Israel Plans Nuclear Strike On Iran

[Love As Arson]

The Sunday Times - World

The Sunday Times January 07, 2007

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:

# Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment

# A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

# A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb

Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310.html

[thatwasamoment]

Oh Israel...

[Justin_stacy]

no one can really blame them, given the attitude of Iran. But i really doubt much will come of this since it was allowed to become public.

[FScott]

Good.

[we are cured]

no one can really blame them, given the attitude of Iran. But i really doubt much will come of this since it was allowed to become public.

IMO it was designed to go public.

[FScott]

We can set back Irans nuclear program years but what consquences would we face? No doubt Iran will have some sort of response.

[dw1003]

Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemtive war is now an acceptable practice...

[unwritten]

oh christ...

[captainhampton]

Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemtive war is now an acceptable practice...
yeah Iran's never done anything to Israel.

[x togepi x]

no one can really blame them, given the attitude of Iran. But i really doubt much will come of this since it was allowed to become public.

except now that Israel has crossed the threshold that that says nuclear weapons are legal to use means that other countries will be more likely to use them, which is kinda counterintuitive. TNWs, what Israel is using, are still more powerful than the bombs we used in hiroshima and nagasaki.

but Israel has already denied these plans anyway, multiple times (the latest being sunday)

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemtive war is now an acceptable practice...


Israel could attack a lot of people and still make a reasonable argument that it isn't pre-emptive

[IATA4224]

yeah Iran's never done anything to Israel.

No? they have just stated publicly many times that they need to be whipped off the face of the earth... If this article is true, it WILL CAUSE major problems in the West and around the world..

[IATA4224]

Israel could attack a lot of people and still make a reasonable argument that it isn't pre-emptive

What are you talking about? Unless they are 100% positive that Iran is going to attack Israel, this will become a preventive war, which by standards is not ethical or moral... It doesn't matter what they say is pre-emptive or not, because in the end it will not be justified..

[Love As Arson]

Preventative for whom? Israel is one of the only nations in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and Iran's development of nuclear energy has yet to be proven as means to get nuclear weapons. So, it seems that this would simply be another war in which Israel is acting as a surrogate for the US.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

What are you talking about? Unless they are 100% positive that Iran is going to attack Israel, this will become a preventive war, which by standards is not ethical or moral... It doesn't matter what they say is pre-emptive or not, because in the end it will not be justified..


A stated platform of the Iranian government is to eliminate Israel from the map. I'm not saying that using nukes on them is a good thing. But I'd venture to say that they have more reason to go to war with Iran than we do with Iraq.

[Love As Arson]

Ahmadinejad is spewing rhetoric, no more or less.

[preppyak]

A stated platform of the Iranian government is to eliminate Israel from the map. I'm not saying that using nukes on them is a good thing. But I'd venture to say that they have more reason to go to war with Iran than we do with Iraq.
Ahmadinejad is spewing rhetoric, no more or less.
Actually, that is well before Ahmadinejad...that platform is, if I remember correctly, before even Khatami's reign there

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, President from 89-97

""We want all the Palestinians back in their homeland, and then there can be a fair referendum for people to choose the form of state they want,"

And from Iranian officials after Ahmadinejad's comments in 2005:

"Considering that the president's comments have been repeated by other Iranian officials during the past 26 years and the Iranian government is not announcing a new policy, some Western countries' reaction to these remarks has surprised the world public opinion"

[preppyak]

IMO it was designed to go public.
Yep...its a form of deterrence...just as was their "accidental" acknowledgment that they had a nuclear program a few months back. I'm willing to be the US has a similar plan, but, due to current tensions, it would be unwise for us to admit that we do...

The actuality, in my mind, is that Iran with nuclear weapons is the scariest possibility we encounter. They have stated goals of wiping a few countries off the map, and they also have intentions of controlling the Middle East oil supply. We've already seen how easily Kuwait was taken in previous times, and with Iraq in a mess, it too could be taken easily...which is exactly how the RAND war game I did started...with those two nations being taken.

