Peres threatens action against Iran

reply to post by tide88

Anyone who thinks Iran is pursuing Nuclear Power for peaceful purposes is insane.

HAHAHAHA I'm not insane, why would you call me insane. That is just sad


Back to topic:
They have this attitude because they are well protected by America, if America stance towards Israel changes you will see how the Israelites change. Absolute American backing is what they have and that is what they are using as a diplomatic advantage. They can ask for what ever they want without having to face any actions by international community because America can Veto it. Simple and plain.

Originally posted by JanusFIN


Its so strange that one of the youngest country which has 7 026 000 peoples, threatens country which is one of the oldest and has 71 208 000 people... Isnt it?

It doesn't sound fair.....for Iran. It is somewhat normal for Israel to be outnumbered this way, but they always come out on top. Somebody must be looking after them.

Six Day War

Yom Kippur War

It doesn't take Israel long to clean somebody's plow if they have to.

It's sad really, how the children of the victims often become the assailants.

Whatever, if Israel wants to wage war against their neighbors, we'll just have to do the same to them as we did with previous tyrants.



If Israel is the first to strike, Israel is the guilty party.

Originally posted by johnsky

If Israel is the first to strike, Israel is the guilty party.

If Israel is threatened with complete destruction, they have every right to strike first.

Well, I guess I should have put a little more quote in here to meet the new requirement, which I think is a pile of crap because I made my point in the sentence.

Originally posted by johnsky
If Israel is the first to strike, Israel is the guilty party.

Really? So, if a man comes up to you and says that he plans to kill you, you don't have the right to hit him first? What is that guy was walking over to a place you know he has a gun hidden, you should just wait for him to get it before you use you gun first?

Hey JanusFIN, you never answered my question in that other thread you started? Is it you mission in life to start thread about Israel in order to spread your anti-Semitism? Every thread you start have one purpose and one purpose only, to attack Israel. Do you work for Tehran? Are you in a Madrassa?

Bobbylove, name a single war that Israel started? Name just one and you get a gold star.

Its funny, one anti-Semite (usually JanusFIN) starts an anti-Israel thread, and the same cast of characters always join the discussion to say the same anti-Israel non-sense in every thread. The same posters say the same things every time. You know who you are people. How about something original?

Iran's nuclear program is the false flag. Just like Iraq's WMD. Only this time its possibly Isreal that's going after the oil or what ever precious resources they have.
IMO Isreal will attack Iran in the midst of the election. With no attentive leader and/or all attentions focused on who will lead they could go in hit crucial areas and people and be out again in days.
Iran ability to wage war is probably equal to that of Iraq at the time of their invasion. its blown out of proportion to justify the use of extreme force, such as phosphorus.

it smells like gaza already.
will Isreal bring the US into it a 911 type attack? perhaps but it would be rather obvious and you yanks and southerners could catch and kill all the jews in the US with your hidden and no longer legal guns.

... Tone is rising, and I think Bibi and his government are having great dinners together with these news in Israeli media - Zionist warmongers...

Peres: Iran wants to take over Middle East

President Shimon Peres makes first comments on reports of Egyptian efforts against Iranian-backed Hizbullah infrastructure in Egypt, saying, 'They are fighting without us, and this is good...Sooner or later world will realize Iran has colonial ambitions'

www.ynetnews.com...

Iran rejects big powers proposal for resumed nuclear talks, Peres threatens military strike

Iranian sources report two key developments in the standoff over Iran's nuclear drive: Tehran effectively rejected the latest offer by the five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany of nuclear negotiations with direct US involvement. This shut the door on US president Barack Obama's first diplomatic gambit for direct dialogue with Tehran.

www.debka.com...

Peres: Iran aspires to 'control Mideast'

Peres went on to call Hizbullah "an Iranian agent," and called its chief, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, "a man who wraps himself in sheikh's robes, yet is willing to kill." - "Soon, the world will realize," he repeated.

www.jpost.com...

