It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Israeli Professor:'We Could Destroy All European Capitals'

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Marshall Ormus

I would have to say you are right the targets are locked. Everyone is just waiting around for the first one to fly. Then it will be a race to see who hits the button second.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by solarstorm

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by solarstorm

The real devils are the scientists that developed such weapons.

This is one of the stupidest comments I've seen here in a long time. Scientists are to blame for Nuclear War?

You moron...I said THE scientists that developed such weapons. Not all scientists...take your impulsive emotion out of your responses and kool ur head.

What is the difference between the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, and the scientists who worked on decoding the genome? Not a damned bit of difference, except the projects they worked on. You're going to sit there and say that THESE men were "devils"?

J. Robert Oppenheimer

John H. Manley

Hans Bethe

John Van Vleck

Felix Bloch

Robert Serber

I guess you might be able to make the statement in the case of Edward Teller. He was a bit of a son of a # as I understand. Even still, who do you think it was that chauffeured Leo Szilard to Einstein's vacation cabin so they could hash out a letter to FDR... a letter encouraging the development of a nuclear weapon.

Considering the social and political atmosphere at the time, can you really blame these men, including Einstein, for advocating or advancing the development of Nuclear technology? Most of these people went on to win Nobel Prizes in other fields of research, and many of them served on the Atomic Energy Committee in an effort to try to stem the tide of proliferation and arms buildup. Hans Bethe, for instance, was instrumental in influencing the government to halt Atmospheric Nuclear Tests (1963) and sign the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (SALT I).

"Devils".... pfft. You're still an idiot if you think that these men were "devils". They were human beings, like everyone else. No more, no less.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Lasheic]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:06 AM
"Rome" was not specifically mentioned by accident. Very strong arguments contend that Rome/Vatican is behind the entire Iraq fiasco. If anyone had the right to "light a match" over Ye' Olde' Holy Roman Empire.... that would be the Jew.
Golden Report snippet.....

It would appear that Israel is now controlled by those who have long since given up on the Zionist Dream of a homeland for us Jews. They now find it necessary to go to the Vatican and get approval from the Pope before doing anything. Peres goes both to the Pope and too his Illuminati friends in France before making any major moves in Israel.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by Keyhole

Good find.

I was about to make a post but realised that I'd only be getting sucked in by propaganda.

I prefer my news from a neutral source.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:19 AM
While i have very big problem with this strategic approach (presumably) of my own country - i just like to ask if someone here thinks that it is unique Israeli strategy? I mean if Russian federation would be attacked by surprise with nuclear weapons they do not have some kind of "doomsday device" with pre-set targets? Surely including not only attacker. I am pretty sure that even US has some kind of similar deterrent.
Still i fail to see why Israel should target "European capitals" as a deterrent. If peaceful Iran will develop nuke and attack Israel what good would it be to attack Rome?
So i want to believe that it is just description of capabilities, not actual strategy. Otherwise some very paranoid fan of Samson story is responsible for Israel's strategy...Brrr.
Oh,by the way - how MAD doctrine is more humane? More logical - of course. But it considers total destruction of humanity. Not "just" hundreds of missiles. Hypocritical a little, aren't we.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by solarstorm

He forgot to add, Thanks to the generosity of the US government . . ..

Interesting they can come out and said that after all they are supposed to be a nuclear free nation.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:52 AM

We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

A message to Europe from America, we are on your side. Israel is snipping nuts. More nuts than the USA. We are only using israel for the time being then we will loose them like a chastity queen on prom night.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

If the pompous professor actually knew the Israeli order of battle, he likely would not have stated it. The problem with Israel is that they are surrounded by hostile states who become more militarily capable as time goes on. The chances of Israel falling and bringing on Doomsday are greater than most other nuclear powers. No one will attempt to over-run the big powers. Pakistan-India is a standoff and neither will use nukes because any war will be over control of Kashmir and not domination of the other country. Israel is the exception and could be over-run by hostile states driven to war. Many of these states use the Palestinians to keep their subjects' attentions focused outward. Gaza is one ignition point planned by Hamas and their backers to cause such a war. Hamas defies Israel to provoke attacks on the Gazans and plays tactics to ensure as many civilian casualties as possible when Israel responds. The US has to keep Israel from getting too adventurous and prodding too many tigers while ensuring that they do not instigate a conflict that would put them in a position to unleash the beast. If that war ever happens, and if Israel is over-run, that is when every capitol in the Arab world gets whacked, along with oil fields and the holy cities of Mecca, Medina, and Qom. It's hard to do the Hajj dance in a glass lined, radioactive crater.
If the Israelis do it, who knows what else will happen and who will join in using the fog of war to settle old scores? Oppenheimer's quote from the Bhagavad-Gita would be apropos.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[edit on 1/27/2009 by pteridine]

