PDA

View Full Version : If Iran attacked Israel,



Qtec
11-22-2011, 01:38 AM
..they would be totally justified under the Bush Doctrine. Yes?

Q

LWW
11-22-2011, 05:49 AM
Why do you always defend anti semite thug regimes that wish to practice genocide with impunity?

Qtec
11-22-2011, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you always defend anti semite thug regimes that wish to practice genocide with impunity? </div></div>

Is that a yes or a no?

Q

Gayle in MD
11-22-2011, 07:29 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
11-22-2011, 07:34 AM
Lets hope Iran attacks Israel.
Operation Samson would insure that the planet would have at least 1/2 a billion less Muslims.
There would be permanent peace in the middle east.

The US military industrial complex would be seriously down sized. The US military presence would no longer be needed in a large portion of the world.
US tax payers would be saving a lot of money.
The human carbon footprint would be substantially reduced.
IN the end it would be environmentally friendly.

I say let them go for it.

Soflasnapper
11-22-2011, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you always defend anti semite thug regimes that wish to practice genocide with impunity? </div></div>

He's not defending Israel, the only country of the two that fits the description.

Israel has threatened almost all countries with nuclear attack and even now targets all the capital cities of Europe.

Sev
11-22-2011, 07:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you always defend anti semite thug regimes that wish to practice genocide with impunity? </div></div>

He's not defending Israel, the only country of the two that fits the description.

Israel has threatened almost all countries with nuclear attack and even now targets all the capital cities of Europe. </div></div>

I would like to see the tactical data you are privy to. Not news articles but actual data.

LWW
11-23-2011, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you always defend anti semite thug regimes that wish to practice genocide with impunity? </div></div>

He's not defending Israel, the only country of the two that fits the description.

Israel has threatened almost all countries with nuclear attack and even now targets all the capital cities of Europe. </div></div>

I would like to see the tactical data you are privy to. Not news articles but actual data. </div></div>

There is none.

This moonbat crazy leftist anti semite myth come from one Israeli professor, Martin van Creveld, who once said around 8-10 years ago that the Israeli Air Force had all the European major cities targeted and within it's range.

Back to reality ... something myth believers despise ... the Israeli longest range bomber is the F15 Strike Eagle which can deliver a nuke. It has a max range, however, of 2,400 miles ... with external fuel tanks used in place of bombs.

As far as missiles, The Israeli JERICHO III most likely could hit all of Europe and possibly the USA if tipped with a low yield nuke.

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle)

MAZELTOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(missile))

Soflasnapper
11-23-2011, 09:51 AM
They also have nuclear missile capable submarines, so any range problems are solved by sailing the missile platform closer. Subs provided courtesy of Germany, btw!

Soflasnapper
11-23-2011, 10:10 AM
See here (http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html) for an explanation of the Samson Option.

Far from LWW's characterization, that this is merely the statement of one Israeli professor, the Samson Option is real, has been propounded by the government of Israel now for decades, and is used as a 'compellant' threat to gain various geopolitical objectives. That was the claim of Israel nuke whistle-blower Vannunu, as well as an admission by their PM.

At a minimum, it's been disclosed that they are targeting sites in Russia.

LWW
11-23-2011, 11:06 AM
From your link, this is the "SAMSON OPTION" explained:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The phrase the “Samson Option” is used to describe Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against “enemy” nations should its existence as a Jewish state be jeopardized through military attack.</div></div>

This was your claim:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Israel has threatened almost all countries with nuclear attack and even now targets all the capital cities of Europe. </div></div>

Once again your "PROOF" is a polar opposite of your claim.

Soflasnapper
11-23-2011, 07:37 PM
Yes, I continue in my belief that is the case, even if it is couched in vague terms that don't say this explicitly.

What was said explicitly by Israeli leaders was that although the Arab nations have the oil, Israel has the matches, and this particular threat may as well be a death threat to the west as much as explicitly stating a nuclear threat against the European and other western democracies' capitals.

Why? Because they are stating that in the event of the destruction of Israel, they'd use their second strike capability to nuke the middle Eastern oil fields.

Destroying this source of oil will fatally cripple the economy of the world, and likely create a nuclear winter from the combustion effects.