If Iran has nuclear weapons...we cannot engage in ground combat with them without a legitimate fear that we lost almost all of our troops in one strike...no matter how good our theater missile defense may have become...all it takes is one nuke to get through and we lost all the divisions we've sent to the area (which currently is a very large percentage of our army)

[Bad Luck Prince]

I'm sorry, but I've got to differ with you there. They have planned one iradicating the Jews for a much longer time that this nuclear threat has been thought up. I think they would do the world a favor if they did get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons. It's nearly as bad as North Korea. They have true hate for the Jews and without any good reason as all antisemitism and racism. I watched a show the other day that showed the media in IRan and they had small children calling the Jews "dogs" and "pigs".

[ilovebsb]

lame lame lame.

[preppyak]

I'm sorry, but I've got to differ with you there. They have planned one iradicating the Jews for a much longer time that this nuclear threat has been thought up. I think they would do the world a favor if they did get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons. It's nearly as bad as North Korea. They have true hate for the Jews and without any good reason as all antisemitism and racism. I watched a show the other day that showed the media in IRan and they had small children calling the Jews "dogs" and "pigs".
Actually, you are quite wrong there...as, the Palestinian/Israel issue I would call more than just "racism"...to call it such shows a very distinct lack of knowledge of why Israel is not looked favorably upon.

A decent portion of Iran's hatred comes from the Iran-Iraq war...and since they they feel betrayed by the US, and more importantly, the Western/UN world, and they see Israel's presence in the region as being supported by those entities, and not the Arab world itself.

You have to understand that Israel is the embodiment of the Western World in the Middle East...since it was placed by UN partition...so, anytime the West does something wrong, it hurts Israel too. And the Israel-Palestine issue is also confined within already strong religious hatred in the region.

Now, Ahmadinejad is embracing a policy of inflammation...saying all the things that put the US and Israel in bad positions, and essentially forcing their hands...and it seems to be working very well.

I agree in part that a lot of what he says is rhetoric, and no more, but he is now in a position (one which we have placed him in) where we actually have to take that rhetoric at least half seriously

[preppyak]

except now that Israel has crossed the threshold that that says nuclear weapons are legal to use means that other countries will be more likely to use them, which is kinda counterintuitive. TNWs, what Israel is using, are still more powerful than the bombs we used in hiroshima and nagasaki.

but Israel has already denied these plans anyway, multiple times (the latest being sunday)
Well, the nuclear bombs in existence are all exceptionally larger than those used in Japan. THey were both around like 10-15 kilatons...and many of the US's contingency plans during the Cold War were set using bombs easily into the megaton range...which is why your point that it makes nuclear weapons usable so scary....because yes, they were used once, but on an infinitely smaller scale then they will be today.

[Justin_stacy]

Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemtive war is now an acceptable practice...

not much of a history buff, eh'? Israel has already had the balls to do this in the past. You know there was a world pre-bush?

[Justin_stacy]

except now that Israel has crossed the threshold that that says nuclear weapons are legal to use means that other countries will be more likely to use them, which is kinda counterintuitive. TNWs, what Israel is using, are still more powerful than the bombs we used in hiroshima and nagasaki.

but Israel has already denied these plans anyway, multiple times (the latest being sunday)

I'm not sure i agree with that conclusion given the mental state of governing bodies were discussing, but regardless of weaponary used, you really can't blame the obvious target trying to take out the triggerman before he has time to aim...

[x togepi x]

I'm not sure i agree with that conclusion given the mental state of governing bodies were discussing, but regardless of weaponary used, you really can't blame the obvious target trying to take out the triggerman before he has time to aim...

the mental state of these two bodies is irrelavent. Other countries around the world are all about wanting to use TNWs, but the fact that the threshold hasn't been broken is why they haven't. They're all afraid of what international law would say about such use. If Israel got away with it, you could see other countries like Russia using theirs in their military conflicts.

This is the reason the US developed the daisy cutter bunker buster, which is actually more powerful than some TNWs, but as it's a conventional weapon, it's considered okay for use.

I'm just saying, if the point of nuking iran is to keep someone from getting nuclear weapons who'd use them, it's probably a bad idea since it encourages others to use their TNWs, as well as other countries that don't have them to develop. There's no way the security council would condemn such an action, so it'd just open the door.

