Israel threatens to send Syria back to Stone Age

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


cant agree with you on the flag thing in a car thats not soil it dont mean anything other than the are proud of there heritage or the people from other countrys serving in other militarys i have a few friends from up north that i was proud to serve with in the Marines even had a few from down south that i still call Brothers

reply to post by dragonridr


I also posted that link and got ignored.

Apparently my information wasn't good enough, even though I cited multiple cases and evidences.

Originally posted by Truth1000
..... Within a month, the U.S. air forces would set the nation of Iran back thirty years in infrastructure development. I doubt that even the current leaders of Iran are that foolish.

At this time, technology rules the battlefield and airspaces of war, and there is no technological equivalent to the U.S. military capabilities.

Back in the 60's, pundits predicted the U.S. military would defeat North Vietnam in 90 days for the same reason you've listed above.
After 10 years of fighting and 58,000 U.S. servicemen killed, the U.S. military withdrew from Vietnam.

Warfare has a tendency to spin out of control. If Iran was attacked by the U.S., there's a possibility Pakistan people (not the govt) would come to Iran's aid. Pakistan (96% Muslim, 160 million people) lies next door to Iran, and might turn the conflict in Iran into another Vietnam War, or worse.

reply to post by Libertygal


from your links
Iran might be seeking to develop nuclear weapons capability, inspectors say
www.washingtonpost.com...

doesn't say they are, just they might be, they also might be trying to fly to the moon on a cow, doesn't mean they will.

Yesterday the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report that warned that it has evidence that Iran may be working on a nuclear warhead.
blog.heritage.org...

once again the word may be, not is

and I already covered the new york times article in a previous post, so what is your point caller?

are you saying that because someone had in the past, or someone may in the future is in fact evidence of they are now?

that is not a fact, it is just conjecture, just like WMD's of the past
one group says yes the other says no and the third says maybe.
If history is a guide, who would you believe?
the country who invaded another on false claims?
a country that admits it's intel was wrong after they enter another country?

or a country that has not invaded another country but merely defended itself against an agressor who was backed and supplied with weapons by the country who has admitted to bad intel in the first place?

Iranian leadership has lied repeatedly about its intentions, and has shown the world that its not afraid to do so, because it knows that the Western World (especially the US and the UN) are toothless tigers that will keep talking and talking while Iran continues research and development, and eventually explodes a "test bomb" in New York or Washington DC. Then the world will know they are a nuclear power, too late of course.

5 years ago Iran was saying that it wasn't pursuing nuclear power when it was in secret, then they said that they had one nuclear station when they had several (only admitted when the US released satellite intelligence to the World).

Now they're saying that they "don't really want a bomb". Come on, Persia was one of the most warlike societies in history (but also one of the most artistic and scholarly when they wanted to be - remind you of anyone?), and Iranian scientists are certainly well educated and capable of building a bomb with the correct materials, which they have shown an eagerness to obtain. The apple doesn't fall far.

If they didn't want a bomb, why have they enriched Uranium beyond what is needed for just nuclear power and refused access to IEAA inspectors?

As far as Israel going after Syria (or Lebanon) in response to a rocket attack, if they bombed either country "back to the stone age" the other Middle Eastern countires (Egypt, Iran, and probably several others) would respond in kind in Syria's defense.

reply to post by babybunnies


Thus bringing the rest of the world into conflict. The snowball effect I mentioned earlier stated the same thing. If it came to that point where other countries overtly assisted Lebanon/Syria, Europe and the West would most likely join in on Israel's side.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see some black budget tech get involved if this were to happen, but that's another thread.

reply to post by babybunnies


They enriched up to 20% for medical isotopes rather than just fuel, you see, the west keep promising they will give them the 20% enriched they needed to use to treat cancer patients, but the west kept forgetting to send it after the money came through, Iran decided to do it itself which was the wests plan all along so people like you can say, look they are producing to a higher level than needed for nuclear power. it must be for a bomb

never mention the Iranian cancer patients that need the Chemotherapy, thats something only christian nations deserve right?

reply to post by munkey66


I think that is called selective reading. Here, some text without any "may"s, because you seem to have missed some dates on some articles. The "May"s kind of led to the "is" and "have already"s:

(not to mention that pesky show me proof of secret facilities thingy, troublesome, I know.)

