president of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, said the “termination of Israel is imminent.
“Our strategy towards the Zionist entity never changes: the removal of the Zionist entity,” Iranian Armed Forces Spokesman Brigadier-General Abolfazl Shekarchi said in 2021.
“Israel must be eliminated,” he added.
Nice that Obama/Biden helped equip Iran with billions in cash and oil income so they could arm the worlds terrorist groups and buy nuclear weapon delivery systems.
Conservative outlook for the ME... Israelis will clear Hamas and help set up a civil palestinian state, but the root of the palestinians will have nothing of it...
they will poor a lot of money, as will the world, into gaza and corruption and terror will flourish
I remember a time, in the halcyon days of Orange Man Bad, when we weren’t on the brink of WWIII.
We know some that don’t think that. Fidiots to NOT be close to. 🤔
🙏🇮🇱👍🇺🇸
Yep. He doesn’t even mention, Turkey which is odd as they have the most formidable military in the region. I’ve followed Zeihan on Russia/China since I read his latest book, which is pretty good, but the ME isn’t his sweet spot, IMO. I’ve been steadfast since day 1 that we are there for Assad’s ass, which I think we’ll get one way or another. He does not think it pops off in a larger war, I think it’s more likely it does than not. Zeihan sometimes fails to calculate the power of the religiously insane to make poor decisions. Anyway, threw this vid out there because most commentary is how it all escalates, not how it does not.
Eisenhower and Ford in eastern Mediterranean. Vinson in the “Indo-Pacific”, presumably closer to Iran.
Iran won’t directly confront Israel. Lots of bluster.
I can only find the two, so I was wrong.
Even IF they went home to a smoking ruin that used to be home, they would STILL call Joe the best President
Plumb dumb
I got you.
Logic, religious zealotry, and war don’t mix well.
Throw in a large economic downturn, and things change rapidly.
Not to worry, I'm sure there will be a 10% set-aside for "the Big Guy".
Kind of makes war the only options.
“Our strategy towards the Zionist entity never changes: the removal of the Zionist entity...Israel must be eliminated”
How could Israel ever make peace with such people?
People such as Gazans and Iranians governed by such idiots should do everything they can to remove such people from power.
I thought that one group was supposed to replace the other.
The other reason to send in the one carrier group is to support Navy Seals that would conduct hostage rescues.
The threat would only be slightly reduced temporarily.
We began the “War on Terror” in 2001.
There were 1.29 billion Muslims then.
There are 2 billion Muslims now.
The ideology is the same.
Iran is smart enough to know they do not want to give the Israelis any reason to directly attack them. Even with the Russian air defense systems they have purchased Iran can not defend itself against the IDF air force.
Plus the US has relaxed the sanctions against Iran(which China wants) so that they can sell oil. Not to mention the $6 BILLION US DOLLARS they are getting back.
Eighty percent of Iran’s oil ships/loads at one island/port on the gulf. If Israel destroyed that facility it would crush Iran’s oil exports.
So, Iran can sabre rattle all they want. Any direct action against Israel and their country will be destroyed. Which could very well cause the fall of the current Mullah regime.
Apparently anti Iranian factions in Iran blew up a revolutionary guard building in Tehran.
Maybe it was a reminder that the mullahs should worry about their own homeland if they make war with Israel.
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.