TNWs and their use is actually a big problem in US-Russian relations.

[cal1082]

Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemtive war is now an acceptable practice...

israel has been preemtive way before bush

[cal1082]

yeah Iran's never done anything to Israel.

no kidding, a strike by israel would be far from preemtive at this point when it comes to iran

[Jason Tate]

israel has been preemtive way before bush
I think that's why he said, "acceptable," but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

[dw1003]

not much of a history buff, eh'? Israel has already had the balls to do this in the past. You know there was a world pre-bush?

Not to big on the reading comprehension, eh?

I said nothing of the sort.

By and large, the actions of President Bush (in invading Iraq) have set a dangerous precedent
for the rest of the world in regards to the "acceptability" of preemtive attacks on suspected targets.

This is a new form of "defense" according to the "Bush Doctrine"

preemtively striking against a suspected enemy.

I believe history will judge Bush harshly for his arrogant, irresponsible, and dangerous foreign policy.

When the most powerful nation on earth makes it ok to invade another country preemtively, based on bad intelligence... yea I think it's ok to throw a little responibility back towards the leaders of said country when it comes to Israel following suit.

[dw1003]

israel has been preemtive way before bush

you were an idiot way before you didn't understand my post.

[dw1003]

no kidding, a strike by israel would be far from preemtive at this point when it comes to iran

By definition you are wrong.

pre·emp·tive [pree-emp-tiv]
–adjective

taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival.

congratulations, you're a fucking idiot.

I think what you meant to say, but do not have the capacity to communicate, is:
that Israel would be justified in attacking Iran, based on your personal/political point of view.

[cal1082]

By definition you are wrong.

pre·emp·tive [pree-emp-tiv]
–adjective

taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival.

congratulations, you're a fucking idiot.

I think what you meant to say, but do not have the capacity to communicate, is:
that Israel would be justified in attacking Iran, based on your personal/political point of view.

No, based on the fact that Iran has supported terrorist attacks and groups like Hamas for years and years that have directly and purposely targeted civilians in Israel.

It's like arguing that our attack against Afghanistan was preemtive after 9-11.

[cal1082]

Not to big on the reading comprehension, eh?

I said nothing of the sort.

By and large, the actions of President Bush (in invading Iraq) have set a dangerous precedent
for the rest of the world in regards to the "acceptability" of preemtive attacks on suspected targets.

This is a new form of "defense" according to the "Bush Doctrine"

preemtively striking against a suspected enemy.

I believe history will judge Bush harshly for his arrogant, irresponsible, and dangerous foreign policy.

When the most powerful nation on earth makes it ok to invade another country preemtively, based on bad intelligence... yea I think it's ok to throw a little responibility back towards the leaders of said country when it comes to Israel following suit.

It's not hard to comprehend what you are saying. You typed a single sentence. Take a step back and think maybe you might be wrong with what you're saying?

--You are saying Bush has set a dangerous precedent by a preemtive attack on Iraq, but are ignoring the fact Israel made a preemtive attack decades ago against Iraq's nuclear facility way before Bush was around.

--You are also saying this is a "new" form of defense........again if Israel did this against Iraq 20 years ago it would not be "new" because of the Bush Doctorine.

I really dont think it's our reading comprehension, unless my bolded highlights are wrong.

[Bad Luck Prince]

I think it is funny people blame leaders for everything. It's like they would say:

"We can't take responsibility for ourselves, so we'll blame you for unicorns going extinct too! Unicorn-killer!"

Come on, World! you got to grow up someday and stop look for reasons to point the finger. Look at yourselves.

[Justin_stacy]

Not to big on the reading comprehension, eh?

I said nothing of the sort.

By and large, the actions of President Bush (in invading Iraq) have set a dangerous precedent
for the rest of the world in regards to the "acceptability" of preemtive attacks on suspected targets.

This is a new form of "defense" according to the "Bush Doctrine"

preemtively striking against a suspected enemy.

I believe history will judge Bush harshly for his arrogant, irresponsible, and dangerous foreign policy.