Peres: Clash between Iran, Sunni Arabs is inevitable

President Shimon Peres said on Monday that a clash between Iran and the Sunni nations of the Arab world was "inevitable." "The collision between the Middle East, which is Sunni Arab, and the Iranian minority that seeks to take it over, is inevitable," said Peres.

www.haaretz.com...


- HEY!!! What about the negotiations... Oh, that was only in the media. Sorry...

IS HERE STILL SOME WHO DONT SEE THAT WE ARE HEADING TO WW3 - and fast? Is someone arranging travels to Iran as human shields already... I can join to that, most dangerous "madventures" of alll time.

Who started the wars can be debated either way..but Begin did admit that Israel started 3 of it's wars.

www.washington-report.org...

And Iran has said that it will retalliate if Israel strikes first....which I think is a reasonable response to an aggressor.

Both Israel and Iran have said they would eliminate the other if one strikes. As I see it, Iran has shown it is a peace loving nation and therefore believe Israel will make the first move with ulterior motives.

Iran provides weapons and training to terrorist organizations inside and outside of Israel, such as Hizballah and Hamas. Organizations, mind you, who list the destruction of the Israeli state as part of their manifestos and the sole reason they exist. Organizations who employ terrorism and irregular warfare against Israeli military personnel and civilians.

As far as I am concerned, Israel already has all the justification they need to flatten Iran like a pancake. The amount of restraint they have show to this point has been remarkable. I believe that they are foolishly hoping that the US administration, working with Russia and the Euro-weenies will somehow "talk" the Islamo-fascists in Iran into seeing some sense. I think this is a pipe dream.

It's probably a good thing that the Shiite nut jobs in Tehran hate the Wahhabi nut jobs in Al Qaeda as much as we do. Had they not been hating each other so much, no doubt Iran would have (very stupidly) given Al Qaeda weapons and support to conduct terror attacks against the US and UK by now, which in turn would have caused us to flatten them like a pancake by now. This is probably one of those rare times were being hateful and stupid can actually save your skin......

reply to post by Pyros

Why does hezbollah exist in the first place? Is it because Israel invaded Lebanon? And Hamas? And as Israel has said its enemy is Iran..its seems conceivable that Iran should help its enemy. If your brother was being attacked woull you not help him in any way you could?

reply to post by Pyros

Iran provides weapons and training to terrorist organizations inside and outside of Israel, such as Hizballah and Hamas.

You do realise Mossad created Hamas in the 1970's and backed it to create a potent rival to Yasser Arafat's PLO movement?

They unleashed the genie in the first place. Not Iran.

Organizations who employ terrorism and irregular warfare against Israeli military personnel and civilians.

Because that's all they're really capable of in resisting Israeli occupation. These are not standing armies, they're volunteer resistance groups.

Who said warfare is just and fair? People will resist occupation and oppression with whatever means they have at hand. That's human nature talking, not Islam.

As far as I am concerned, Israel already has all the justification they need to flatten Iran like a pancake. The amount of restraint they have show to this point has been remarkable.

So not having any conclusive proof Iran is building nuclear weapons and having some half-baked connections to Hezbollah is enough to invade another nation?

You supported Iraq didn't you?

Would you be supportive of the idea of Iran invading Israel, since Mossad together with the CIA having been backing Iranian terrorist groups like the Communist MEK against the Iranian government?

Didn't think so.

that the US administration, working with Russia and the Euro-weenies will somehow "talk" the Islamo-fascists in Iran into seeing some sense.

What the hell is an "Islamo-fascist"?

How can one profess submission to God and then take up a political ideology that revolves around removing religious influence from all walks of life and replacing it with the influence of a lone totalitarian dictator?

It's probably a good thing that the Shiite nut jobs in Tehran hate the Wahhabi nut jobs in Al Qaeda as much as we do.

Sigh, how many uninformed opinions can you cram into a post?

Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi and the only country and political government to support the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam.

Do you know why OBL hates his home country and left there? Because HE HATES Wahhabism and considers it completely detrimental to Islam.

