Israel threatens Iran with destruction

Originally posted by ergoli
All Israeli wars were pre-emptive wars or wars of pure aggression and land theft. Pro-Israeli posters however like to distort that fact calling them "defensive warfare" or "active defense".

So exactly how much land mass has Israel acquired in all of these "wars of aggression?" I guess you forgot about them giving Egypt the land back. Golan Heights, etc...?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Israelis getting shot and blown up indescriminately isn't a violation of human rights?

I'd say the ratio is about 10 to 1 on deaths. You just don't hear about the Palestinian losses in the MSM.

Please tell me you're not gonna defend Saddam's attempt at developing nuclear weapons, or that Israel ensuring he never got the bomb is in any way a negative thing. That's an interesting spin.

I defend his right to have nuclear power in his country, and who gave Israel the authority to rid the World of this alleged terror from Iraq? No one! They acted on thir own accord without any support.

If Israel was a state sponsor of terror/safe haven for terrorists, or hadn't demonstrated the ability to act in a civilized manner, there might be more interest.

I'd say their actions make them a terrorist state.

If it were a known fact that Israel had nukes and was a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, then there might be more interest. I wonder if you notice a pattern here?

Everyone know they have nuclear weapons and they should be disarmed before they receive another penny of aid from the US.

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

i think there is more to the 6 day war though
because straight after that the Arabs got state of the art weapons from the US
dont want to go off topic but i think there is more to the story.

but on Iran and Israel i wont argue there

What state of the art weapons did the Arabs get in the time frame you're referencing? Certainly none of the ones that were trying to attack Israel- those were all Soviet client states.

reply to post by ergoli


Perfectly reasonable thing to say in my opinion.

If the minister had said anything about a pre-emptive attack then it could be condemned; however if Iran is the agressor, then all bets are off...

Considering Ahmedinejad's overtly malicious intent towards Israel, it is surprising that the Israelis are taking such a moderate tone given their propensity to disproportionate response.

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

under International laws land that is occupied for military reasons
cant be used to exapnd ones Cities and so on.

Israel is in breach of that , also Israel refuses to give back land to syria golham heights and so on.

if israels intentions was just strategic then they wouldnt be putting squatters on occupied land

The Golan Heights were where Syria staged many attacks, and serve as a strategic buffer against any future attacks. Israel would be nuts to ever give that back.

reply to post by BlueRaja


They attacked the Golan Heights after the cease fire and systematically murdered the withdrawing [in accordance to the UN] troops - hmmmm maybe it was then israel started there genocide campaign - and lets talk USS Liberty shall we - a US warship attacked for over an hour by israeli jets.

Israel was founded upon terrorism - king david hotel anyone? the irgun in 1946 were attacking the UK - and who`s leaders of the irgun becamse leaders of israel! the atypical terrorist state - attack anyone they want to and play the `anti-semitic` card for anyone who critisies the actions of teh government.

[edit on 7/4/08 by Harlequin]

reply to post by Rockpuck


Technically speaking, if the USA moved tanks to the border with Canada that isn't an act of War. It's not an act of War till one side gives the order to attack.

Israel did not have to bomb Egypt in any-way, shape or form. Many other alternatives existed instead they picked the option which would result in them gaining land.

U.S. support/defence.
U.N. support/defence.

So on and so fourth.

reply to post by LLoyd45


So you believe that for every Israeli killed, that 10 Palestinians are killed?
You believe that a nuclear armed Saddam was preferable to a non-nuclear armed Saddam?
You believe that it's our job to disarm the Israelis? If so, why shouldn't we also disarm Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, etc... or is it just our job to disarm people you don't like, and leave the rest alone?

reply to post by Odium


It's not the proximity that was in question with regards to the tanks, etc..
It was the offensive posture. I guarantee you that Canada would be upset if the USA had a large military build up on their border, in an offensive posture, and we haven't even discussed the intel that was available.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

So you believe that for every Israeli killed, that 10 Palestinians are killed?

It's probably closer to 4 to 1.

You believe that a nuclear armed Saddam was preferable to a non-nuclear armed Saddam?

What I said was his country had a right to nuclear power, not nuclear arms. Big difference..

You believe that it's our job to disarm the Israelis? If so, why shouldn't we also disarm Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, etc... or is it just our job to disarm people you don't like, and leave the rest alone?

We invaded Iraq under a similar pretext, and wish to do the same with North Korea, so why not Israel? Do we have some double standard playbook that we must use when it comes to them?

Originally posted by Harlequin
They attacked the Golan Heights after the cease fire and systematically murdered the withdrawing [in accordance to the UN] troops...

Would you care to tell us when the cease-fire came into affect and when the Golan Heights was captured?

reply to post by BlueRaja


And?

We setup the United Nation's with the whole purpose to resolve conflicts, yet Israel will engage in conflict every single chance it has. It's sickening at tehir use of agression and the amount of innocent people they must kill.

Anyone with the IQ of a chimp knows that killing innocents helps terrorism to spread.

Oh. Attack bravely, because you will don't have the support of the U.S. soon. They're going to withdraw the fundings from Israel. Then what is going to happen? The nicest thing what many of the people can image. I pray in the wisdom of the U.S. Congress and stop supporting terrorists as few U.S. newspaper written now. AIPAC is loosing it's influence. Then I hope the people of that very small stolen land will shut up just once in the life time and meditate on their actions. Version B. Face the consequences and disappear.

reply to post by LLoyd45


10 to 1, 4 to 1, etc.... do you have some method of empirically measuring the numbers of casualties to even make such a wild speculation?

The type of reactor Saddam was building wasn't a powerplant. It had only one purpose.

The only double standard I see is that you're perfectly okay with us going in and disarming Israel, but heaven forbid if we do that to a country that is hostile to the USA.

Regardless of your feelings about Israel and her neighbors, the following two sentences really say it all:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel" - Benjamin Netanyahu.

reply to post by Odium


So if they exercise self defense- that is aggression by your standard?
You seem to conveniently omit the circumstances in each instance where they've responded to an event.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
We invaded Iraq under a similar pretext, and wish to do the same with North Korea, so why not Israel? Do we have some double standard playbook that we must use when it comes to them?

Becuase Israel already has weaponized, platformed nuclear weapons. An attack on Israel would be ridiculous... whoever did the job would be struck by a nuke as soon as possible.

Disarmament can only occur before the nuclear material is weaponised. This is why Pakistan and India got away with making nukes... they did it fast enough for the international community to not have a chance at all in stopping them. By the time a US warship had reached the Persian Gulf, it was too late to stop anything.

Israel needs to back down, Palestine needs dialogue....

innocents should STOP dying!

Threats like this can be taken as the spark that starts the inferno.


Peace

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel" - Benjamin Netanyahu.

Here is a counter-phrase.

"If there are no Jews in superior positions, or even in your country, there will be no conflicts in your country anymore." - People of the Free World

A would agree with the our version.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

10 to 1, 4 to 1, etc.... do you have some method of empirically measuring the numbers of casualties to even make such a wild speculation?

If you'd have bothered clicking on the LINK provided you could see where they came from.

The type of reactor Saddam was building wasn't a powerplant. It had only one purpose.

yeah, Generating power for a developing country..

The only double standard I see is that you're perfectly okay with us going in and disarming Israel, but heaven forbid if we do that to a country that is hostile to the USA.

I say just stop giving them roughly $11,000/person in aid every year, and leave them to their own designs. I have no interest in supporting their country with American money or American lives..