This is text from my links, that you so eloquently attempt to gloss over in choice of text that fits your world view:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Feel free to revisit the posts so you can refresh your memory on the sources.

which concluded that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.

It is more in line with reported European and Israeli estimates that Iran, along with enriching uranium that could fuel a nuclear bomb, is experimenting with constructing a warhead.

Documents in the hands of the IAEA suggest Iranian scientists have studied how to convert these weapons to carry nuclear warheads.

and the relationship between various attempts by senior Iranian officials with links to military organisations in Iran to obtain nuclear-related technology and equipment.
(snip)
The agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear-related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons.

President Obama said "the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program" and called its construction a "direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the nonproliferation regime. These rules are clear: All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy, those nations with nuclear weapons must move toward disarmament, those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them."

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world," President Obama said.

The US, Britain and France issued a strongly worded ultimatum to Iran today after US officials disclosed the existence of a secret nuclear plant which the Iranian authorities have kept hidden from UN inspectors for years.

So to hell with "may"s, here you have the words, "is" and "has already".

is experimenting with nuclear warheads

has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon

Documents in the hands of the IAEA

the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program

US officials disclosed the existence of a secret nuclear plant which the Iranian authorities have kept hidden from UN inspectors for years.

I am done with this. As long as you continue with selective reading, and taking things in the context to meet your world view, then there is sense in providing you the "proof" you asked for and received from not only myself, but several others.

Now, you appear to be argumentative for the sake of arguing, and I refuse to pursue that with you.

"is" and "has already" are definitive words, it means it is a past event. Not speculative, not "may", but it's a done deal, to hell with your world view or anyone elses, Iran "is" and "has already", like it or not.

Originally posted by joshter

The worse thing about all this, is that this same country, America, the country that appears to more against other countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons is the only country that's actually used them or similar on another country.

Farcical.

I don't see that as being "farcical" at all. Why wouldn't a country that has used and have seen the consequence of using such a weapon want to keep other countries from doing that same thing? Would you rather such a country either be apathetic or even encouraging to use these weapons again?

EDIT: Or am I taking your post in reverse context?

[edit on 18-4-2010 by joshter]

Well a couple of points: firstly, what you describe is your government's stance - if that's whether they've actually learned the lesson you're describing in the first place. Secondly, I'm talking about the views of America citizens. It's frightening to see how many would have no qualms repeating Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Thirdly, I'm not really convinced the American government wouldn't do it again, to be honest. Yes, I'm aware of various arguments as to why they wouldn't but they've never really put me at ease, sorry.

reply to post by Libertygal


your right, lets flatten the entire region, if you think that the world will be better off and you will live with more freedoms after the bombs start to fall, think again, you will have no freedoms and your standard of living will drop considerably, and after the bombs have stopped, they will tell you we need to tighten our belts a little further because of the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere.

So please believe the whole Iran has nukes and the middle east is full of those who hate your freedom, because the ones who hate your freedom more than the Middle east is your own goverment, the more control they have over you, the easier you are to control.

Enjoy the war

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by Libertygal

 

your right, lets flatten the entire region, if you think that the world will be better off and you will live with more freedoms after the bombs start to fall, think again, you will have no freedoms and your standard of living will drop considerably, and after the bombs have stopped, they will tell you we need to tighten our belts a little further because of the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere.

So please believe the whole Iran has nukes and the middle east is full of those who hate your freedom, because the ones who hate your freedom more than the Middle east is your own goverment, the more control they have over you, the easier you are to control.

