Thread: The Nuclear Annihilation of Israel?

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?

So you oppose Iranians striking back if they were to lose hundreds of thousands of people in one stroke?

Id say it would be anyone that wished to annihilate israel. The US could not be trusted however to act for the iranian people. So they wouldnt really be a good choice.

Oh and Libhater, theyve not threatened to annihilate israel in time. Thats the propaganda youve been fed. Everyone else here knows the truth. If you want we can discuss the actual translation in detail - dont just rely on Fox news, rely instead on MEMRIs own translation.

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.

While thats true, the policy of assured mutual destruction would not work today. Israel can nuke Iran all it wants, no one would stop it.

Originally Posted by creation

While thats true, the policy of assured mutual destruction would not work today. Israel can nuke Iran all it wants, no one would stop it.

Let us hope that this will not happen.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

Originally Posted by creation

While thats true, the policy of assured mutual destruction would not work today. Israel can nuke Iran all it wants, no one would stop it.

That doesn't argue against the fact that the Big Five that have nuclear weapons should retalliate against any nation that uses nuclear weapons. If Israel attacks Iran then is it okay for N Korea to nuke S Korea? Isn't it basically the same thing? If one nation is allowed to use nuclear weapons against other nations then all nations are allowed to use nuclear weapons against other nations.

If Israel nukes Iran and doesn't completely destroy Iran and no other nation intervenes then doesn't the Iranian government have an obligation to the Iranian People to produce a nuclear weapon and retalliate against Israel? All governments have an obligation to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the People of that nation. If the Big Five can't assure all nations that they will not be nuked then every nation has an obligation to build nuclear weapons as a deterant against nuclear attack or to retalliate if they are attacked with nuclear weapons. This is a fundamental responsibility of all governments.

Either we continue the policy of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) which worked throughout the cold war or we simply sit back and wait for an all-out nuclear war that will destroy mankind. There are no other options. Any nation that uses a nuclear weapon in today's world must be destroyed, period.

The biggest threat today are those nations which have nuclear weapons and not those that might acquire them someday. The goal of the NPT is to stop nuclear war and it is the ultimate responsibility of the five nations that are authorized to have nuclear weapons to ensure that a rogue nuclear weapon nation such as N Korea or Israel never uses the nuclear weapons in the possession.

At the same time all of the members of the NPT have an absolute obligation to take all measures necessary to disarm all rogue nuclear weapon nations. We're doing that with N Korea by imposing severe economic sanctions and the exact same measures should be taken relative to India, Pakestan and Israel.

Originally Posted by creation

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?

Yes. That's correct. The killing is indiscriminate: Muhammad himself could have been in the bus bombed, or the market hit, and they wouldn't have known...or cared. Did you not read the article?

You would think that these Palestinian terrorists would reach out to those anti-Zionists with which they supposedly have so much in common, to warn them of their activities, so that they can avoid harm, but that's not what is taking place.

Because the Palestinian terrorists consider those "Pacifist anti-Zionists" nothing more than useful idiots: they are "the infidel" every bit as much as any strident Zionist.

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.

Yes, I see you get so up-in-arms about the Israelis doing that, but not so much upset about Palestinians.



It seems as though you're not interested in peace; you're interested in retribution. You're rationalizing that "because they're doing it, we have to do it too" - but you're wholly ignoring that the tactics are completely different (and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that).

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

You're not acknowledging the moral bankruptcy of the method. It is unforgiveable to use children and old women as bomb mules, and it is unforgiveable to hop on a bus and blow it up. This is rationalized...how?

There are people who agree with their political positions on that bus. They're dead. That makes no sense whatsoever. People who really want what you claim they want would cherish those within the borders of a country who already agree with them!

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.

Did the Irish use their own children? Did they have populations littered with sympathizers?

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.

Did South American terrorists use their children? If they did; if the Irish did, then I'll grant your point.

Islamists use tactics which aren't traditional, moral or honorable. There is a type of honor in battle; it was what wearing uniforms were based upon. Islamists have no trouble at all shielding themselves with women and children.

They are the worst kind of coward.

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.

This response makes no sense. You just restated the premise with which I am taking issue. Binyamin was very clear: he required Israeli settlers to be able to grow their families. There are Palestinians there too, and they can live their lives likewise.

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.

