Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Netanyahu: Sneak Attack On Iran If Elected

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

If he succeeds in becoming Israel's next prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu indicated Monday he will not hesitate to order a military strike against Iran's nuclear program in order to safeguard his nation from annihilation.

“I will continue the tradition established by Menachem Begin, who did not allow Iraq to develop such a nuclear threat against Israel, and by a daring and courageous act gave us two decades of tranquility,” Netanyahu told Israel's Maariv daily.

“I believe that this is what Israel has to do” in the face of the growing Iranian threat, he continued.

Netanyahu’s statement comes after IDF Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze'evi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee last week that the world has only four months to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Continued....


In a surprise election tactic Netanyahu played the Chicken Little Card in order to whip the people into a frenzy.

Without regard for international protocol the Israeli politician has raised the stakes and pushed the region even closer to nuclear conflict.

As the sole Nuclear Power in the Mid-East attention is again focused on their hostile intentions, and Netanyahu could care less what the rest of the world thinks.

With their history of aggressive wars, and blatant disregard of international law, and resolutions how much more will the world take before it finally acts to maintain the peace?




posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
With their history of aggressive wars, and blatant disregard of international law, and resolutions how much more will the world take before it finally acts to maintain the peace?



Rhetoric best saved for and spread like butter on toast.


With their history of aggressive wars...

In self-defense.



...blatant disregard of international law...

Which was and is deemed necessary from time to time.
International law has no bearing on a threat to national security.
In such a case, international law takes a backseat.



...and resolutions...

Which are biasly targeted and given, they are toothless, meaningless, and non-binding in most cases.


At any rate, Netanyahu is a day late and a dollar short:
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Question: does international law have any applicable bearing on Iran?







seekerof



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Not to mention the Iranian president is practically calling for war and the annihilation of Israel. A preemptive strike is a legal response to danger, and is internationally recognized as legitimate counter-measure in case of a severe enough threat.

ArchAngel - you keep referring to preemptive strike as 'sneak-attack'. It's not just that it has the wrong connotation, but also 'sneak-attack' always makes me think of D&D.

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Parmenides]

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Parmenides]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I say they attack ASAP because if they do not and they let iran build its arms like I think it is doing now from what I think i know >_>



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
It's not going to be much of a "sneak" attack if he's announcing it already...

I'm curious how it will play out politically in Israel, it will probably get lots of support from his base on the far right, I don't know if it will appeal to the majority though.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
A sneak attack eh?

This would not go over to well with the American government who are extremely vulnerable to the repercussions from the so-called sneak attack. Netanyahu is exactly that, a 'yahu.'

As for posting a rebuttal to my own statement, maybe it would be a precursor to a powerful alliance that will topple Tehran. We do have bases set up on both sides of Iran.

Only time will tell!



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

I'm curious how it will play out politically in Israel



Netanyahu is a member of the Likud party....

....party numbers are slipping and the party will garner less than 10 mandates in the upcoming elections, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll released Thursday:




posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
wow i love the way everyone has forgotton the call for eeh destruction of Iran by israel a few years ago - but thats obviously ok nowadays.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
wow i love the way everyone has forgotton the call for eeh destruction of Iran by israel a few years ago - but thats obviously ok nowadays.


Could you please provide a source?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Beat me to it Riwka. But yes, and I dont mean something from prisonplanet, aljazeera.com(the .net site is the real one), common dreams and the like. A solid source that will be collectively accepted.

I did a google search on the words Iran, Israel and Destruction. Nothing came up of Israel calling for Irans destruction.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parmenides
Not to mention the Iranian president is practically calling for war and the annihilation of Israel. A preemptive strike is a legal response to danger, and is internationally recognized as legitimate counter-measure in case of a severe enough threat.


You better look up the definition of pre-emptive.

An Israeli strike on Iran would not be pre-emptive without clear, and conclusive evidence that an Iranian attack on Israel was imminent.

If you think its leagal under international law PLEASE show us all where.

What about the Japanese Pre-Emptive attack on Pearl Harbor?

And the German Pre-Emptive attack on the Soviet Union?


ArchAngel - you keep referring to preemptive strike as 'sneak-attack'. It's not just that it has the wrong connotation, but also 'sneak-attack' always makes me think of D&D.


If they don't stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!' then it is a sneak attack.

Do you really see the Israelies doing this before they send out their planes on a strike mission???



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
An Israeli strike on Iran would not be pre-emptive without clear, and conclusive evidence that an Iranian attack on Israel was imminent.

What about the Japanese Pre-Emptive attack on Pearl Harbor?

And the German Pre-Emptive attack on the Soviet Union?



LOL, you obviously can't see the difference. Let me point it out to you
Your 2 examples were wars of conquest, now you're a nitwit if you equate these to any action the Israeli's may take with regards to Iran.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
You want to see where it says it is legal, the UN said so in December of 2004. Here you go for all to see.
jurist.law.pitt.edu...
www.umc.pitt.edu:591...
www.un.int...