Al-Qaeda is a Sunni, Pan-Islamist movement.

Had they not been hating each other so much, no doubt Iran would have (very stupidly) given Al Qaeda weapons and support to conduct terror attacks against the US and UK by now, which in turn would have caused us to flatten them like a pancake by now.

Blah, blah, blah....

You and your crystal ball. Forgive us for doubting your psychic abilities to predict what may or may not have happened had history been different.

reply to post by MBF

If Israel is threatened with complete destruction, they have every right to strike first.

And when was poor, poor Israel threatened with such action? Can you find a source?

Or are you referring to the commonly misquoted statement when Ahmadinejad said he would like the REGIME controlling Israel to vanish?

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

www.mohammadmossadegh.com...

I can't believe after 3 years of this statement being made and subsequently debunked over and over again people still take this credible proof of Iran's hostility to Israel.

reply to post by Xeven

America DOES have the ability to shut down Iran, Irans Nuclear facilities, its military, communications and just about anything else without putting one boot or nuke on the ground. All this could be done with minimal loss to the US forces and inside 2 months.

I'm sorry but that's patent nonsense.

Some basic mathematics to all the self-appointed military analysts who think Iran would be a cakewalk to take on.

US Army Size: 519,472 soldiers: www.pdfdownload.org...

Number of boots on the Ground in Iraq: 152,000 (Remember more on the way)www.globalsecurity.org...

Number of boots on the Ground in Afghanistan: 25,945
english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Let's see now: 519,472 - (152,000+ 25,945) = 341, 527 hapless men to be thrown into another quagmire.

Iranian Army Size? 355,000 professional soldiers + huge reserves of militia from the Basji and Al-Quds Forces
www.pdfdownload.org...

Looks like the Iranians have about 13,473 "substitutes" for that match.
The US is actually outnumbered for once. When's the last time America won a war where it didn't have numerical superiority?

Number of troops actively deployed near Iranian borders: ~130,000
www.pdfdownload.org...

I don't think any General, even if he were of the United States would feel comfortable with those odds before going into battle.

The Insurgency in Iraq numbers in the tens of thousand and still a vastly superior and vastly larger force cannot contain them in a country smaller than Texas!

Iran would be like Iraq on it's sh*ttiest day, permanently.
Iran would be utterly devastating for the US.

This is a country of 70 million people we're talking about, larger than the combined size of the UK, France and Italy.
The insurgency in Iran would make Iraq's look like a bunch of boy scouts.

If Iraq cost almost 1 trillion dollars, Iran would be at least 3 times that figure.
Imagine the American economy coping with that in this current time?
Cars would be a fantasy for the average consumer, you could forget about owning homes anymore, oil would be rarer than gold.

The economy would fall so fast on it's ass that stockbrokers could jump out of windows and still hit the ground AFTER it collapsed.

As for death tolls? Hard to calculate but 4,000 Servicemen would probably reached within the first few months of the campaign, not in a few years.

America needs a war with Iran like it needs a friggin' meteor shower.

Originally posted by finemanm

Originally posted by johnsky
If Israel is the first to strike, Israel is the guilty party.

Really? So, if a man comes up to you and says that he plans to kill you, you don't have the right to hit him first? What is that guy was walking over to a place you know he has a gun hidden, you should just wait for him to get it before you use you gun first?

Hey JanusFIN, you never answered my question in that other thread you started? Is it you mission in life to start thread about Israel in order to spread your anti-Semitism? Every thread you start have one purpose and one purpose only, to attack Israel. Do you work for Tehran? Are you in a Madrassa?

Bobbylove, name a single war that Israel started? Name just one and you get a gold star.

Its funny, one anti-Semite (usually JanusFIN) starts an anti-Israel thread, and the same cast of characters always join the discussion to say the same anti-Israel non-sense in every thread. The same posters say the same things every time. You know who you are people. How about something original?