When the most powerful nation on earth makes it ok to invade another country preemtively, based on bad intelligence... yea I think it's ok to throw a little responibility back towards the leaders of said country when it comes to Israel following suit.

Wow! The utter disregard that some people have for history when it doesn‘t fit into their preconceived, and foolish, conclusions is just shocking. Preemptive strikes didn't begin with Bush, nor would this be the first time Israel has been the one to go after a rogue nation's nuclear program.

How are they following a so called "bush doctrine," when they been doing this for 40 plus years?

[we are cured]

I think it is funny people blame leaders for everything. It's like they would say:

"We can't take responsibility for ourselves, so we'll blame you for unicorns going extinct too! Unicorn-killer!"

Come on, World! you got to grow up someday and stop look for reasons to point the finger. Look at yourselves.

When a lot of the free world is governed in the form of republics, you have no choice but to blame administrations and their policies.

[preppyak]

Wow! The utter disregard that some people have for history when it doesn‘t fit into their preconceived, and foolish, conclusions is just shocking. Preemptive strikes didn't begin with Bush, nor would this be the first time Israel has been the one to go after a rogue nation's nuclear program.

How are they following a so called "bush doctrine," when they been doing this for 40 plus years?
Exactly...if he had even read the article that prefaces this thread, it mentions the attacks in 1981...you can't even claim poor information on that one

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Apparently though, the Israeli's who ordered the strike have no concept of the difference between "deterrence" and "prevention"

"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir)

[richter915]

When a lot of the free world is governed in the form of republics, you have no choice but to blame administrations and their policies.
blaming our leaders is like blaming ourselves considering we chose them through democratic elections.

[RomeoAGoGo]

When the leader of Country A (Iran) announces that Country B (Israel) should be "wiped off the face of the Earth," then Country B has the right to make sure this doesn't happen.

[Love As Arson]

When the leader of Country A (Iran) announces that Country B (Israel) should be "wiped off the face of the Earth," then Country B has the right to make sure this doesn't happen.
So, for example, when the president argues that we must attack nations that harbor terrorists, that nation has a right to attack the United States. The pre-emptive doctrine is either one that may be applied universally or discarded entirely.

[we are cured]

When the leader of Country A (Iran) announces that Country B (Israel) should be "wiped off the face of the Earth," then Country B has the right to make sure this doesn't happen.

No, because even though it's a fucked up thing to say, it's a form of diplomacy. You let the world know your "intentions," and attempt to get what you believe is your's (in this case, the right to posess nuclear technology).

Iran knows that this type of action will either a.) initiate world war 3 or b.) succeed in getting tehran and a host of other cities destroyed while the rest of the middle east cries jihad, but sits there helplessly and watches. Neither is a good scenario for them.

[Love As Arson]

Actually, that is well before Ahmadinejad...that platform is, if I remember correctly, before even Khatami's reign there

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, President from 89-97

""We want all the Palestinians back in their homeland, and then there can be a fair referendum for people to choose the form of state they want,"

And from Iranian officials after Ahmadinejad's comments in 2005:

"Considering that the president's comments have been repeated by other Iranian officials during the past 26 years and the Iranian government is not announcing a new policy, some Western countries' reaction to these remarks has surprised the world public opinion"
Yes, you are correct, however, it is rhetoric designed to appeal to the base of Iran. The question one must ask is: Is the reason this resonates with the publici the result of Israel being allowed to do as it will without reprecussions? The oppression of the Palestinians and their most recent acts in Lebanon are clear violations of international law. Incidentally, there were most resolutions issued against Israel than Iraq.
I'm sorry, but I've got to differ with you there. They have planned one iradicating the Jews for a much longer time that this nuclear threat has been thought up. I think they would do the world a favor if they did get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons. It's nearly as bad as North Korea. They have true hate for the Jews and without any good reason as all antisemitism and racism. I watched a show the other day that showed the media in Iran and they had small children calling the Jews "dogs" and "pigs".
There is no proof Iran seeks the nuclear weapon. They are legally within their rights to cultivate nuclear energy. The problem, however, is the western world and Israel have obfuscated the actual meaning of the treaty they've signed with Iran, and made it seem as though they are cultivating nuclear energy. Moreover, if racism is a belief which justifies military action, then Saudi Arabia would be a primary target, as would portions of the US.

no kidding, a strike by israel would be far from preemtive at this point when it comes to iran
Conversely, Israel has destabilised the region a great deal, so one may argue that those region have a legitimate basis to respond in kind.