You are asking for proof of their intent, when they do not even acknowledge their own possession of an estimated 400 nuclear weapons. They've signaled their intent plenty, seems to me.

LWW
11-24-2011, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Arab nations have the oil, Israel has the matches</div></div>

You really don't have any standards when it comes to your bigotry, do you?

That quote is sourced from a Robert Friedman, in "Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement" ... and, oddly enough, nobody has ever been able to substantiate it actually having existed other than in his mind.

What do you quote from next? "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

Soflasnapper
11-24-2011, 10:40 AM
Robert I Friedman was a practicing Jew, and an investigative reporter. Your smear of him as a wild-eyed concocter of tall tales comparable to the Protocols is unfounded.

As to this particular quote, I couldn't find any disputants of it, and instead, I find it widely quoted all across the board without demurral. Perhaps you can point me to that? Or can't you?

I've found claims of misquoting of Sharon, but somehow, this one isn't mentioned. Just an oversight of CAMERA or the other pro-Zionists who are interested to rehabilitate their side?

LWW
11-24-2011, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Robert I Friedman was a practicing Jew, and an investigative reporter. Your smear of him as a wild-eyed concocter of tall tales comparable to the Protocols is unfounded.</div></div>

Being that he concocted a wild eyed tall tale ... I'd say you are wrong.

Friedman is such a moonbat crazy leftist that the likes of wild eyed reich winger Wolf Blitzer has written about his lies.

Please ... continue to embarrass yourself.

Soflasnapper
11-24-2011, 04:58 PM
I don't take Wolf Blitzer as a right winger, but he was the spokesman for AIPAC. So whether he's a liberal or not, as I take is your implication by ironically calling him a reich winger, he is a Zionist, who <s>may not be</s> is not so reliable on subjects impinging on Israel. Nor is he any paragon of straight reporting in any case, more of a hack, as you may know.

If Friedman's quote of Sharon is so false, why are the sites that LIST VARIOUS MISTAKEN QUOTES falsely attributed to Sharon missing this one, in your view? I looked at a half dozen, some reviewing many false quotes from many Israeli leaders, and others, just false quotes from Sharon. None I saw listed this as a misquote or false quote.

Surely you must have some evidence that his reporting in his book has been debunked? Please show it, thank you.

Sev
11-24-2011, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, I continue in my belief that is the case, even if it is couched in vague terms that don't say this explicitly.

What was said explicitly by Israeli leaders was that although the Arab nations have the oil, Israel has the matches, and this particular threat may as well be a death threat to the west as much as explicitly stating a nuclear threat against the European and other western democracies' capitals.

Why? Because they are stating that in the event of the destruction of Israel, they'd use their second strike capability to nuke the middle Eastern oil fields.

Destroying this source of oil will fatally cripple the economy of the world, and likely create a nuclear winter from the combustion effects.

You are asking for proof of their intent, when they do not even acknowledge their own possession of an estimated 400 nuclear weapons. They've signaled their intent plenty, seems to me. </div></div>

Mutually insured destruction.
Israel didnt come up with the idea.

By the way a nuclear winter is not created by oil rigs burning. Nor the oil containment tanks.

Soflasnapper
11-24-2011, 05:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Robert I Friedman was a practicing Jew, and an investigative reporter. Your smear of him as a wild-eyed concocter of tall tales comparable to the Protocols is unfounded.</div></div>

Being that he concocted a wild eyed tall tale ... I'd say you are wrong.

Friedman is such a moonbat crazy leftist that the likes of wild eyed reich winger Wolf Blitzer has written about his lies.

Please ... continue to embarrass yourself. </div></div>

Blitzer wrote a sympathetic account of Pollard, the Israelis' spy. Friedman wrote a scathing review for the NY Review of Books. Blitzer complained about the review in his own letter, and Friedman's rebuttal piece to Blitzer's complaints shows perhaps one error in his review, his characterization of Blitzer as an Israeli citizen.

I was slightly mistaken as to Blitzer's employment by AIPAC. He was editor of the journal founded by the same guy who founded AIPAC, and formerly before that, was employed at the Jerusalem Post.

Who was right in this controversy? Not sure, but I've seen many writing who support Friedman's take on the book, and none who take Blitzer's side.