Saudi invades Bahrain, unveils itself

reply to post by nenothtu


Firing 500 nukes on more than 60 countries covering nearly every continent won't exactly create a greener environment will it?

reply to post by lewman

they couldnt have picked a better time to get away with this as the whole world is far more interested in something entirely different at this time.

Let's say the event in Japan wasn't grabbing the world's attention, what part of the whole world do you assume would care enough to stop this from happening?

Originally posted by forklift
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Firing 500 nukes on more than 60 countries covering nearly every continent won't exactly create a greener environment will it?

Don't try to change the argument now. That in no way backs your earlier statement. It would likely damage the greenery in target areas.

In other areas, not so much.

You made the claim of world-wide nuclear catastrophe. Now, you are apparently claiming 500 independently targetable warheads in the Israeli arsenal, in an effort, no doubt, to try to maximize the damage world wide. 500 independently targetable warheads, even if evenly spaced all across the planet, could NOT produce the results you claim - even assuming, as you no doubt will try to, a maximum yield for EACH of around 30 MT (the largest operational yield ever fielded). The largest yield ever tested (by the USSR) was the "Tsar Bomba", and had an estimated yield of 57 MT, even though the Soviets tried to propagandize it at 100 MT. That one was tested, never fielded.

There is a reason, due to the physics of explosions, that 30MT weapons were never very prevalent to begin with, and the 57MT weapon was never fielded. As yield increases, you get less bang for the buck. Damage increases as the CUBE ROOT of the yield, not linearly WITH the yield.

I just can't see Israel having 500 independently targetable 30MT weapons, They seem to be smarter than that, and seem to have a better understanding of warlike things.

I can blow a house up with 8 ounces of C4 and 30 pounds or so of instant coffee. Using 100 pounds of instant coffee or 2 pounds of C4 will not blow it up any better. It's overkill, and not cost effective.

sad sad day. america should not have gotten involved. the constitution of america will be attacked by saudi arabia and her allies just like they did on 9/11 because of this. america and its constitution may have provocated the acts committed to her by its enemies on 9/11; but an outright act of war deserves a respectable response. if the intent to invade iraq was done so to remove any potential great allies americas enemies would potentially have; then the ruse and element of surprise has already been comprehended by both parties pertaining war arts.

to devote value from either parties stated character (loss of life, infringement on devotees values in an religious institution) means neither parent nations to its citizens value or respect them.

reply to post by Ausar


I'm with you on that. I've said from day one of the Libyan unrest that the US should NOT get involved in any of these Middle Eastern squabbles. We should instead stand back and just watch the whole area go into meltdown.

Of course, no one much listens to me. Must be the "zionist anti-semite war mongering islamophobe sharia promoter" in me that turns 'em off.

What amazes me is that the same folks were calling for us to make armed responses there as were decrying our armed responses in Iraq and Afghanistan - yet they suddenly wanted us to enter another war where we had no dog in the fight. Go figure.

Originally posted by forklift

Originally posted by Steam

Originally posted by forklift
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Israel will eventually meet it's end

Be careful what you wish for.

edit on 16-3-2011 by Steam because: (no reason given)

You also do know that if israel takes such a suicidal step, the muslim world won't be the only one that will get effected by the nukes?

Everyone will get radiated with the nuclear fallout.

No, as other members have already pointed out, the amount of nuclear bombs required for such a global event would number in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands (far more than ALL the nuclear weapons combined). 500 nukes will just not do that.

The effects would be localized though to the middle east and parts of south west Asia. Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, The Americas, and East Asia would all be safe.

You also have to keep in mind that the majority of the Middle East is non inhabitable due to the harsh desert environment. Thus, most of the population of these countries are clustered along the coast or large rivers. It would only take a small amount of precise nuclear warheads hitting these population centers to do catastrophic damage.

Originally posted by WatchRider
That's mostly the truth and they were plastered all over Al Jazerra and western msm.
They were captured at a checkpoint after trying to shoot there way out (killing a few guards). Their car was searched and aside from weapons they found plastic explosives, a LOT of it.
I'm not sure about the gunning down kids, women and men but these guys were infiltrators on a mission to do something...
The SAS didn't bust them out though, that was mostly the infantry battalion and air assault elements...

It was a surveillance operation. Everything in the car was standard equipment given their job. I could go into far more detail than that but I don’t see why I should. The reason why it was plastered all over the media is because the militia immediately put out a propaganda piece in which they claimed that the two men were terrorists.