And that mentality starts with the "well, he did it; I'll do it too" rationalization you offered earlier. You seem to acknowledge it in one way, and ignore it in the other.

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.

You seem to object to my assertion that Arabs do not know how to lose a war; you're reacting to that by calling the statement bigoted.

I offer as evidence the reality of the situation. Israel fought a very short war, and won. The land is theirs to do with as they please. Hamas, Hizbollah, etc have no say anymore.

Part of the problem is Israel's reticence to absolutely crush them, and the entire region in which they live, and the countries who support them. Make no mistake: Israel could do that (and still may). Israel itself is a dichotomy: they truly do not want to level those who are their sworn enemies; they eternally wish to 'work it out'.

The truth remains: if antagonistic Arabs would put down their weapons, there would be no more war. If Israel did, there would be no more Israel.

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

Not "want" the land. The land is already theirs. They won the land through the spoils of war. The problem seems to be that the enemy has no honor, and Israel is too benevolent to drive them to extinction.

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.

The criteria requires a level of harmony that you don't seem to acknowledge is important, or even a consideration.

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...

What do you mean, you people?

If the land was so important, why was it never incorporated into a country? This land is desired for the same reason my 5 year old nephew fights with my 4 year old nephew for a tonka truck: the 4 year old has it.

.

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

Israel's Mossad played a key role in that. Israel's Special Forces, as well as Speciality Weapons from Israel played a key role.

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?

You don't seem to understand the role that Israel played there, but - regardless - my point was that the money is used to defend Israel from its surrounding enemies.

Without weakening them economically, as an economically weak nation cannot defend itself physically either.

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

I've seen nothing regarding an elucidation of an actual strategy for eliminating Zionism without destroying Israel in the process.

To me, "Zionism" is a strawman.

Israel deciding to give up its occupied territories can be done from within without killing off israel itself.

That requires a premise that I have not seen substance for: that Palestinians or surround Arab States would be satisfied, as they had not been satisfied with prior arrangements. This is because they're interested in completely eliminating Israel. That assertion is supported by the behaviours and statements of surrounding Arabia.

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'm not sure what you mean here. Thousands and millions of Israelis live under constant threat.

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?

Yes! Now we're getting somewhere! A specific strategy, you say? Please: tell us!

Because I think the only specific strategy Nutjob is following is keeping the IEAE off his arse while he develops a nuke.

In the case of Reagan, the specific strategy was publicized: bankrupt the USSR with an arms race. It worked.

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.

Oh, there is nothing even about these two adversaries - at least right now. Israel would turn Iran into a pretty little glass bowl in about 30 minutes, and there's not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing that Nutjob could do about it. This is not an even fight at this point, and Israel has been using scads of restraint in avoiding doing just that to this point.

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.

Oh, if life and intel were only as simple as reading that which has been written, and hearing that which has been said.

I don't know if it's willful or unconscious on your part, but your myopia is incredible.

Because it has lasted even til today.

If this is your idea of Peace, I do not want to contemplate your idea of War

Originally Posted by creation

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.

Your childish and fantastical objections to it aside, this is how virtually every country has been established. All lands became known as specific countries through equal measures of defeat and/or assimilation of the natives of that area.

Calling it fascism is a red herring.

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.

I'm not sure what "undermines my prejudices". I pointed out that in the case of Israel, they could not do what they had done before, and they deeply resent it - along with having a religiously ingrained bias towards Israel, which just beautifully colours their rage over the fact a crimson red.

Rubbish. Theyve been mostly at peace.

Is that like "kinda" pregnant?

This confrontation over insurmountable differences proves that what they've been living with hasn't been peace, but an unsettled truce. That isn't the same thing. The foot has been over their heads, waiting to drop.

Along with the more than occasional Qassam, Grad and WS-1E rockets lobbed at random to keep them even more off balance. There have been more than 6,300 rockets and mortars thrown at Israel since 2005.
Some peace.

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?

I quoted the dictionary definition of War. If you think it's nonsense, take it up with Merriam, or Webster. Robbing is not equivalent to committing an act of War.

The latter requires groups of people at minimum.

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

No. "Theft" is the word the bitter loser uses to describe no longer possessing something as a result of being beaten in a war.

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

Trust me, the destruction Israel could wreak on any surrounding country in the ME absolutely dwarfs anything they could create.