[dw1003]

Wow! The utter disregard that some people have for history when it doesn‘t fit into their preconceived, and foolish, conclusions is just shocking. Preemptive strikes didn't begin with Bush, nor would this be the first time Israel has been the one to go after a rogue nation's nuclear program.

How are they following a so called "bush doctrine," when they been doing this for 40 plus years?

Bush has set a dangerous precedent in the "acceptability" of preemtive strikes...

what don't you get about my statement...

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

So, for example, when the president argues that we must attack nations that harbor terrorists, that nation has a right to attack the United States. The pre-emptive doctrine is either one that may be applied universally or discarded entirely.

Good point. Although since, the terrorists want to attack us anyway, it might be a moot one.

To me the real question is do we really want the whole world running on a "well they started it", elementary way of thinking that has everyone paying everyone back for what they did in the past. It has to end somewhere, and we can bet it wont be the terrorist who stop it.

[x togepi x]

is 'well they started it' any better than 'he was looking at me funny'?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

is 'well they started it' any better than 'he was looking at me funny'?


hmm
sort of caught me in my own metaphor, or was it an analogy i was making.
either way, i think it would probably be best if countries didn't go off attacking other countries because of a little trash talking. but when the trash talking includes the denial of your right to exist its hard to blame them.

[Love As Arson]

Good point. Although since, the terrorists want to attack us anyway, it might be a moot one.
Iran, under the arguments provided, could initiate an attack in order to prevent us from attacking them.

To me the real question is do we really want the whole world running on a "well they started it", elementary way of thinking that has everyone paying everyone back for what they did in the past. It has to end somewhere, and we can bet it wont be the terrorist who stop it.
We can cease initiating cycle that breeds terrorism.

[Justin_stacy]

Bush has set a dangerous precedent in the "acceptability" of preemtive strikes...

what don't you get about my statement...


Your actual wording was.....Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemptive war is now an acceptable practice......as if Bush's actions somehow lead to or allowed for Israel's actions, though Israel’s policy predates Bush by 50 years. You're fish’n.

There is correlation between the two. One did not beget the other.

Now what don't you understand.....?

[Love As Arson]

hmm
but when the trash talking includes the denial of your right to exist its hard to blame them.
What about the nations that the UN refuses to recognise?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

What about the nations that the UN refuses to recognise?

The UN isn't advocating there removal from the face of the planet, as far as I know. Still, I see your point.

[Bad Luck Prince]

I know if somebody said they were going to get rid of the NAtive American governments and kill all of the Natives off the face of the earth, I would be like, "We gotta stop this. We gotta show that we can out last this. We got to show some muscle." and if somebody did that to you(put yourself in that position), you'd be thinking the same things. If that's what Israel is doing, then that completely fine with me.

[x togepi x]

except there's a difference between defending yourself and normalizing the use of nuclear weapons.

[preppyak]

except there's a difference between defending yourself and normalizing the use of nuclear weapons.
Yep...especially if Iran has not actually developed the weapons yet, you can eliminate capabilities through conventional weapons bombing (bunker-busters, etc)

[dw1003]

Your actual wording was.....Let's give a big hand to George W. Bush... Preemptive war is now an acceptable practice......as if Bush's actions somehow lead to or allowed for Israel's actions, though Israel’s policy predates Bush by 50 years. You're fish’n.

There is correlation between the two. One did not beget the other.

Now what don't you understand.....?

My original statement clearly infers that the actions of our President have made preemtive war more acceptable... acceptable being the fucking key word...

yea yea yea Isreal's policies pre-date blah blah blah

that wasn't my point. accepta-fucking-bility... is the point.