Enjoy the war

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never once advocated nuclear strikes on anyone, I never once advocated any war.

So since you cannot refute the evidence that YOU asked for you choose to obfuscate. Typical.

Stop trying to make me the bad person for providing you the evidence YOU ASKED for.

And above all, stop putting words in my mouth as if I wish for a war or strike to happen. I never said it, never implied it, never sanctioned it, wished for it or dreamed of it.

Is this a joke? Really. Is it?

Enjoy living in ingorant bliss

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Libertygal]

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by Mdv2
With Iran pursuing nuclear weapons

Could you please show me a credible source that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and not just nuclear power, because I still see nothing but propoganda about Iran pursuing nukes even after they allow IAEA in and are all for nuclear disarmament.
Sorry I couldn't read further than this point in your post.

Would the United Nations report work for your proof. Id say its not a rumor they are seeking nuclear weapons. Now the only question is do they have the right to do so. Thats another thread however.
www.nytimes.com...

These are called allegations in america... but congratulations.. you are being conditioned to accept the MSMs euphemistic idea that "UN evidence" in the same as "US evidence".

"extensive evidence of “past or current undisclosed activities” by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead" says the UN.

A US audience is only familiar with television standards of evidence... they see crime fighting actors collect, process, analyze and use supercomputers examining evidence to nail the bad guy in an episode... even informed people outside the legal arena are only vaguely aware of the complex rules of evidence, as in what a local court considers evidence...

ev·i·dence
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

If the UN brought their "extensive evidence" to a court in the united states, iran would get to challenge it based on credibility and relevance...an impartial arbiter (so called) would decide what's admissible. Even if accepted by the court, evidence is not guilt.. that's for an impartial jury.

In UN / obamas / GOP/DNC elite mafia american matrix... "official" unchallenged information , maybe secret or obtained by torture, is not only automatically credible & relevant "evidence" of guilt.. it's enough for a guilty sentence sometimes deserving death by remote control airplane... But in the founding fathers america... everyone, no matter how unpopular, is supposed to get a fair & honest hearing / trial to challenge the accusers evidence...

The again just like king george bush.bama have been playing judge jury and executioner based on allegations for years.. maybe the UN is just following along..

To those who think that the side with the biggest guns always wins ... thats not how it works.

Ask the Russians who were beaten in Afghan
Ask the Americans who were beaten in Vietnam
The Brits did not win against IRA

The Iraq war started with Shock and Awe, but then followed ground troops, that when the casualties started to mount.

Same in Afghanistan, we started with Daisy Cutter Bombs, then the ground troops went in.

In WW2 we could bomb the Germans all day, but in the end it was only through ground hand to hand battles that the war was won.

Given the size of Israel there is no way they can in long run win, even with US backing.

It is Israel that is stone age thinking they can beat everyone into submission.

Well well well.
Here we go again. WMD's anyone?
History lesson:
Reason for invading Afganistan = 9/11, find Osama. fail
Reason for invading Iraq = WMD's. fail
Reason for invading Iran = Nuclear weapons. 3rd time lucky ?

I doubt it

Reason for war = Money

reply to post by Libertygal

I am not the minority here, I posed a question and those with more time on their hands where able to put their views forward as well.

If you look at my signature you will see it talks about learning from the past, do you not see any similarities between now and anything that has happened in the past?
because there are a few of us who can see.

even before this apparent document came to light, they where still claiming that their was proof, they have been singing that song for a couple of years even with nothing more than accusations.

How is this for an idea, as this is a conspiracy web site the idea should fit right in.
The inspectors are human and as far as a human goes they all have their price, a promise of a promotion or a holiday or even family members remaining alive may be enough for the inspectors to see it a little more on the side of the accusers rather than the defenders of their actions.
after all, war is business, and their is plenty of money to be made out of the next conflict.

I am not saying that the inspectors are dirty, but who appointed them?
what makes them so squeeky clean in this world of corruption and greed?

reply to post by bigyin


We weren't beaten in Vietnam.