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.

Israel has massive firepower; firepower which you have not seen. They have exercised incredible restraint.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Yes. That's correct. The killing is indiscriminate: Muhammad himself could have been in the bus bombed, or the market hit, and they wouldn't have known...or cared. Did you not read the article?

You would think that these Palestinian terrorists would reach out to those anti-Zionists with which they supposedly have so much in common, to warn them of their activities, so that they can avoid harm, but that's not what is taking place.

Because the Palestinian terrorists consider those "Pacifist anti-Zionists" nothing more than useful idiots: they are "the infidel" every bit as much as any strident Zionist.

Youre asking palestinians to do something for peaceul israelis that no people have ever done for the peaceful people on the otheer side, not americans, not british and not israelis. Thats just hypocrisy.

Yes, I see you get so up-in-arms about the Israelis doing that, but not so much upset about Palestinians.



It seems as though you're not interested in peace; you're interested in retribution. You're rationalizing that "because they're doing it, we have to do it too" - but you're wholly ignoring that the tactics are completely different (and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that).

You're not acknowledging the moral bankruptcy of the method. It is unforgiveable to use children and old women as bomb mules, and it is unforgiveable to hop on a bus and blow it up. This is rationalized...how?

There are people who agree with their political positions on that bus. They're dead. That makes no sense whatsoever. People who really want what you claim they want would cherish those within the borders of a country who already agree with them!

Im up in arms about all these violent and injust impositions, its actually you who seeks to blame one side more because it has used bus bombs etc.

Youre again asking palestinians to do more reaching out than anyone has ever done, in history ever - thats hypocrisy.

Did the Irish use their own children? Did they have populations littered with sympathizers?

Yes, they used the local teenagers extensively to stir up trouble against british forces and subsequently get shot at. They also did indeed have populations on all sides littered with sympathisers, and they didnt reach to them or tell them early that they were going to bomb the local pub where they may be going for a pint - thats game set match is it not?

Did South American terrorists use their children? If they did; if the Irish did, then I'll grant your point.

Islamists use tactics which aren't traditional, moral or honorable. There is a type of honor in battle; it was what wearing uniforms were based upon. Islamists have no trouble at all shielding themselves with women and children.

They are the worst kind of coward.

Your focus on a few instances of the recruitment of chilldren, as in teenagers, is a convenient ruse to (*)(*)(*)(*) the palestinians cause because you dont like their methods.

Irish, South Americans, Africans have all recruited teenagers to get into trouble, and to even fore weapons in various guerrilla conflicts. Theyve all forgone uniforms as have the israelis and have all melted into the common citizenry of women and children.

This response makes no sense. You just restated the premise with which I am taking issue. Binyamin was very clear: he required Israeli settlers to be able to grow their families. There are Palestinians there too, and they can live their lives likewise.

In what way doesnt it make sense? Go grow a family elsewhere.

If you want israelis and palestinians to grow families anywhere they like then opt for a unitary state. But no you want israelis to be able to build and grow wherever they like whatever the local government says yet palestinians may not build and grow wherever they like whatever the local israeli government says. Thats your problem right there.

And that mentality starts with the "well, he did it; I'll do it too" rationalization you offered earlier. You seem to acknowledge it in one way, and ignore it in the other.

No my response to your approval of taking land in war was;
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.

That applies to everyone.

You seem to object to my assertion that Arabs do not know how to lose a war; you're reacting to that by calling the statement bigoted.

I offer as evidence the reality of the situation. Israel fought a very short war, and won. The land is theirs to do with as they please. Hamas, Hizbollah, etc have no say anymore.

Part of the problem is Israel's reticence to absolutely crush them, and the entire region in which they live, and the countries who support them. Make no mistake: Israel could do that (and still may). Israel itself is a dichotomy: they truly do not want to level those who are their sworn enemies; they eternally wish to 'work it out'.

The truth remains: if antagonistic Arabs would put down their weapons, there would be no more war. If Israel did, there would be no more Israel.

No I object to your denial of arabs as having honour. And your notions of how to lose a war are ridiculous nonsense that you just made up to suit yourself - thats all that notion is.

Fighting a war and winning has never in history simply made the land ones own. The continual sweeping tides of armies across the years disproves your nonsense claim.

