Thread: The Nuclear Annihilation of Israel?

Originally Posted by Iolo

Iran hasn't got the American politicians by the short and curly. I'd say 'testicles' there, but they manifestly don't have any.

Maybe........but they have managed to garner our attention.

Let's see how this IAEA report plays out.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

You're going to have to clarify that statement. It doesn't make sense to me. I said that we have repeated examples of the very people who Palestinians and other Arabs claim they would need in Israel who are dying: those who are against Zionism, and are fighting it.

I see nothing of substance in your posts to refute what I said. If Arabs were truly only interested in defeating Zionism, they would engage in much more precise violence. That's not what they're doing. What they're doing looks crazy and disjointed. It is a failing strategy, unless the point is simple undirected killing.

Indeed Ill clarify, those people you speak of are not repeatedly dying. Instead those israelis that die more often are those opposed to peace or activiely trying to prevent it, ala settlers and soldiers. That is a direct refutation of what youve said.

Ill also refute your next point. Arabs have done exactly as every single other population under pressure from the enemy has done. That violence has not been more general and less precise than in other conflicts. What theyre doing doesnt look carzy or disjointed, and its been pretty successful - does that look clear enough for you? Is that a confusingly worded statement?

What indication do you have that this is even plausible? It has never happened to date.

The israeli peace now initiative to get them out of Egypt and prior to the Oslo negotiations with Arafat, before the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, the general pressure to get israelis out of the west bank and make a good go of peace negotiations brought israel closer than ever.

All we really need is US pressure. Causing consequent waves in israeli politics. The trouble is proabably that people such as yourself would oppose any pressur on israel to stop settlement building for example.

I don't see how. Eventually, a war has victors. The premise was based upon Nutjob's inflammatory and suggestive rhetoric vis a vis destroying Israel, and apologists explained he said "Zionism". The question that arose is how to accomplish a defeat of Zionism without destroying Israel.

Like it or not, S. Africa was gutted for decades due to violence.

Indeed, all one has to do is get israel to reverse its zionist policies. No more east jerusalem, no more west bank, no more Golan heights for Israel, and the result will have been acheived while israel itself will still exist - problem?

And S Africa was not gutted. The whites did very well for a long time in S Africa. It only really suffered when sanctions became an issue. But to the extent it had many burdens to bear that threatened it, israel is in the same boat - thats why it still thinks it need billions in aid per year.

Okay...so now I'm confused. Now you're saying that the problem still isn't solved. So what was the point of bringing up South Africa if the problems are still there?

What problem is still there in S Africa? The majority runs it.

You still haven't illustrated how such a thing will happen. I point out the meddlers in Arab States, and cannot see Israel's internal struggles remaining internal.

I think youre trying to make some crucial division between internal and external when israel itself recognises little of such divisions and will not even set its own borders.

All of this is ancillary to the point I made above.

Basically my points undermine your notion that israel is somehow different because its a democracy.

I'm not sure how this is germane. There was a Cold War strictly because the US knew it could bankrupt the USSR.

I see, so you admite that even western leaders didnt saber rattle when they told of their hopes that the USSRs yoke would be lifted from both eastern europe and russias people and werent making inflammatory speeches etc etc.

Nor did their opposing speeches mean they planned invasion. So effectively again your notions against 'Nutjob' are undermined.

What real peace?

The Camp David Agreement, where israel received peace guarantees in return for leaving the Sinai ending their theft of egyptian territory.

What was it, if it wasn't that?

x 2.

Theft. The taking of land. Much like you would regard it if I walked into your garden and pitched a tent.

These actions cause both the war in the first place and the further wars that follow as consequence. These two sides here were not at war until the arrival of mass numbers of europeans.

Here I don't know what you're referring to.

Sure you do.

What's so hard to understand about that? It is only the benevolent victor who gives back. Like the US.

I surprised you, and took your wallet, is it a spoil of war or have I simply robbed you?

If I gave it back, am I benevolent?

Your posts are confusing. Israel could take millions of miles of land - right now - from most surrounding countries, and there wouldn't be a thing these countries could do about it.

Except act in those lands as they are acting within Israel's border.

Sure it could. But how long could it hold it?

And would those countries be justified in fighting back ?

Originally Posted by creation

Indeed Ill clarify, those people you speak of are not repeatedly dying. Instead those israelis that die more often are those opposed to peace or activiely trying to prevent it, ala settlers and soldiers. That is a direct refutation of what youve said.

No it isn't. It's stupid to point out that there are more people dying who aren't overtly pacifist anti-Zionist - that should be obvious: that type of person is the majority in Israel.

