Israel Could Find Itself Forced To Wipe Out Europe

reply to post by MikeboydUS


No it's really not, and I have known that Israel has been targeting Europe and the U.S. with it's nuclear weapons for a long, long time before the article appeared.

The fact is its just another form of deflective denial by trying to suggest a source is impeachable that the information isn't credible because the source isn't credible.

Standard tactic employed by those who don't want to deal with the actual SUBJECT MATTER at hand.

What a surprise huh?

Israel targets just about every high value target East and West with its nuclear aresenal, trust me they don't need 250 nukes to take out a handful of Arab cities.

Common sense goes along way what a shame some are so desperate to see its never employed.

reply to post by star in a jar

As I understand it what this guy is proprosing is that Israel nuke European nations the minute Israel ceases to exist and by that I mean Israel ceases to be called Israel but some other name or governed by a different system while people who live in Israel and Palestine/ Gaza are still alive and free, and that is lunacy.

The thing is that you understand correctly ,but from wrong source. This historian DID NOT SAY IT. However propaganda warrior sites DID SAY IT. If person X ,who hates person Y, says that Y claims he will do this and that, it would be wise to check for what person Y really said.
And in this case it is already posted.
I will re-post it for sake of sanity,with nice explanations for those who read headlines only:

Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem
If it went on much longer,' he said, 'the Israeli government [would] lose control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.'

If second intifada would go on , Israeli government would loose control of situation and inner struggle would cause collapse of Israel

In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon 'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'.

In this situation more and more Israelis would lean to extremist side and consider transfer of Palestinians as a possibility. Sharon wants to exploit this since he thinks that only this will work.

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

But the world will not permit ethnic cleansing? Well, what if Israel does it quickly and threatens with nuclear strikes on European cities?
Now note this - he says next:
I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible.
So he really says that it is bad thing, he considers it as a possible escalation of 2003 conflict - with Ariel Sharon as one who supposedly stands behind it and he thinks that this should be prevented.
So he is AGAINST it. He does not threaten anyone, he warns against bad guys.
And it is HIS private prognosis that we know did not came true. Since Sharon, as you so delicately stated it, is a vegetable.And it is 2010 now. And second intifada ended. Hope third is not going to start any moment though.
Edit:
Forgot source.
www.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 15-3-2010 by ZeroKnowledge]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


He made the statement which resulted in the article. So technically it is about him making the statement. Anything else is just tacked on.

I listed the link because I thought you might like it. It wasn't deflection, it was me sharing something interesting. You don't find it interesting that the guy hated Bush and thought the Iraq war was a huge mistake?

The US has Europe targeted too, plus the rest of the planet.

I take back comparing the guy to Palin. I'm still looking over his material.

I'm not attacking the source, I'm trying to put it in context.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

The source has nothing to do with the validity of the statement Mr. Boyd.

If I say the sun comes up at sunrise are we going to look at the life and times of Protoplasmic Traveler to determine whether the sun comes up at sunrise or are we going to look at the sun?

The point is we foolishly have allowed a rogue nation (Zionist Israel) that refuses to abide by any treaty or accord known to collective human kind to nuclear arm it self.

Having more nuclear weapons out there that don't need to be is not better Mike especially when they are in the hands of a quasi-pseudo religious cult.

Funny how some people can want to hold every Afghani responsible for what a handful of Saudis allegedly did while enjoying Afghani hospitality but can't think of holding any other nation especially Zionist Israel to a standard where the people must ultimately answer for supporting a bad and or corrupt government.

Governments are a reflection of the people who empower them and while governments usually go much further than the people who empower them would like them too that won't change a darn thing when areas are rendered uninhabitable by radioactivity.


[edit on 15/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Can you imagine the uproar if Libya or Iran said that? The real rogue nation in the middle east is Israel and their government is run by people who are just fanatic enough to commit this kind of insanity. I'll bet that when they say 'Europe' they REALLY mean Germany. Germany has no nukes and therefore can't retaliate. France can. Orthodox Judaism as represented in the Talmud, is unbelievably racist. All non-jews are no better than cattle and killing them is NOT considered a sin. If Israeli leaders honestly believed that Israel was doomed anyway, why wouldn't they lash out at Germany in a final act of payback?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I'm not countering the validity. I never said that Israel does't have nukes aimed at Europe. What I said was the article technically involves the the guy who said it.

Why do you keep reading things that I didn't say?

We? The French did it and if I recall correctly South Africa was involved too.

What is the pseudo religious cult stuff? Avigdor Lieberman is not part of some pseudo religious cult.