You've got pictures of their equipment I take it (or rather you will now look for one), if there were "a LOT" of plastic explosives then you'll have no trouble circling an enormous pile of them and you won't at all look silly. Go on.

One man was "gunned down" because he attempted to forcibly remove one of the two men from their car, and if you knew what they knew about that particular "police force" then you would have slotted the bastard as well. The two men were moved from the station to a nearby house and since the militia valued their lives, they left them alive and ran off sharpish. This is where they were picked up by A Squadron. So it wasn't "mostly the truth" at all, was it?

What exactly does our constitution have to do with it? I couldn't agree more with the assessment of pulling all US assets out of the US including all the Mufti Billion's dollars in Aid Gifts...We are cursed as they eat the food we fed them! Here's something Ironic. Where did the Libyan air force get their fighters? FRANCE hahahahaha They maybe should have kept an extra set of keys.

I meant pulling all assets out of all middle eastern countries.

Wow, Saudia Arabia is really going into Bahrain to quell the protests? That's despicable, the entire world is focused on Japan, but we have to be simultaneously focused on many events so we know! It's messed up

reply to post by nenothtu

you guys go on down to the lawyer's office and try to put a case together. I won't be there, I have other things that need doing at that point.

Isn't that weird...what if the lawyers are PROTESTING?

You seem to not understand the issue here, seemingly because you've never understood these kinds of revolts.

The law becomes worthless when it becomes obvious that not everyone is upheld to the same laws, as is the entire POINT with laws. Sure rich people could hide behind expensive lawyers up until now, but when the majority of the people actually UNDERSTAND what it means when not everyone is dealt with equally under law - that is when there is no more hiding or getting off on semantics like you're trying to do.

It's ridiculous that you're trying to lessen the reality of what the Saudi's are doing here...illegal = illegal. Go read some international laws before asking people to smack you over your ignorance.

reply to post by Zamini

It's ridiculous that you're trying to lessen the reality of what the Saudi's are doing here...illegal = illegal. Go read some international laws before asking people to smack you over your ignorance.

Out of all of these international laws you suggest people read, which one of these laws have ANY of the international courts or any international agency used to condemn the actions of the Saudis?

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm with you on that. I've said from day one of the Libyan unrest that the US should NOT get involved in any of these Middle Eastern squabbles. We should instead stand back and just watch the whole area go into meltdown.

It seems like you are suffering a form of psychosis. When you say "should not get involved" do you do that with or without the understanding that the US is inherently involved in most of the Middle-Eastern issues?

Of course, no one much listens to me.

Must be the "zionist anti-semite war mongering islamophobe sharia promoter" in me that turns 'em off.

It's okay that you're not that smart, it's not okay to expect everyone else to be as dumb. You're trying to justify a point of view that comes forth from racial-superiority-complexes by saying: "no one listens to me". I suggest you read some more...

What amazes me is that the same folks were calling for us to make armed responses there as were decrying our armed responses in Iraq and Afghanistan

Question: How do you know they are the SAME folk? Answer: You don't. You're using a straw man.

yet they suddenly wanted us to enter another war where we had no dog in the fight. Go figure.

What you are implying here is that you had a dog in Iraq and Afghanistan and that you have no dog in Libya...which is really weird. So answer this next question: What kind of relationship does your beloved American government have with the human abusing Wahabi Saudi government? Do you even know what Wahabi means, what the US-UK-Saudi connection is about? It feels as if I'm talking about cheese to a rock...

reply to post by jam321

Out of all of these international laws you suggest people read, which one of these laws have ANY of the international courts or any international agency used to condemn the actions of the Saudis?

That's the point now is it. People finding out for themselves...that these international courts and agencies are fraud agencies and mere tools.

Did you know most people actually believed that the court of law, in their country, was fair and balanced?

Imagine what would happen if all the people in, for example, US found out how not everyone is upheld to the same laws - that which the entiry society is built upon. If they all understood how the judicial system screws them over on a daily basis and takes them for idiots...imagine what would happen next...that's right...wide-spread protests!