I'm talking about activist anti-Zionists. If those people who you are apologizing for in this thread are truly after converting Israel to an anti-Zionist State, why aren't they going out of their way to avoid killing anti-Zionists?

Ill also refute your next point. Arabs have done exactly as every single other population under pressure from the enemy has done. That violence has not been more general and less precise than in other conflicts. What theyre doing doesnt look carzy or disjointed, and its been pretty successful - does that look clear enough for you? Is that a confusingly worded statement?

It's a statement that ignores the bus bombs and the indiscriminate killing of innocents...and in some cases using children to do it.

If you think that equates to how "every single other population" acts when confronted with pressure by an enemy, there will be no reasoning with you.

The israeli peace now initiative to get them out of Egypt and prior to the Oslo negotiations with Arafat, before the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, the general pressure to get israelis out of the west bank and make a good go of peace negotiations brought israel closer than ever.

All we really need is US pressure. Causing consequent waves in israeli politics. The trouble is proabably that people such as yourself would oppose any pressur on israel to stop settlement building for example.

I agree with Netanyahu, and the PMs before him: the Road Map contained untenable terms. Families in settlement areas needed to be able to act like families.

I'm actually in favor of Israel being allowed to fight a war and take land that they win in that war. The problem is that Arabs do not know how to lose a war; they have no honor. They will continue to engage in terrorist actions within a territory that they lost, and do so to validate continuing negotiations...

...to bring about a complete eradication of those who do not adhere to their ways of life. That is what the Caliphate is all about, Sharia Law is all about, the rhetoric is all about; and what the tacit acceptance of Islamist Terrorism is all about.

Indeed, all one has to do is get israel to reverse its zionist policies. No more east jerusalem, no more west bank, no more Golan heights for Israel, and the result will have been acheived while israel itself will still exist - problem?

Israel - and I - do not believe it.

And S Africa was not gutted. The whites did very well for a long time in S Africa.

Having only one nationality doing well doesn't meet my criteria.

It only really suffered when sanctions became an issue. But to the extent it had many burdens to bear that threatened it, israel is in the same boat - thats why it still thinks it need billions in aid per year.

Israel gets billions because - to the US - it is a check on full Arab control of the region, and keeps the powers that supply so much of the world's oil off balance enough to avoid any one of them growing in power sufficient to gain too much control.

What problem is still there in S Africa? The majority runs it.

There is no longer much of a problem in S. Africa, beyond the typical problems most countries face.

I think youre trying to make some crucial division between internal and external when israel itself recognises little of such divisions and will not even set its own borders.

I am making a distinction between internal and external because so-called "Velvet Revolutions" do not come from without. Those are invariably very bloody, which was my point in challenging anyone to explain how Zionism dies without killing the host.

Basically my points undermine your notion that israel is somehow different because its a democracy.

Then you're looking to undermine the wrong notion. Israel is different than your examples of velvet revolution because Israel has sworn enemies all around it.

I see, so you admite that even western leaders didnt saber rattle when they told of their hopes that the USSRs yoke would be lifted from both eastern europe and russias people and werent making inflammatory speeches etc etc.

I didn't really expound upon saber rattling. I merely said that the US - particularly Reagan - knew that the USSR would be defeated via a very specific strategy. There was plenty of harsh rhetoric throughout. If you want to call that 'saber rattling', go right ahead.

Nor did their opposing speeches mean they planned invasion. So effectively again your notions against 'Nutjob' are undermined.

You certainly are desperate to think so, that I'll grant. The US/USSR Cold War is not comparable to the ME/Israel conflict. Manifold acts engaged in in the ME would have touched off WWIII had they occurred between the US and USSR.

That alone should demonstrate the incomparability. This is about scale: and Nutjob is talking about elevating the scale here by threatening with nukes, and accelerating Iran's nuclear efforts simultaneously (as even the most strident Iran apologist cannot deny).

The Camp David Agreement, where israel received peace guarantees in return for leaving the Sinai ending their theft of egyptian territory.

How can you call the Camp David Accord real peace, when it wasn't lasting?

x 2.

Theft. The taking of land. Much like you would regard it if I walked into your garden and pitched a tent.

That is not what happened. Israel is not in any land was incorporated as a country. Lands that are occupied with nomads, etc don't belong to anyone but those who can take it and control it. This fight is about Arabs not liking that Israel did it, and they didn't - or couldn't.

These actions cause both the war in the first place and the further wars that follow as consequence. These two sides here were not at war until the arrival of mass numbers of europeans.