Where did I accuse the entire people of Afghanistan of anything? I have never said any such thing and I'm always on here defending the Afghan Mujahideen and Massoud.

Governments are not a reflection of all people. That is nonsense.
The Tea Party doesn't reflect Obama. The Democrats don't reflect Bush. So are you going to hold Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink accountable for the war in Iraq?

reply to post by Studenofhistory

Where Israel said THIS? Please show me. I do not know about you, but history teaches us to look deeper into issues and not repeat some pointless cliche using a lie.
By the way ,you are free to point me where Israel said this.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

I never said that Israel does't have nukes aimed at Europe.

So what exactly would your point then be Mr. Boyd?

Mine is that Zionist Israel's illegally nuclear armed government represents a clear and present danger to all the peace loving people on earth.

This is evidenced by them refusing to participate in Internation Treaties and Accords governing nuclear energy and weapons and their refusal to allow international inspection of their nuclear facilities and the fact that they have a significantly larger nuclear arsenal than is warranted for its alleged 'natural enemies'.

It's a simple position, it's a clear position.

No ducking, dodging or weaving involved.

Do you have a real position on the ISSUE itself?

If so what is it.

People who have a hard time saying what they mean or won't say what they mean can't possibly mean what they say!

The devil is in the details.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge

But the world will not permit ethnic cleansing? Well, what if Israel does it quickly and threatens with nuclear strikes on European cities?

Then it would be proof (as if any more is needed) that Israel is in fact a terrorist state who's existence came into being as a result of terrorism and which continues to exist through terrorism. If we on this side of the planet were really concerned about the threat posed by manipulative despotic rogues it sure wouldn't be Iraq or Afghanistan in our sights.

reply to post by m4nchur14n


Once again, the person explains how he thinks a certain scenario involving collapsed Israeli government and extremists taking over in Israel COULD DEVELOP. Just read the whole text and don't pull out phrases.
It is imaginary doomsday scenario from 2003. Nobody in Israel is planning to do this.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


My point is that you can't hold all of Israel accountable. The issue has to be placed in context. People are using the issue to attack Israel in general or attack Jews in general. It must be in context.

Creveld doesn't represent the Israeli government. He writes books. He presented a scenario of last resort. You and I both know that Russia and the US would do the same in that kind of scenario.

It drives me crazy when people lump everyone together. It drives me even more crazy when people think Orthodox Jews control Israel. They don't and probably never will.

Personally I would love to see a world without war, a world where peace loving people actually existed. I would like a world free of all nuclear weapons. I would love to see a world where people think objectively and don't blame entire religions and nations for the actions of individuals.

And coincidently the BBC reports that relations between US and Israel are at worst in 35 years due to the continued expansion of illegal settlements.

Israels actions are an insult to US says top official.

source

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by m4nchur14n

 

Once again, the person explains how he thinks a certain scenario involving collapsed Israeli government and extremists taking over in Israel COULD DEVELOP. Just read the whole text and don't pull out phrases.

Extremists already control Israel, they have since day one.

It is imaginary doomsday scenario from 2003. Nobody in Israel is planning to do this.

I think I'll pass on taking your word for that. I'm inclined to side with those who think that the state of Israel are scum, who before being put out of our misery would indeed attempt to take as many innocent people with them as possible when they go down. I think Israel will once again face persecution, not because they are Jewish, but because the world will grow tired of Zionists perpetrating atrocities in the name of Judaism and using religion as a shield.

Israel's nuclear policy is sometimes referred to as the "Samson complex."
In other words, if Israel feels close to doom, it will unleash it's nuclear arsenal.

First of all,who is Martin Van Creveld?I want some background,so far I have not heard much about him...

From his own website:

"This splendid volume affirms what we already know: Martin van Creveld is the most creative, most insightful, and most important military historian writing in English today."
-Andrew J. Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War
"For more than thirty years Martin van Creveld has been one of the world’s foremost military thinkers. In The Culture of War, van Creveld once more shows an exceptional mastery of his subject as he explores a vital but rarely acknowledged aspect of war, its deep-rooted culture. As he did in his provocative The Transformation of War, van Creveld argues against the premise that wars are fought only for political ends fails to recognize that war is also an end in itself. Van Creveld presents his case powerfully and convincingly with a rich mixture of historical and contemporary examples. Citizens and soldiers alike will find this book informative, novel, and thought-provoking."
-Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)
"Martin van Creveld continues to give us insight into the many facets of war. Each time he adds another dimension, sharing his broad knowledge and brilliant analytical mind. The Culture of War brings us another step into understanding the underlying issues."
-Dr. Joel P. Wyler, chairman, Granaria Holdings B.V.

www.martinvancreveld.com...