Now I'll leave it to you to decided whether it would be legal or illegal to bring in British or Israeli troops to shoot up Americans. Didn't America once go through this with Brittain a long while ago? *wink wink*

reply to post by ufoorbhunter

Iran is expanding its influence throughout the Middle East. Iran is building a Mediterranean port in Syria. Iran is backing Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is now caught supplying C-704 missiles to Hamas. Iran is expanding its influence and even the blind can see this

Show me ONE (1) country IN THIS AGE that doesn't partake in what you point out to be "expansionism". Unless you can do that, referring to it as expansionism just sounds like more wardrums. It sounds like you're trying to blame Iran for something the entire globe already partakes in. Should we discuss American expansionism and how that threatens the world? How about Israeli expansionism? Did you know that this very thread exists BECAUSE of US/Israeli expansionism?

So either only Iran is the wrong or every country is in the wrong, with the western nations + Israel crowning the list of most blood thirsty expansionists.

Riddles...

reply to post by Zamini

That's the point now is it. People finding out for themselves...that these international courts and agencies are fraud agencies and mere tools.

I, as well as many other people, have known this for a long time. That is why I when people bring up international law concerning what the US does.

US found out how not everyone is upheld to the same laws - that which the entiry society is built upon. If they all understood how the judicial system screws them over on a daily basis and takes them for idiots...imagine what would happen next...that's right...wide-spread protests!

Personally, I think Americans are aware that our judicial system isn't perfect. In a way I think many have come to see it as another tax scheme.

Now I'll leave it to you to decided whether it would be legal or illegal to bring in British or Israeli troops to shoot up Americans.

IMO, it doesn't matter if it is declared legal or illegal. Legal and illegal isn't the same as right and wrong. A law can be legal and at the same time wrong. I, the low man on the totem pole, have no say so in the legality of such an event. All I can say is that if some other country decides to come in and start shooting on Americans, open season on that country has begun.

I expect the Saudis will soon find out that open season has begun on them as well.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by nenothtu

 

you guys go on down to the lawyer's office and try to put a case together. I won't be there, I have other things that need doing at that point.

Isn't that weird...what if the lawyers are PROTESTING?

Then you'll need to decide whether to sit at the office and wait on them or go join their protest. Either way, best of luck you you. You'd need it.

You seem to not understand the issue here, seemingly because you've never understood these kinds of revolts.

I understand that when gossamer meets steel, steel takes the field.

The law becomes worthless when it becomes obvious that not everyone is upheld to the same laws, as is the entire POINT with laws. Sure rich people could hide behind expensive lawyers up until now, but when the majority of the people actually UNDERSTAND what it means when not everyone is dealt with equally under law - that is when there is no more hiding or getting off on semantics like you're trying to do.

It would behoove one with such views to not appeal quite so much to the law, then, and not to bandy about notions of "legal" or "illegal", especially without being able to demonstrate an understanding of legal concepts. Semantics? Try hard cold reality. Semantics pales in comparison. Hard cold reality is that nothing that is not bound as illegal by law can be by any stretch of the imagination considered "illegal". The Law is the touchstone in such ramblings. Both "law" and "illegal" stem from "legis". NOTHING can be "illegal" if it doesn't contravene a "law" to make it so.

Contending otherwise is the very definition of "semantics".

It's ridiculous that you're trying to lessen the reality of what the Saudi's are doing here...illegal = illegal. Go read some international laws before asking people to smack you over your ignorance.

YOU cite fort me the applicable International Law, and I'll read it. Until you can do that, you've not "smacked" me over anything at all, and really bring into question the issue of where any "ignorance" may lie.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I'm with you on that. I've said from day one of the Libyan unrest that the US should NOT get involved in any of these Middle Eastern squabbles. We should instead stand back and just watch the whole area go into meltdown.

It seems like you are suffering a form of psychosis. When you say "should not get involved" do you do that with or without the understanding that the US is inherently involved in most of the Middle-Eastern issues?

If you're having difficulty in comprehending the English language, I'd be happy to help. Which part of "SHOULD not" is causing you to stumble? I'd be quite content to pull everything American out of the Middle East and let them eat each other until only one is left standing.

Of course, no one much listens to me.

Except for you, apparently. Thanks for listening.

Must be the "zionist anti-semite war mongering islamophobe sharia promoter" in me that turns 'em off.

It's okay that you're not that smart, it's not okay to expect everyone else to be as dumb. You're trying to justify a point of view that comes forth from racial-superiority-complexes by saying: "no one listens to me". I suggest you read some more...

Interesting. You seem to know what race I am, if you claim I have some sort of racial dog in this fight. Tell me, what race am I? After you can tell me that, THEN you can try to gloat over your alleged intellectual superiority. Not until.