These two sides have always been at war.

I surprised you, and took your wallet, is it a spoil of war or have I simply robbed you?

If I gave it back, am I benevolent?

Non sequitur. You are describing a violation of a law in an incorporated area that obeys a set of laws. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. You're conflating war with robbery.

Sure it could. But how long could it hold it?

It depends upon how brutally they choose to defeat the enemy.

And would those countries be justified in fighting back ?

That's why wars have battles. They fight back until they declare an armistace. The problem is that the non-incorporated side doesn't seem to have incorporated the ability to adhere to the simple principles one must possess to honor such a thing.

And Israel is being far too nice about their violations.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

No it isn't. It's stupid to point out that there are more people dying who aren't overtly pacifist anti-Zionist - that should be obvious: that type of person is the majority in Israel.

I'm talking about activist anti-Zionists. If those people who you are apologizing for in this thread are truly after converting Israel to an anti-Zionist State, why aren't they going out of their way to avoid killing anti-Zionists?

So even though its mostly the anti peace people that die they still arent going out of their way enough for you to avoid killing the peaceful ones?

I put it to you that they are doing so. To do any more would be silly when israel doesnt mind killing or imprisoning or tear gasing so many peaceful palestinians.

It's a statement that ignores the bus bombs and the indiscriminate killing of innocents...and in some cases using children to do it.

If you think that equates to how "every single other population" acts when confronted with pressure by an enemy, there will be no reasoning with you.

Im not ignoring any of that, let me be clear, Im fully acknowledging every single killing. Get that?

It certainly does equate to other populations. The irish had no problems bombing the british citizens for years with direct support from americans and under far easier conditions than the palestinians.
The US never even declared war on North Vietnam yet felt little problem in delivering carpet bombing runs on to the population.

South American terrorism from both the state, and various outlawed orgs? It was legion and still often goes on today. Africans on their dark continent?

If you would deny any of that perhaps its you who cannot be reasoned with.

I agree with Netanyahu, and the PMs before him: the Road Map contained untenable terms. Families in settlement areas needed to be able to act like families.

I'm actually in favor of Israel being allowed to fight a war and take land that they win in that war. The problem is that Arabs do not know how to lose a war; they have no honor. They will continue to engage in terrorist actions within a territory that they lost, and do so to validate continuing negotiations...

...to bring about a complete eradication of those who do not adhere to their ways of life. That is what the Caliphate is all about, Sharia Law is all about, the rhetoric is all about; and what the tacit acceptance of Islamist Terrorism is all about.

Well its seems youre not going to refute my response but instead make a different one. Its interesting and should be addressed;
Families in settlement areas need to get out and act like families elsewhere. Palestinians need to act like families too. I dont agree with Bibi, hes a born liar and manipulator.

The trouble with that notion is that its all too easy for a nation to cook up some reason, some slight, some perceived threat, in order to justify a war. Its happened everywhere over and over again. Even Saddam Hussein did it. Thats the inadmissibility clause of territorial acquisition by war was introduced.

As for this anti arab commentary, its of no value. The same charges re honour can be bandied about everywhere, including on israelis - it reeks of simple bigotry and cannot be defended. Same goes for this islamophobic bigotry too..

I dont accept commentary against jewish people, and I dont accept it against arabs or muslims. For a start its just too easy to refute.

Israel - and I - do not believe it.

Israel and you, also want the land. So its convenient for you not to believe it.

Having only one nationality doing well doesn't meet my criteria.

Lol. Hmm Should everyone endeavour to ascertain your criteria now? if it was gutted in whatever criteria your applying, it was deliberatly gutted by the whites not because of conflict but as deliberate policy of subjugation.

Israel gets billions because - to the US - it is a check on full Arab control of the region, and keeps the powers that supply so much of the world's oil off balance enough to avoid any one of them growing in power sufficient to gain too much control.

Indeed? And what sort of check is this? Is Israel going to prevent a takeover of Tunisia by Algeria or Morroco?

Is it going to keep the peace in the southern arabian peninsula?

Dont you people always argue that israel is but a sliver of land in as sea of arab land? Ah yes, the sliver keeps the sea off balance indeed...

Did Israel prevent the takeover of Kuwait by Iraq? Or was it the USA and partners?

Thats just a few examples of where israel has no part to play except for defending its own gains - which is really what its all about. Was that a clear enough refutation for you?

There is no longer much of a problem in S. Africa, beyond the typical problems most countries face.

Granted. Not even sure what were disagreeing about on this point.

