After Iran nukes Isreal

Lets look at this and think for a minute. For Iran to wipe Israel off the map they will have to use more than one bomb, probally larger ones to get the job done.
Now lets say this happens where do you think the fallout will travel? Because which ever way it goes there are going to be an awful lot of pissed off people. And the fall out will most likly fall into other muslem countries, pretty much killing an awful lot of muslems along with the jews. Don't you think the Iranians have thought this out,and if they haven't do you think the Russians and Chinese have explained it to them.

they won't nuke israel

everyone knows that these days nukes are nothing more than status symbols allowing memberships in a club of powerful nations. nukes are too powerful to use, they're just a way to prevent being attacked.

think back, and name me one nuclear nation that's been attacked. can you?

iran doesn't even have an anti-israel agenda, just an anti-israel propaganda theme to rally people who are in a desperate situation looking for someone to demonize and scapegoat.

Definatly.

From the iranian presidents point of view, this is purly religious not so much political. for the russian and chinese gov, it is all political so there are various agenda's here.

for the iranian president, he wants to start a war with israel, wipe them out, so that he can bring in the last imam. (not sure if i spelled it right.) so its a armageddon, second coming kind of deal.

for the chinese gov, they want to be on top. they dont like america or very many other people for that matter. they also have their sites on taking part of russia.

Russia obviously doesnt want this to happen. so the figure if they lean more communist and support the chinese endeavors it will help them maintain their territory.

sounds a bit like the WW2 scenario. where hitler promised not to invade if the country made an alliance to stand by his regime and then within a month he broke
the alliance and attacked them.

the chinese government doesnt care. and thats what russia is evaluating right now. if you havent noticed..president bush had a meeting with vladimir putin and declared him a "symbol of democracy" seems kinda wierd considering all the things russia has been doing on the DL. but then again Russia hasn't out right declared they hate america either. Bush is trying to reel him back in 100% on our side. i think vladimir is treading on both sides of the pond here to see how some of this is going to play out. so he helps china a bit and then he helps america a bit so neither side can be totally pissed off with russia. it will all depend on what he feels china is going to do with that russian territory. if he can work out some agreement i think he will maintain the democratic system and western alliance that he had. if things look like china is wanting to take some stuff from russia then he will side with them.

so pretty much it looks like this....

China-wants oil and parts of russian territory
Russia-wants to keep russian territory
Iranian president- wants to bring in the last Imam and kill everyone that doesnt believe like him.

the unfortunate thing in all of this is that the governments are not reflecting the wills of the people. people in iran admire western values and want democrasy.
people in russia feel compromised but want democrasy more than communism, people in china want freedom as well. we have to remember that the majority of the people in these countries do not believe in these evil endeavors, and our anger should not be toward them. only the ones that participate in killing innocent people.




Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

[Mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]

You are exactly right, and that's what most people don't know about Iran, is that the people dont hate us, it's their government. And there is a growing dissent among that nation's youth concerning their president.






Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by steve99
Lets look at this and think for a minute. For Iran to wipe Israel off the map they will have to use more than one bomb, probally larger ones to get the job done.
Now lets say this happens where do you think the fallout will travel? Because which ever way it goes there are going to be an awful lot of pissed off people. And the fall out will most likly fall into other muslem countries, pretty much killing an awful lot of muslems along with the jews. Don't you think the Iranians have thought this out,and if they haven't do you think the Russians and Chinese have explained it to them.

Having lived with Arabs and being one, I do not think they care much about the "fallout" or any such consequence of nuking Israel. They/we/us (speaking for the collective consensus) regard it is collateral damage which is more than justified if it succeeds in annihilating Israel.

Having said that I don't want all you Anti-Muslims jumping on the "all Muslims are terrorists who hate freedom" bandwagon which I'm sure you'll do. It's not even about Islam, It is just about a group of people fighting against illegal invasion.

[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


So basically you are saying then that the Crusades were a just war to fight an illegal invasion as well right?




Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/26/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by AccidentallyOnPurpose
Having lived with Arabs and being one, I do not think they care much about the "fallout" or any such consequence of nuking Israel. They/we/us (speaking for the collective consensus) regard it is collateral damage which is more than justified if it succeeds in annihilating Israel.

Having said that I don't want all you Anti-Muslims jumping on the "all Muslims are terrorists who hate freedom" bandwagon which I'm sure you'll do. It's not even about Islam, It is just about a group of people fighting against illegal invasion.

But why are the arabs mad at the jews.It was the UN that split Palistine into 2 parts.
55% for Isreal and 45% for the arabs.

edit: shortened quote

[edit on 4/26/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

For fanatical Islamic extremists, it would seem that killing their enemies is the bottom line. If innocent people get in the way, be they Christian volunteer relief workers, women, children, the elderly or even fellow Muslims, the important thing is to kill their targets; U.S. soldiers, Americans and, especially Jews.

If Iran's leadership decided to attack and destroy Israel using nuclear weapons, it is quite clear in my mind that they would not have any regard for the innocent Muslims that would die from the attack and subsequent radioactive fallout. As far as they are concerned, the innocent Muslims who would perish would receive their "reward" in heaven and that would justify the collateral loss of life.

Unfortunately, should Israel be attacked, I fear that the response that Iran would receive from the West would be total annihilation through an all-out nuclear attack. Again, innocent lives would be lost when, in reality, a relative handful of extremists are to be held responsible.



[edit on 4/25/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

>think back, and name me one nuclear nation that's been attacked. can you?
How about the USA (9/11)?

With the Muslim mendacity and the game of Qui Moi? If the 9/11 attack had instead been a nuclear attack... Exactly who would the USA go after? Who would any nation go after?

An organization that can afford a nuclear weapon will be large enough to target for retaliation.