That is a misconception and propaganda.

We bombed the crap out of North Vietnam and they signed a treaty ending the war.

Then we pulled out. The US Congress then passed legislation forbidding us to intervene if North Vietnam attacked the south.

That is what screwed South Vietnam.

After we pulled out, the NVA launched an assault into South Vietnam. There was nothing we could do but watch, thanks to Congress.

The NVA's arse would of been handed to it if we could have intervened. South Vietnam should have had the same support we gave South Korea.

Originally posted by ppaaddyy
reply to post by Tholidor

 

How would you feel if those crazy sociopathic-religiouslyextreme-AK47&rocket firing muslims were all in Mexico; they were unhappy about the fact that you, their neighbor are more powerful than they are and you don't agree religiously, so as a result they decide to start firing rocket over the border at your homes,

Let's look at a more pertinent example: How would you feel if the U.N. decided on a whim to give Texas and Louisiana to those folks and sent troops in to throw the existing residents out of their homes. Then, just to add insult to injury, what if the nations of the world collectively looked the other way while the usurpers developed more and more powerful weapons and even sent billions in "aid" to make sure they would have the military might to hold onto their illegally acquired territory?

As for the rockets being fired into Israel, take a good look at those overgrown bottle-rockets. Thousands of these home-made fireworks have been fired into Israel over the years and they have resulted in about 2 dozen deaths. Compare that with the most recent IDF atrocity ("Cast Lead" I believe it was called). I have no sympathy for a regime that considers a 1000:1 kill ratio an acceptable response to a mostly fictional threat.

EDIT to add: By the way, just who the heck is Eric Cartman and what has he written that is germane to the topic at hand?

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Tholidor]

reply to post by Mdv2

From a purely strategic point of view, it was a very wise move of Iran to arm Hezbollah with advanced weapons of which the ballistic missile is the most important. It must have been decades ago that an Arab nation could hold a knife to the throat of Israel, which has enjoyed military superiority that effectively dealt with any threat. Now Hezbollah has ballistic missiles, they could for the first time since inflict serious damage on Israel, which directly threatens their ability to keep its neighbors under control. Not to speak of Hezbollah's increase anti-air capability.

Wow, a little war mongering are we? You really think is was wise for Iran to promote war?

You forget that one of Iran's top nuclear scientists recently defected. This means the U.S., and therefore the west, knows just how far along Iran is with the nuclear program. I would say at some point, when all diplomatic options have been resolved, the U.S., will eventually send in a task force to take out Iran's nuclear program, and there is nothing the current Iranian government can do to stop them.

The government in Iran is barely hanging onto power in Iran as it is, as the Persians are getting sick of their religious extremism.

Israel is the victim, and just as everywhere, Islam is the bully.

Israel certainly has a right to defend itself.

reply to post by Tholidor


Hardly an applicable example. First of all, Texas joined the U.S. on its own choice, like all the other states.

Israel was taken by force, and then was coerced into accepting Islam as its major religion, and as the controlling forces of its government. The area belonged to the Turkish empire for centuries. Israel was created along with the Muslim states in the area, has historical ties to the area, and ever right to exist and control its own destiny.

Islam has consistently been the aggressor, despite claims to the contrary.

The proof is in the fact that Syria invaded Lebanon, which was supposed to be a Christian country for the Christians who live in the area, but once again, Islam refused to allow any other religion to control a country in the Middle East.

reply to post by poet1b


If you don't like Texas as an example then pick any 2 or 3 states and apply the analogy. It most certainly IS applicable, as the state of Israel was created by fiat in an area that rightfully belonged to the arab nomads. The U.N. mandate was, and is, illegal. Notwithstanding that that particular U.N. resolution is the only one that Israel has ever acknowledged or accepted.

Also, perhaps you could supply a reputable source that Israel was ever forced to accept Islam as its state religion. What an outrageous claim!

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Tholidor]