I am making a distinction between internal and external because so-called "Velvet Revolutions" do not come from without. Those are invariably very bloody, which was my point in challenging anyone to explain how Zionism dies without killing the host.

See my above comment on the ending of zionism, that you dont believe etc etc.

Then you're looking to undermine the wrong notion. Israel is different than your examples of velvet revolution because Israel has sworn enemies all around it.

Israel deciding to give up its occupied territories can be done from within without killing off israel itself. The USA and Europe are the ultimate guarantors of Israeli integrity, as are your own nuclear weapons - so please stop telling us youre so very threatened, youre not and everyone knows it.

I didn't really expound upon saber rattling. I merely said that the US - particularly Reagan - knew that the USSR would be defeated via a very specific strategy. There was plenty of harsh rhetoric throughout. If you want to call that 'saber rattling', go right ahead.

Indeed and your Nutjob seems to know that zionism will be defeated by a very specific strategy too. Saber rattling? Inflammatory language? reckless rhetoric? Do these differing terms really matter?

You certainly are desperate to think so, that I'll grant. The US/USSR Cold War is not comparable to the ME/Israel conflict. Manifold acts engaged in in the ME would have touched off WWIII had they occurred between the US and USSR.

That alone should demonstrate the incomparability. This is about scale: and Nutjob is talking about elevating the scale here by threatening with nukes, and accelerating Iran's nuclear efforts simultaneously (as even the most strident Iran apologist cannot deny).

Nonsense. Both examples involve powers that cannot afford to go to war with each other and fight conflicts by proxy. Both proclaim they fight for freedom and reason.

Indeed Nutjob is not threatening you with nukes. Hes making clear that zionism can be toppled. Nukes are nowhere mentioned. The only threats he has ever made are to those who would think of attacking Iran. Its exactly the strategy israel has taken, pretend no nuclear weapon programme and bury it deep so no one will ever think of invading you.

How can you call the Camp David Accord real peace, when it wasn't lasting?

Because it has lasted even til today.

That is not what happened. Israel is not in any land was incorporated as a country. Lands that are occupied with nomads, etc don't belong to anyone but those who can take it and control it. This fight is about Arabs not liking that Israel did it, and they didn't - or couldn't.

Convenient nonsensical excuses of mighty against the meek; youre too weak to hold it from me so it might as well be mine, even if ive never been there and dont know any family there - fascism in its purest form.

Arabs have fought against and committed various imperial actions. Just like anyone else, including israelis. The arabs would have and have before fought anyone who had done such a thing. They fought the turks, they fought the british they fought the israelis. Thats both muslim arabs and chrsitian arabs and others. Your prejudices are undermined.

These two sides have always been at war.

Rubbish. Theyve been mostly at peace.

Non sequitur. You are describing a violation of a law in an incorporated area that obeys a set of laws. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. You're conflating war with robbery.

Nonsense. If I took from you in the artic, where no nation holds sway, ive still robbed you rather than committed war against you. As well as the arabs having no state the proto israelis werent even israelis when they did these deeds, so where does that leave your notion?

Its merely convenient for you to describe theft as some rightful part of war.

It depends upon how brutally they choose to defeat the enemy.

Theres a strict limit on how much they can do that. Israel must keep its supply lines as short as possible.

That's why wars have battles. They fight back until they declare an armistace. The problem is that the non-incorporated side doesn't seem to have incorporated the ability to adhere to the simple principles one must possess to honor such a thing.

And Israel is being far too nice about their violations.

Why do you say these nonsensical things? The israelis have always played the game according to their means. When these improved so did their tactics and principles - the arabs are no different. Try not to tell me anymore tripe about the lack of principles on the other side - ill just bring up israeli actions, theres no lack of examples.

I sort of hate to intervene as a moderator because I started this thread but the thread is NOT about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about Israel possibly launching a nuclear strike against Iran and what the response should be to such an attack. Please limit posts to addressing this issue.

Thank you,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

I sort of hate to intervene as a moderator because I started this thread but the thread is NOT about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about Israel possibly launching a nuclear strike against Iran and what the response should be to such an attack. Please limit posts to addressing this issue.

Thank you,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

Indeed fair enough.

The trouble is we've indicated the actual translation doesnt say any such thing about nuclear annihilation.

In response Subdermal has challenged us as to how zionism can be defeated, ended or whenever without levelling israel. Postulating that if it cannot then Ahmedinnijad must be indicating that he wants to flatten Israel.

I have explained exactly what Ahmedinnijad and will answer any further questions..

Originally Posted by creation

Indeed fair enough.