So he is a(now Israeli)author originally from Holland.

Has he written many books then,or is he a one trick pony who just rants about Israel blowing other folks up?

It seems he has written alot in fact,about the culture and mechanics of warfare across the world,not just Israel-He has 4 pages worth of titles on Amazon:

www.amazon.com...

I think a man in his position would be fully aware of Israel's nuclear capabilities and have a good idea of their reasons for using nuclear weapons.


What is Mr Creveld's reasoning for claiming "the "Samson option" is still in existence?

From the OP:

The Israeli historian reiterated Israel’s ability to destroy the whole world whenever it felt its existence would be doomed to extinction.

www.politicaltheatrics.net...

You see,that just does not add up as a competant military strategy to me-In fact it seems very bitter and immature to wish that in your hour of need the rest of the planet will feel your wrath...

Imagine it in a different scale-A street attack.Lets say I get violently attacked in the street,to the point where I am bleeding on the dirt,dying.
Is it better for me to :

1.Beg any passers by for help?

2.Start throwing hand grenades at everyone?


Surely if I go for option 2 no one would ever help me again,and I would be left to die in the dirt.
And if I tell everyone that this is my secret"ace" which I intend to use before I am attacked,would they ever help or like me?

Its not rocket science,pardon the pun.

I despair,again,at the way certain people feel it acceptable to use nuclear weapons at all,let alone in this way,and I feel very sorry for every citizen of Israel,for having to live under such a dark cloud.

Actually,lets include most of the world under that dark cloud,if Israel ever decide to push the button.

Bring on the mega solar flare I say...Fry the nuke circuits of ALL the worlds nukes.







[edit on 15/3/2010 by Silcone Synapse]

Originally posted by nophun

"Noted Israeli military historian Martin Karfeld" WTF is he noted for ? only things that comes up on Google is this article.

That and the whole politicaltheatrics.net being anti-Semite thing

Other site posting this article.

islamicawakening.com
whatreallyhappened.org
goldismoney.info
whitenationalist.info
godlikeproductions.com
tvnewslies.org

Followed by a bunch of other psychos.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by nophun]

Martin van Crevald is a respected military historian. I have a Masters degree in Military History from George Washington University in Washington DC and can tell you that I read his books for several of my classes. In particular I either used for papers or had to read as class assignments his Technology of War; Supplying War; The Art of War and Command in War. For fun I have also read his The Changing Face of War, The Transformation of War and the Culture of War. Hope that helps.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


He's mentioning it as a worse case scenario that must be avoided.

I agree it must be avoided.

The US has CONPLANs, with our own Samson options. Except we expect to have an enclave of special survivors at COG (Continuity of government) sites in the aftermath.

Personally I would be more afraid of us doing something crazy than Israel.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I agree with you.

This seems more like a hit piece designed to incite anger than anything conveying valid information.
i feel 100% confident that the US and the USSR have/had similar plans.

As well as China and the EU.

And I seem to be on the other side of the battle most of the time concerning Israel, but I can recognize propaganda when I see it.

The most sad part of this entire debate is that good Jews are having their named raked through the mud.
Just as good Americans have had their name raked through the mud.

What we are dealing with is a small group of psychopaths who have infiltrated the worlds most powerful governments and armies and are using the citizens of these countries as a buffer between themselves and the valid rage that the world has against these folks.

[edit on 3/15/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


True,Its not just Israel with these kind of ideas,still I do not class them as a "military option" rather more sour grapes-A true military option would ensure the survival of whoever concerned to live to fight another day IMO.

These "bomb everyone" plans would do the opposite,no one would live-Because as we know,once 1 country starts pressing buttons,all others will swiftly follow.
In a macabre final display of our mastery of the atom to the rest of the universe.

Insane indeed.
Lets hope it never happens.

reply to post by m4nchur14n

who before being put out of our misery would indeed attempt to take as many innocent people with them as possible when they go down. I think Israel will once again face persecution, not because they are Jewish, but because the world will grow tired of Zionists perpetrating atrocities in the name of Judaism and using religion as a shield.

Well - do not "put out of our misery" and everything would be fine. If you consider that attacking Israel with innocent people in it will not bring retaliation to attackers - this is a mistake.
As to the point - you can distrust my words, but Israel did not use nukes on its enemies actively engaging Israel. So it will not use it on innocent people. Unless some "innocent people" would consider them-self as the commiting atrocities scum and would try to "persecute" Israel. In this case nukes are there for a reason.
They are not there to threaten others.