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:56 AM
Thinking about this further, and considering an earlier post that spoke of the many Jewish residents of Europe, I believe that the Israelis would consider a transport of children and young families out of Israel before the final destruction. Likely a sealift, if possible, to get more out. They would not strike Europe as the diaspora would need a place to live. I believe that the last nukes to go off would be in or near the cities and holy places of Israel with dirty bombs. They would not destroy Jerusalem but would use a dirty bomb nearby to make it uninhabitable for the invaders. The diaspora could plan a return.
Consider the final days a national Masada.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:58 AM
And in doing so they would condemn Israel and all jews everywhere to death.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by Europe

I am sure that many of the diaspora would have difficulties with the local populations and may face deportation, if there was a place to deport them to. Should this happen, do you believe that the Jewish citizens of Europe would face pogroms because of what Israel did? They chose to remain European citizens and are not responsible for the actions of the Israelis. The Israelis were not fighting Europe in this scenario, so internment camps are not appropriate.
I hope that we never have to find out about any of this and that the US continues to ensure that the Armageddon scenario does not play out.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by pteridine

Since when has common sense every come into play?
If israel nuked europe, jews would get the blame, weather or not they are Israeli.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Europe

What I said was that they wouldn't nuke Europe and that a wave of immigrants would arrive in Europe just before Israel and hostile states were mutually destroyed. No one gets to play in the radioactive sand box.
The danger to Europe [and its Jewish population in your scenario] would be nuclear armed third parties using the war as a cover to their own ends.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by pteridine

I'm starting to think Europe needs breathing room so we are gonna have to annex north africa and huge chunks of the middle east.
Were gonna have to take turkey over and western Russia and if people dont like it then we will have to unleash the worlds biggest and most powerful armed forces, those of the EU member states.

So i dont think we will be able to accept refuges for a while.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:25 PM
Words are important. For example.... if you were to yell "fire" in a crowded theater the people would react and then most likely so would the police if you were just "kidding around". I would imagine the same would hold true if you were to joke about having a bomb with you as you boarded a plane.

The "professor" would probably not mention Washington D.C. even if the Israeli's were capable of hitting D.C.... the US is Israel's friend. You don't threaten friends....... do you?

Citing Rome as a doable target is a threat. Words are important.

Jesus said......

Matthew 12:36-37 NIV But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by Europe

I think you might be referring to "liebensraum" and not breathing room.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:58 AM
If Israel was to nuke Europe and Europe counter attacks, which side would the US take?

Second line

[edit on 073131p://am3141 by masonwatcher]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by masonwatcher

Good God, man, I hope that this will always be a rhetorical question! But just to entertain the thought for a moment longer, and in the spirit of the debate, would the US have any choice but to sit that one out? Hopefully, we would all see it coming and be like the big sibling, step in between the two and intervene before they come to blows.

The world is truly going mad...

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by masonwatcher

Israel has no reason to nuke Europe. Europe recognizes and trades wirh Israel and is not trying to destroy it. Additionally, there is a large Jewish population in Europe, as mentioned by an earlier poster.

I believe that the nukes will be reserved for those who would destroy Israel.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by DisgustedOne

It was a rhetorical question but if it is acceptable for Israel to have the Sampson Option with the potential to suck in far flung Arab nations that has little to do with it because of an impending doom how would that be any less moral than nuking Europe?

So the bottom line is that if there is to be an issue of the US choosing between Israel and Europe, I think the US would choose Israel. Why? Because all American institutions are beholden to zionists, the country is under sayanim domination, the population has been conditioned and a new religion has been invented; Christian Zionism.

[edit on 013131p://pm3156 by masonwatcher]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in