The Bush doctrine has changed the wartime mindset to an offensive one, which previously may have existed in other nations, however in the political atmosphere of the 20th and 21st century... offensive, preemtive invasions have been looked at in a negative light. We are now the instigators not the protectors we once were.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

My original statement clearly infers that the actions of our President have made preemtive war more acceptable... acceptable being the fucking key word...

yea yea yea Isreal's policies pre-date blah blah blah

that wasn't my point. accepta-fucking-bility... is the point.

The Bush doctrine has changed the wartime mindset to an offensive one, which previously may have existed in other nations, however in the political atmosphere of the 20th and 21st century... offensive, preemtive invasions have been looked at in a negative light. We are now the instigators not the protectors we once were.


/thread

[halifaxrocks]

Oh Israel...
haha I don't know why, but I laughed at this. It wasn't like a: HOLY CRAP THAT IS SO FUNNY!!!! laugh, but more of a chuckle. But I liked it.

[saysmydoctor]

Israel has a lot more balls, for lack of a better term, than the US and if the US didn't always pull the reigns, I'm pretty sure Israel would steamroll the Middle East without shedding a tear. Personally, I think Israel should stay away from nukes and work on their Cement Technology and wall off West Bank and Gaza.

[x togepi x]

Israel has a lot more balls, for lack of a better term, than the US and if the US didn't always pull the reigns, I'm pretty sure Israel would steamroll the Middle East without shedding a tear. Personally, I think Israel should stay away from nukes and work on their Cement Technology and wall off West Bank and Gaza.

yeah fuck the Palestinians they're not people right?

[saysmydoctor]

yeah fuck the Palestinians they're not people right?
They are people, but yes fuck them. They are the most inconsistent, uncontrollable people ever. Israel has come to the table, granted against their wishes, with numerous ideas but then some stupid sonofabitch crosses the border and bombs an Israeli settlement. Israel forcibly pulls their people out of Gaza, as a gesture of their dedication to peace and barely a week later, they are bombing buses again, kidnapping soldiers. And then the world gives Israel shit--and for intents and purposes, Israel is in the right.

If they want to act like they, fuck them. Trust me, I doubt Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia, etc will let them die.

[richter915]

Israel has a lot more balls, for lack of a better term, than the US and if the US didn't always pull the reigns, I'm pretty sure Israel would steamroll the Middle East without shedding a tear. Personally, I think Israel should stay away from nukes and work on their Cement Technology and wall off West Bank and Gaza.
that's why when Arab nations get the nukes, it'll finally be a balance of power and we don't want that.

[BarrelIsPointed]

"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans"

I stopped reading after that, not so secret, eh?

[saysmydoctor]

that's why when Arab nations get the nukes, it'll finally be a balance of power and we don't want that.
I guess you could argue both sides of that point. Maybe if everyone knew what their place was, they'd sit back and shut the fuck up. Then again, I'm pretty Syria would shoot off nukes at Israel like a man would should his load in a girl's mouth.

[halifaxrocks]

At least the U.S. isn't doing this

[Love As Arson]

Israel has a lot more balls, for lack of a better term, than the US and if the US didn't always pull the reigns, I'm pretty sure Israel would steamroll the Middle East without shedding a tear. Personally, I think Israel should stay away from nukes and work on their Cement Technology and wall off West Bank and Gaza.
Israel is an agent of US imperialism. Its actions are directly tied to the benefit of US power.

They are people, but yes fuck them. They are the most inconsistent, uncontrollable people ever.
The Palestinians used non-violence for over two decades, and the world stopped listening as their rights were increasingly infringed upon.

Israel has come to the table, granted against their wishes, with numerous ideas but then some stupid sonofabitch crosses the border and bombs an Israeli settlement. Israel forcibly pulls their people out of Gaza, as a gesture of their dedication to peace and barely a week later, they are bombing buses again, kidnapping soldiers. And then the world gives Israel shit--and for intents and purposes, Israel is in the right.
The withdrawal from Gaza was essentially a sham, as Israel maintained a presence with the continued practice of convergence, which is the consolidation of Palestinian resources under its control. Moreover, let us look at the Western/Israeli response to their democratic elections: Starvation and intrusions into Palestinian land so as to imprison members of government. How can one expect Palestine to be a viable, stable state if the US and Israel are playing an integral role in preventing that occurrence?