First let me say I'm on Israel's side.
I'm not bobbylove but if I name one do I get the gold star?
The Jordan valley campaign- Moses went on the offense and slaughtered several tribes on his way to Caanan. He started it (and finished it)

reply to post by johnsky

Correction. Iran has already struck first, with Ahmajackoff stating the goal of Israel being wiped off the map.

Those are fighting words, a declaration of intent. Wars have been started over far less.

So now that Iran has indicated their intent, Israel may opt to do a preemptive strike to preserve their threatened state, just as they did in 1967, which was totally justified.

Let me clue you in. When you threaten the existence of someone, then you better already be shooting.

If you aren't they other guy (Israel) is now justified. You never, ever give a foe first shot in a fight to the death.

Israel has faced extinction four times. Four times they have pervailed against overwhelming odds. Crap equipment, outnumbered almost ten to one. And yet they SLAUGHTERED their foes.

Like another poster stated, maybe they have an ally. Upon detailed study, I'd lean that way too.

reply to post by dooper

Iran has already struck first, with Ahmajackoff stating the goal of Israel being wiped off the map.

Equating words to actions now are we? Un-friggin-believable.

Sticks and stones... buddy. Sticks and stones...

And, if you care to read my previous post, that claim has been THOROUGHLY disproven.

Those are fighting words, a declaration of intent.

You could take me to court claiming I said: "I'm going to kill you" but no court in the world would convict me based on that hearsay alone.

That is not intent. That's circumstantial evidence. i.e. credible as crocodile piss.

The same kind used to justify Iraq.

So now that Iran has indicated their intent, Israel may opt to do a preemptive strike to preserve their threatened state,

Israel may opt to shutup and suck it up.
That's about all the options they have within the rights of International Law to do.

If every country had the right to pre-emptively attack another when they didn't like what some state leader said about them, the world would have ceased to exist long ago.

Let me clue you in. When you threaten the existence of someone, then you better already be shooting.

The clueless cannot "clue" anyone in.

Threatening is just that. Threatening. Who perceives what as "threatening" and what constitutes a threat varies WIDELY.

There is no law or stipulation stating that "detesting another country's form of government" is an act of war.

Where the hell are you getting this from seriously? The UN states Israel is responsible far reprehensible war crimes in Gaza, does Israel have the right to wipe out the UN now?
After all they're claiming the government of Israel are war criminals...

And yet they SLAUGHTERED their foes.

You really have a perpetual hard-on for touting the might of Israel don't you?

Have you had enough of a power trip yet?

No sick, twisted, backward logic can justify attacking another country based on their words alone, no matter how hard you try.

Drop this medieval mindset and accept the world you live in.

[edit on 13/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

If Israel and Iran go toe to toe there is only one certainty. Conflict that sucks in everyone in a war that may end all wars. If not troops facing off it will be waged by the terrorist.

What astounds me is the rhetoric spewed by those that think its ok, everything will be fine, Israel has done it before, they will win again.

I freely admit my hatred of an army that maimed and killed so many in Gaza. That does not make me wish for revenge, that would be illogical.

Even though Israel behaves like the bully in the school playground and most want to see that bully put in his place, you have to be insane to want more bloodshed in the ME. That said, I beleive Israel will eventually punch someone on the chin who will then give them the beating they so rightly deserve.

One last thing, is that software add-on that was used during the Gaza conflict to warn Israeli sympathisers that they were needed to enter forums and defend Israeli actions in Gaza still active? I think it may well be.

Respects and a wish for peace, we have all had enough of seeing children burned with phospherous.









[edit on 13-4-2009 by captiva]

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

For those who would read the earlier post of Godfather of Conspiracy, he would suggest that words cannot be equated with actions. The subject matter is Israel, and the threats that were made by Iranian President Ahakackoff to wipe out Israel.

Let's take a look.

1948-49, Israel was attacked by Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, a "Palestinian" brigade, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, with the statements that the ground would run with Israeli blood. Words, conveyed directly into a threat, converted directly into an attack to extinguish Israel.

The identical, same words and promises were stated just prior to conflicts against Israel in 1956, 1967, and 1973. Four threats of extinction, four attacks.