The trouble is we've indicated the actual translation doesnt say any such thing about nuclear annihilation.

In response Subdermal has challenged us as to how zionism can be defeated, ended or whenever without levelling israel. Postulating that if it cannot then Ahmedinnijad must be indicating that he wants to flatten Israel.

I have explained exactly what Ahmedinnijad and will answer any further questions..

A nuclear attack by Israel against Iran has nothing to do with Zionism. It has to do with committing an act that could ultimately lead to the end of mankind. Nuclear wars cannot be allowed, ever.

There is only one means that can assure that we will never face the prospect of a nuclear war that could easily wipe out all of mankind and that is to ensure that any nation that uses a nuclear weapon is annihilated. Only a threat of that magnitute can be effective to prevent nuclear war. If even one nation uses a nuclear weapon without facing such a consequence for it's actions then every nation on Earth has a valid reason to produce and use nuclear weapons.

Israel, of all nations, should endorse the policy of total annihilation of any nation that uses a nuclear weapon.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

A nuclear attack by Israel against Iran has nothing to do with Zionism. It has to do with committing an act that could ultimately lead to the end of mankind. Nuclear wars cannot be allowed, ever.

There is only one means that can assure that we will never face the prospect of a nuclear war that could easily wipe out all of mankind and that is to ensure that any nation that uses a nuclear weapon is annihilated. Only a threat of that magnitute can be effective to prevent nuclear war. If even one nation uses a nuclear weapon without facing such a consequence for it's actions then every nation on Earth has a valid reason to produce and use nuclear weapons.

Israel, of all nations, should endorse the policy of total annihilation of any nation that uses a nuclear weapon.

I'm wondering if you had a problem with Harry Truman giving the orders to drop a couple of atomic bombs on Japan during WWII--knowing full well that in doing so it had eventually led to the ending of that war.

I see no problem with Israel nuking Iran if Israel does it for self defense reasons. Everyone knows that the despot and the rogue nation of Iran is developing nuke capability, and that they've already threatened to annihilate Israel in time, so if Iran does indeed bomb Israel, then who in their right mind would want to warn or stop Israel from nuking that worldwide threat of Iran?

You say anyone using nukes should be annihilated. Just who do you suppose would be annihilating Israel if Israel should happen to nuke Iran? Who would be your first choice to annihilate/nuke Israel? Would it be their ally America?

Originally Posted by Libhater

I'm wondering if you had a problem with Harry Truman giving the orders to drop a couple of atomic bombs on Japan during WWII--knowing full well that in doing so it had eventually led to the ending of that war.

I see no problem with Israel nuking Iran if Israel does it for self defense reasons. Everyone knows that the despot and the rogue nation of Iran is developing nuke capability, and that they've already threatened to annihilate Israel in time, so if Iran does indeed bomb Israel, then who in their right mind would want to warn or stop Israel from nuking that worldwide threat of Iran?

You say anyone using nukes should be annihilated. Just who do you suppose would be annihilating Israel if Israel should happen to nuke Iran? Who would be your first choice to annihilate/nuke Israel? Would it be their ally America?

I cannot change history but certainly I have concerns related to the use of atomic weapons by President Truman. It was a choice that Truman made but we must also remember that it was not a first stike nuclear weapon attack as Japan attacked the US on 12/7/1941.

There is no evidence that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon according to this weeks IAEA report. It does express concerns that Iran could be exploring how to build a nuclear weapon but knowing how to build a nuclear weapon and actually making one are two different things. The NPT does not prevent a nation from knowing how to make a nuclear weapon. It merely prohibits the actual making of a nuclear weapon.

Iran has never threatened to directly attack Israel in spite of propaganda to the contrary. Israel in refusing to join the NPT and building nuclear weapons is a rogue nuclear weapons state and all member nations of the NPT should be taking all actions necessary to force Israel into dismantleing it's nuclear weapons. It presents a very real threat of nuclear war and must be forced to dismantle it's nuclear weapons and join the NPT. It is no different than N Korea in this regard.

If Israel were to nuke Iran then every nation in the region is justified in producing nuclear weapons to defend themselves from a possible nuclear attack by Israel. They already have a justifiable reason for doing so simply because Israel has nuclear weapons and does not comply with it's treaty obligations as a member of the UN.

All five of the NPT authorized nuclear weapons nations should respond with a retallitory nuclear strike if Israel were to use nuclear weapons against Iran. There are no allies for a nation that starts a nuclear war as ulitmately such actions would lead to the eventual nuclear destruction of all mankind.