If they want to act like they, fuck them. Trust me, I doubt Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia, etc will let them die.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia and Jordan are US-sponsored regimes, so it is unlikely they will do anything to help the Palestinians. Iran and Syria are likely candidates, though they will be castigated for helping them. Further, the statements by George Bush on Wednesday indicates that there will soon be a military strike in both countries, which would hinder their abilities to help the Palestinians.

[x togepi x]

They are people, but yes fuck them. They are the most inconsistent, uncontrollable people ever. Israel has come to the table, granted against their wishes, with numerous ideas but then some stupid sonofabitch crosses the border and bombs an Israeli settlement. Israel forcibly pulls their people out of Gaza, as a gesture of their dedication to peace and barely a week later, they are bombing buses again, kidnapping soldiers. And then the world gives Israel shit--and for intents and purposes, Israel is in the right.

If they want to act like they, fuck them. Trust me, I doubt Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia, etc will let them die.

So because a few people decide to be suicide bombers, we should treat the entire rest of its population like crap? I guess since a few American soldiers have killed innocent civilians in situations like Haditha during the Iraq war, that justifies killing off all the rest of the Americans, right?

Here's another question, if a state came into where you lived and bulldozed your house because you happen to be related to someone who's a terrorist, even if you don't necessarily agree with him/her, would you not be mad at said state?

So, Israel was in the right when it sent death squads into the Palestinian refugee camps to kill innocent children?

Both sides in this crisis are just fueling the other side's hatred, and things like this wall you advocate are only going to cause more problems down the line..or at the very least make it even more impossible to negotiate some settlement. I don't see how anyone can say "Israel's right" or "Palestine's right".

and finally, why should being the "most uncontrollable group of people ever" be considered a bad thing? People shouldn't be "controlled".

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

So because a few people decide to be suicide bombers, we should treat the entire rest of its population like crap? I guess since a few American soldiers have killed innocent civilians in situations like Haditha during the Iraq war, that justifies killing off all the rest of the Americans, right?

Here's another question, if a state came into where you lived and bulldozed your house because you happen to be related to someone who's a terrorist, even if you don't necessarily agree with him/her, would you not be mad at said state?

So, Israel was in the right when it sent death squads into the Palestinian refugee camps to kill innocent children?

Both sides in this crisis are just fueling the other side's hatred, and things like this wall you advocate are only going to cause more problems down the line..or at the very least make it even more impossible to negotiate some settlement. I don't see how anyone can say "Israel's right" or "Palestine's right".

and finally, why should being the "most uncontrollable group of people ever" be considered a bad thing? People shouldn't be "controlled".


I think this situation amounts to the same thing as the Embassy Attack thread. Violence breeds more violence. The terrorists are not going to end the cycle. If we want to claim a moral high ground then we need to act like the good guys. For too long we've claimed to be the good guy because we have the bigger guns.

I agreed with what you said in the other thread and then upon reading this one saw the same point. Well put in both.

[MPS_]

So because a few people decide to be suicide bombers, we should treat the entire rest of its population like crap? I guess since a few American soldiers have killed innocent civilians in situations like Haditha during the Iraq war, that justifies killing off all the rest of the Americans, right?

Here's another question, if a state came into where you lived and bulldozed your house because you happen to be related to someone who's a terrorist, even if you don't necessarily agree with him/her, would you not be mad at said state?

So, Israel was in the right when it sent death squads into the Palestinian refugee camps to kill innocent children?

Both sides in this crisis are just fueling the other side's hatred, and things like this wall you advocate are only going to cause more problems down the line..or at the very least make it even more impossible to negotiate some settlement. I don't see how anyone can say "Israel's right" or "Palestine's right".

and finally, why should being the "most uncontrollable group of people ever" be considered a bad thing? People shouldn't be "controlled".

Please elaborate.

[x togepi x]

Please elaborate.

My bad. it didn't send the "christian" death squads in. It just let them go into the lebanese palestinian refugee camps and slaughter civilians there. It was the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanese war.