New weapons take a tremendous amount of money, making their development and use easily linked to a country or large organisation.

The real danger with nuclear weapons is not who is going to develop a new one, but who can steal an old one.

For fanatical Islamic extremists, it would seem that killing their enemies is the bottom line. If innocent people get in the way, be they Christian volunteer relief workers, women, children, the elderly or even fellow Muslims, the important thing is to kill their targets; U.S. soldiers, Americans and, especially Jews.

Please tell me that what Israel and the Bush administration is doing now/has been doing is any different. I give you a bait and you fall for it, hook line and sinker. Let's jump on the "muslim extremists kill innocent people" bandwagon.

If you compare the number of innocent "bystanders", children, women etc killed by team sharon/bush with the number of casualties by these so called "extremists", I think you'd see that latter's figures would be nowhere near.

Learn to criticize and question yourself first.

During the Iran/Iraq war, Iran "enlisted" boys and elderly men to walk through minefields, hundreds of yards in front of troops, to "disable" mines. They gave the boys and elderly men plastic "keys to heaven" as incentives...

As for Iran's leaders, they're not religious. Just like the Catholic church and the Far-right neocons, they use fanatical religion and the "pie in the sky" deception to control their populaces...

My point is that Iran's leaders don't believe in God or that Armageddon will bring the Mahdi and Jesus back to Earth. They want nukes as a bargaining chip.

I do believe in God, just not in organized religion. Organized religion was what Jesus tried to save us from.

-S

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Savonarola]

iran wouldn't nuke israel for another reason, they want palestinians to go on that land.

also, israel would be able to retaliate the second iran launched their missles, and israel has more than enough nukes to wipe out the muslim world

In the North hemisphere the winds are from West to East.

The winds may blow from any direction, but the bigger meteorological events move from West to East, that’s why the Açores(Azores) and sometimes even continental Portugal receive the remains of the hurricanes or tropical storms that affect the South and East of the US, usually some 5 to 10 days after.

The consequences of the radiation and fallout would depend of the type of bomb(s) used and the way they were used.

In this case I think that the anti-missile defences are best left alone, since an explosion in the air has a bigger radius of influence.

But an explosion on the ground would be affected by the type of terrain, so if a bomb is dropped in a valley, the effects outside that valley are only indirect.

But as soon as Iran has a functional nuclear weapon they WILL take out Tel Aviv! Their stated intentions are well documented.

All of the unfortunates which would of course be the collateral deaths/casualties among the Muslims, with NOT a tear for all of the dead Israelis, are already considered/expected to be willing martyrs.

Westerners are simply NOT equipped to deal with this mindset. They firstly can not comprehend this type of insane thought process, secondly naively believe only the 'radicals' think such thoughts/have such desires and lastly are easily duped by the mendacious words coming out of the Muslim world on all facets of the situ attempting to redirect Western attention in other directions.

The Western worlds dealing with Arabs/Muslims is beyond disgraceful.

Muslims whine about 'occupation', the whole while their ultimate goal is ethnic cleansing. Go figure!

The ONLY thing funnier, is that except for the Turks, Muslims are the world's WORST warriors.

If I was a betting man, I might venture a guess that Allah is quite the prankster...

[edit on 1-5-2006 by golemina]

It is pointless to talk of Iran nuking Israel. It's said that in the last days when they ( israels enemies ) raise their hand to attack her , that the very least able Israeli would fight as God. Israel is the apple of Gods eye and a promised land. The second anyone lifts a finger against her , God will break their arms !!
Not only that , but Israel has Scalar , and if they have Scalar technology , they most likely have a Scalar shield. If Iran thinks that they can wipe Israel off the map , they might as well hold a gun to their own heads.
Ahminadinajab needs to be committed to a mental hospital cos he is clearly imbalanced and needs a check-up from the neck-up !!

Well said Golemina, below is a link with a statement from Rafsanjani clearly stating their belief that they can survive a nuclear exchange and that Israel cannot! I'm sure the fact that the palestinian's are majority Sunni would help to alleviate any misgiving's the Shiite Cleric's might have about ushering them into paradise as martyr's.

A second link reveal's a POSSIBLE, though unsubstantiated, transfer of nuclear weapon's from ex-soviet states. These warheads would only be good till 2010. Iran may be simply preparing for replacement with their nuke program. Something is making them act very confident!?




www.newsmax.com...




www.upi.com...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

think back, and name me one nuclear nation that's been attacked. can you?

us?

Originally posted by Animalmother

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

think back, and name me one nuclear nation that's been attacked. can you?

us?

Amazing how people forget about 9/11/01

Originally posted by AccidentallyOnPurpose
If you compare the number of innocent "bystanders", children, women etc killed by team sharon/bush with the number of casualties by these so called "extremists", I think you'd see that latter's figures would be nowhere near.

Learn to criticize and question yourself first.

That eye for an eye mentality is going to backfire one day.
You see, you can talk and claim numbers all you want, but in relation to Israel, eye for an eye is a doctrine best served against those that practice such a mentality. Be assured, that the day that Israel is nuked by a Muslim/Islamic nation, that the response from Israel will be in kind--an eye for eye. Please be sure to post back on the number of innocent bystanders that are killed on both sides in the event such a happening occurs, k? Maybe then, you will either come to the conclusion that the total annihilation of any people is ludicrous or that those who proclaim that something or someone should be annihilated should and will likewise be just as deserving of like annihilation.

Furthermore, since you are Arabic/Muslim, please explain to us ignorant folks what you mean by "illegal invasion/occupation." I have a feeling I know what your interpretation is but instead of relying on my own assumptions, I would like to be sure that I was correct in my line of thinking concerning your meaning.







seekerof

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Seekerof]