Seeing the pattern, here?

In the Middle East, words of extinction prior to attack to follow up those threats cannot be separated. Israeli history proves that threats of extinction are a precursor to an attack.

By the way, Godfather, I'm not your buddy. Not by a damned sight.

The author poorly tries to provide an analogy. To compare the irrational threat of extinction to a sovereign nation is certainly not on the same page as an assault before a court. This comparison by the author is absolutely juvenile.

The author with contrived bluster also conveniently overlooks the fact that the first rule of international law is that a nation has a right to defend itself. The author may not like the nation, but that changes nothing.

Defense does not mean waiting around to get hit first, and only being able to respond after being hit. Defense means taking measures to keep from being hit. The author is a bit fuzzy on this concept as well.

Defensive measures to avoid being hit first, by another nation who has threatened extinction, would include preemptive strikes.

The author pulls a slick trick by stating a falsehood as a given fact, hoping the reader will swallow this swill, and then rely on his lie to support his view.

Numerous "reports" and "complaints," and claims have been made in and to the UN about supposed human rights violations, primarily by Palestinians and their allies.

To date, none of these allegations have been proven, some have been proven false, and the UN has not officially condemned Israel under any of these allegations, nor has a determination of guilt as implied by the author been officially made.

Also counter to the claim of the author, no charges by the UN of any war crimes have been filed, nor proven, nor has any determination or action along these lines been made by the UN.

This is yet another false assumption on the part of the author, in line with his other accusations. False accusations.

As far as who "started" the Gazan conflict, any reader can go to weeks before the Israeli counterattack, and find that Gazans were launching multiples of rockets against civilian areas in Israel, and they were warned several times by Israel to stop the attacks.

The author conveniently forgets to mention that the Israeli attack was a counterattack. A counterattack is when you have been attacked, and you respond with your own attack. Thus, the Israeli action by any definition of the term, was a counterattack.

These accusations made are dishonest, and it may be more effective for the author to get a few facts correct, and then let the distortion begin.

I find it a bit disconcerting to learn of his interest in elements of my sexual practice, which I would suggest is none of his business, and highly speculative at best.

Therefore, I will not respond, as I don't want to encourage him any further along that line.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Where the hell are you getting this from seriously? The UN states Israel is responsible far reprehensible war crimes in Gaza, does Israel have the right to wipe out the UN now?
After all they're claiming the government of Israel are war criminals...

Why do you continually persist in bringing the U.N. into this matter?

Those U.N. resolutions against Israel or any state amount to being squat, nada, worthless.

Those resolutions are backed by nothing but political and ideological rhetoric. Who is going to enforce those resolutions? Nobody, nada, no dog willing to take a squat.

The U.N. has lost nearly all credibility among the vast majority of 2nd and 3rd world nations, etc. Ever wondered why...and spare me the conspiracy theories. Better yet, the U.N. is nothing but a fancy place to gather and have state leaders and representatives spout off glorious rhetoric and pass BS resolutions.

Therefore, for practical purposes, anything that comes out from the U.N., whether it be its water-down condemnation of North Korea to its continued ineffectual spew concerning the ongoing genocide in Sudan to their claim that "the government of Israel are war criminals" is worthless, politically and ideologically tainted and amounting to what a dog would do when it squats. Bet.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by Seekerof]

reply to post by Seekerof


I brought up the U.N. because it was a political entity that spoke out against the Government of Israel much like the Iranian government did. I was enquiring with the previous poster whether this constituted a justification for war, since simply "detesting" the Israeli government is enough to loose the dogs of war in his opinion.

You dredged up a friggin' biopic of the UN and the widely-known history of their miserable incompetence for what reason exactly?

Do you honestly believe we were all born yesterday? Really. I mean you do this in almost every thread, with the same kind of divisive rhetoric based on floating your agenda, predicating it on any excuse you can find.

Take it easy. No one's challenging your knowledge here.

[edit on 13/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]