[MPS_]

My bad. it didn't send the "christian" death squads in. It just let them go into the lebanese palestinian refugee camps and slaughter civilians there. It was the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanese war.

Well there is quite a difference between the Israeli Army and a Lebanese Christian militia. You should also note that the Sabra and Shatila massacre was part of a 7 year civil war between Shiite, Sunni, Palestinian and Christian militia groups with roughly 95,000 people killed.

It is also interesting to note that the Shatila and Burj-el Barjajneh refugee camps were attacked once again in 1985, this time by Muslim militia with 635 killed and in 1990 the Syrian army overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon where 700 Christians were killed.

[x togepi x]

Well there is quite a difference between the Israeli Army and a Lebanese Christian militia. You should also note that the Sabra and Shatila massacre was part of a 7 year civil war between Shiite, Sunni, Palestinian and Christian militia groups with roughly 95,000 people killed.

It is also interesting to note that the Shatila and Burj-el Barjajneh refugee camps were attacked once again in 1985, this time by Muslim militia with 635 killed and in 1990 the Syrian army overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon where 700 Christians were killed.

Israel didn't stop them, which is significant seeing as they were working with the militias that carried out the massacres in other operations. Some reports even state that the IDF helped out, and the IDF was in the area, so they could have atleast done something to remedy the situation. They still get some of the blame.

[MPS_]

Israel didn't stop them, which is significant seeing as they were working with the militias that carried out the massacres in other operations. Some reports even state that the IDF helped out, and the IDF was in the area, so they could have atleast done something to remedy the situation. They still get some of the blame.

They 100% deserve part of the blame. In fact, it was Israel that formed the Kahan Commission which found that Israeli government was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the militia violence. Former Sceretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the comission was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy... There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode."

[x togepi x]

They 100% deserve part of the blame. In fact, it was Israel that formed the Kahan Commission which found that Israeli government was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the militia violence. Former Sceretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the comission was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy... There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode."

but see this was my point, that Palestinians see things like this and use them as reasoning to not trust Israel. I'm not trying to justify anything, I just used it as one of my examples in a "put yourself in their shoes" kind of way.

[MPS_]

but see this was my point, that Palestinians see things like this and use them as reasoning to not trust Israel. I'm not trying to justify anything, I just used it as one of my examples in a "put yourself in their shoes" kind of way.

I hear that. Though just because the Palestinians see things in a certain way, doesn't mean that we can't be a bit more knowledgeable.

[x togepi x]

I hear that. Though just because the Palestinians see things in a certain way, doesn't mean that we can't be a bit more knowledgeable.

what do you mean by that?

My error comes from the fact that i was looking at my poly sci notes, where my teacher told me that Israel had a big hand in it. That issue is debatable, but it's not really a fact.

But the point of my post, was to point out that you can't say Israel is in the right...that glosses over their own atrocities. The whole situation is a mess.

[saysmydoctor]

The US supports the Somalian regime, yet bombs the country.

Now that sounds like something the US would do.

[Love As Arson]

I think we must make a distinction between the violence of an oppressor and the violence of the oppressed; they are quite different in their properties, the latter of which I believe to be justified.

[MPS_]

what do you mean by that?

My error comes from the fact that i was looking at my poly sci notes, where my teacher told me that Israel had a big hand in it. That issue is debatable, but it's not really a fact.

But the point of my post, was to point out that you can't say Israel is in the right...that glosses over their own atrocities. The whole situation is a mess.

What I meant is pretty much what you just said... That the issue is debatable. You brought it up in terms of how the Palestinians most likely view it as an act of aggression and thereby return the aggression. I was saying that we should be a bit more knowledgeable and learn that their were many circumstances surrounding the event.

But I agree that it is wrong to say that Israel was right as nobody really knows for sure what occurred.

[Ambulance X]

good.

[TranscendTrends]

word. good forum topic. i remember last quarter they had a big public discussion at my university over the israeli-palestine issue, and arguments got pretty heated between the jewish and muslim students. i know it's cliche, but the best way to calm down a confrontation between two groups is direct communication. being able to find shared principles and offering up new ideas.