Enjoy the reading.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
You want to see where it says it is legal, the UN said so in December of 2004. Here you go for all to see.
jurist.law.pitt.edu...

Enjoy


Did you even read it?

the report affirmed the right of nations to practice self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defense when an attack is imminent.

Iran does not have the ability to attack Israel other than to launch missiles.

At what point does an attack become imminent?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

LOL, you obviously can't see the difference. Let me point it out to you Your 2 examples were wars of conquest, now you're a nitwit if you equate these to any action the Israeli's may take with regards to Iran.


What difference does intent make on an attack being pre-emptive?

What is required for an attack to be pre-emptive?

Without clear proof of Iranian intentions any Israeli attack on Iran would be a Sneak attack.[Unless they stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!]

If the American attack on Iraq was pre-emptive then any nation on earth has the right to invade any other nation because it could be supposed that they had weapons to attack with, and the ability to do it.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
What difference does intent make on an attack being pre-emptive?

What is required for an attack to be pre-emptive?

Without clear proof of Iranian intentions any Israeli attack on Iran would be a Sneak attack.[Unless they stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!]


Hmm I thought Israel has already said that they do not want an Iranian bomb and they maybe prepared to act. Sounds like a warning to me.
Oh wait, lets not forget, that the Iranian leader called for Israel's destruction


As I said though, your previous comparisons were wrong, which was what I was responding to.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Come on people lets keep it civil. No need to make the discussion personal. please stay on topic.

Everyone has an opinion, and the right to post it within the terms and conditions of use.

If Israel does attack Iran to remove this nuclear threat, I can imagine it would destabilize the region much more than it already is, however it would be the same or worse if Iran follows through on it’s threats against Israel.

I can imagine being a common Israeli, living in that tiny nation surrounded by enemies. One of which openly calls for the destruction of your homeland. I can also understand how the common Israeli could support a pre-emptive strike on Iran to remove this threat.

I am sure there are many Iranians who feel the same way, living in fear of a nuclear war, and are supportive of their “radical” leadership.

Frankly, at this point I can’t see how this conflict between Iran and Israel can be avoided. short of Iran abandoning its nuclear program all together. And at this point I would say that is impossible.

Rather Netanyahu is elected or not, I am sure the Israelis are getting ready to defend themselves against this threat, regardless of any international laws. Do you really blame them?

And from an Iranian perspective, would you want to see your leadership bow to Israeli and international pressure, abandon it’s nuclear program all together?

Again, I can’t see how this conflict can be avoided.

I believe a pre-emptive strike on Iran is inevitable, and perhaps more immanent than we may be expecting



[edit on 11-12-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ArchAngel
With their history of aggressive wars, and blatant disregard of international law, and resolutions how much more will the world take before it finally acts to maintain the peace?



Rhetoric best saved for and spread like butter on toast.


With their history of aggressive wars...

In self-defense.


If it truely were self defense Israel would not be occupying Palestine land two gnerations later.



...blatant disregard of international law...

Which was and is deemed necessary from time to time.
International law has no bearing on a threat to national security.
In such a case, international law takes a backseat.

I was refering to the Israeli refusal to withdraw from illegally occupied territories, and all of the Lebanon resolutions they ignored.

Israel shows blatant disregard for international law.



...and resolutions...

Which are biasly targeted and given, they are toothless, meaningless, and non-binding in most cases.

Is it really biased to insist that a nation give back what it stole in a sneak attack?



At any rate, Netanyahu is a day late and a dollar short:
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Question: does international law have any applicable bearing on Iran?


Very interesting article.

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

If the Israelies know about a secret site why don't they tell the UN all about it, and save themselves some trouble?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Because the UN itself is toothless. The Iranian Government has thrown out the IAEA and what do they do, NOTHING. I can understand the UN works for peace, but this situation is hopeless, you know it and I know it, there is nothing the UN can do or propose that Iran will accept.

With the rhetoric coming out of the Iranian Presidents mouth, I dont blame Israel for preparing such a strike. Should a country wait through endless resolutions that do absolutely nothing in the firstplace. Its like a slap on the wrist. While you wait through those countless resolutions Iran is using the "stall tactics" that North Korea was using. Luckily that one ended better than this one looks like it will. No one here wants to get into another war, but it looks like thats what Iran wants.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Because the UN itself is toothless. The Iranian Government has thrown out the IAEA and what do they do, NOTHING. I can understand the UN works for peace, but this situation is hopeless, you know it and I know it, there is nothing the UN can do.


Could you PLEASE provide a link to where Iran has thrown out the IAEA.

This is news to me and I keep up on the situation.

I believe you may have misinterpreted the propaganda on TV.

It happens a lot these days.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join