And no, israel has limits to what in can do, real military limits. Arabs have put down their weapons many times and have accepted numerous proposals, all it led to was israeli settlement building. Before the first intifada Israel had little trouble in the west bank - settlement building continued apace.

Not "want" the land. The land is already theirs. They won the land through the spoils of war. The problem seems to be that the enemy has no honor, and Israel is too benevolent to drive them to extinction.

Except you didnt win the land. You merely gained it.

The criteria requires a level of harmony that you don't seem to acknowledge is important, or even a consideration.

Indeed, I dont acknowledge your term harmony as important, feel free to explain it.

What do you mean, you people?

If the land was so important, why was it never incorporated into a country? This land is desired for the same reason my 5 year old nephew fights with my 4 year old nephew for a tonka truck: the 4 year old has it.

You people as in the rabid pro-israel bigots one often finds on the internet. Fair enough?

It was never incorprated because it was under the power of another empire. And here you seem to admit that europeans jews wanted palestine because the arabs had it?

it seems no one can disarm iran or other "rogue" nations because its too costly to do so and the best way to handle this rogue nation since its near the worlds oil supply which is vital to the function of the markets is to allow israel to nuclear bomb it

if it is possible the big five most powerful countries should form a coalition and forcibly disarm all other nuclear countries and prevent those who are pursuing them

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Your childish and fantastical objections to it aside, this is how virtually every country has been established. All lands became known as specific countries through equal measures of defeat and/or assimilation of the natives of that area.

Calling it fascism is a red herring.

Calling it what it is means it cant be a red herring. Look Im not saying other nations and peoples havent done the same. Of course they have.

But your problem is you seek to justify the theft/ takeover etc on the basis that they were / are weak and we are strong. Which is fine and dandy, but then youve spent all this complaining about the violence done to your side and other rubbish about arabs have no honour.
Your above glorification of violence and theft on the basis of might undermines everything youve said.

But if you want to just say yeah we took it and we'll keep it, then fine. But dont complain when the oppostion think the same way against you. Just accept it, value it even - its really ok isnt it? or is ok only when you do it?

I'm not sure what "undermines my prejudices". I pointed out that in the case of Israel, they could not do what they had done before, and they deeply resent it - along with having a religiously ingrained bias towards Israel, which just beautifully colours their rage over the fact a crimson red.

Well indeed, they did and do resent it. Because unlike previously the latest takeover involved not only an army rolling through and depositing a new local governor, but the explusion of whole populations and the burying of arab villages in the hundreds. The effects of which all the surrounding states had to deal with too - this had never happened before in anyones living memory and hardly in recorded history in the area. It wouldve been the very same if hundreds of thousands of iranians, or russians, or americans had forced themselves on the area too.

Is that like "kinda" pregnant?

This confrontation over insurmountable differences proves that what they've been living with hasn't been peace, but an unsettled truce. That isn't the same thing. The foot has been over their heads, waiting to drop.

Along with the more than occasional Qassam, Grad and WS-1E rockets lobbed at random to keep them even more off balance. There have been more than 6,300 rockets and mortars thrown at Israel since 2005.
Some peace.

No its not like pregnancy at all. You fight with your wife now and then, does that mean youve always been fighting? No it means youve mostly been at peace.
Youve said that arabs and jews have always been at war. Thats just nonsense. As for weaponry fired at israel, it goes both ways.

I quoted the dictionary definition of War. If you think it's nonsense, take it up with Merriam, or Webster. Robbing is not equivalent to committing an act of War.

The latter requires groups of people at minimum.

No. "Theft" is the word the bitter loser uses to describe no longer possessing something as a result of being beaten in a war.

Did you quote a dictionary? Thats fantastic. When did you do this? Tell your friends.

Theft is a reason for wars. It is the primary act. The first cause.

And its a not word for a bitter loser. Its a common word. Used by winners too as the reason for wars.

Trust me, the destruction Israel could wreak on any surrounding country in the ME absolutely dwarfs anything they could create.

Israel has massive firepower; firepower which you have not seen. They have exercised incredible restraint.

Oh really? In the 73 war they required a massive arms resupply from the USA. In Lebanon in 2006 their first foray was a disaster. They were hassled out of Lebanon. I dont believe you one bit.

And your restraint point is irrelevant anyway.