What amazes me is that the same folks were calling for us to make armed responses there as were decrying our armed responses in Iraq and Afghanistan

Question: How do you know they are the SAME folk? Answer: You don't. You're using a straw man.

I'm going by user names. You are quite right, perhaps the kids or family pets have hacked their accounts and are posting contradictorily on their behalf. I stand corrected.

Can you explain to me the concept of a "straw man"? I fear you may be misusing it in much the same way as you misuse the term "illegal".

yet they suddenly wanted us to enter another war where we had no dog in the fight. Go figure.

What you are implying here is that you had a dog in Iraq and Afghanistan and that you have no dog in Libya...which is really weird. So answer this next question: What kind of relationship does your beloved American government have with the human abusing Wahabi Saudi government? Do you even know what Wahabi means, what the US-UK-Saudi connection is about? It feels as if I'm talking about cheese to a rock...

Iraq, no. I've always said the Iraq war was a boneheaded move brought on bu Bush Junior's wounded pride. Afghanistan, yes. We most certainly DID have a dog in that fight, although it has been horribly mismanaged by generals and politicians as wars go.

Libya at this point, not so much, although we have had our differences, they've been sort of ironed out - usually over the Gulf of Sidra, occasionally as far inland as Tripoli. In the current situation there, we've got no dog in that fight. Let 'em eat each other. It's not worth a drop of my son's blood, or yours.

I don't make policy for the US government - you should have figured that out by now, just by seeing what I say ought to be done, and watching what they actually do. That said, as far as I know they have a genial relationship with the Saudi (note that I left out all of your inflammatory - and subjective - adjectives in relation to that government) government. I have a very intricate understanding of Wahabbism, Sufism, and a lot of the islamic "isms" and "ites". Have you considered that you may be arguing with a muslim, or a former muslim? I bet you haven't...

"Talking about cheese to a rock" indeed.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by jam321

 

Out of all of these international laws you suggest people read, which one of these laws have ANY of the international courts or any international agency used to condemn the actions of the Saudis?

That's the point now is it. People finding out for themselves...that these international courts and agencies are fraud agencies and mere tools.

WHY do you appeal to International Law, then? Yet you have the temerity to accuse ME of having some sort of "psychosis"...

Did you know most people actually believed that the court of law, in their country, was fair and balanced?

Imagine what would happen if all the people in, for example, US found out how not everyone is upheld to the same laws - that which the entiry society is built upon. If they all understood how the judicial system screws them over on a daily basis and takes them for idiots...imagine what would happen next...that's right...wide-spread protests!

You seem to be overestimating the American people. Like the Egyptians, they won't riot until it becomes an issue of being priced out of existence. Hardly anyone other than lawyers cares much about such abstracts as "the law". Now, charge 'em a weeks pay for a tank of gas, you might see some action.

Now I'll leave it to you to decided whether it would be legal or illegal to bring in British or Israeli troops to shoot up Americans. Didn't America once go through this with Brittain a long while ago? *wink wink*

Again, if the action of bringing in foreign troops is done at the request of the US government, it would be entirely "legal". However, that might be one of the few triggers other than pricing them out of existence that would create some excitement in the streets.

During the Revolution, the legal government of the time DID actually bring in some foreign troops - the Hessians. The rebel side brought in foreigners, too - French and Poles. I know that the British import of Hessians was legal, and I don't know, but am unaware of any contentions, whether the rebel import of French and Polish folks was legal or not. As it turned out, I don't believe anyone went to jail over it, though.

Again, in that event you can pursue legalities to your heart's content. I'll be busy with other things at that moment, and won't be available for your legal team.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

 

Iran is expanding its influence throughout the Middle East. Iran is building a Mediterranean port in Syria. Iran is backing Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is now caught supplying C-704 missiles to Hamas. Iran is expanding its influence and even the blind can see this

Show me ONE (1) country IN THIS AGE that doesn't partake in what you point out to be "expansionism". Unless you can do that, referring to it as expansionism just sounds like more wardrums.

Switzerland. Want another one?

It sounds like you're trying to blame Iran for something the entire globe already partakes in. Should we discuss American expansionism and how that threatens the world? How about Israeli expansionism? Did you know that this very thread exists BECAUSE of US/Israeli expansionism?

Actually, it exists because Bahrain has requested Saudi aid.