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.


How hard is to put yourself in Israel's shoes and see that an attack on Iran is inevitable?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:31 PM
To be able to understand that this is NOT warmongering and also NOT building a case against Iran NOR to defend Israel, you have to put yourself in Israels shoes.

Leave aside any declaration of any official from UN, US, Israel, Iran or from anywhere, and just imagine you are the prime minister of Israel and your own familiy are the government of Israel.
You are like anyone on this planet, just with a twist : your people was almost killed entirely by nazis (pls just don't say its not true or its true, its what israelis BELIEVE - and this is what matters), you established the State of Israel in 1948 and almost imediately got invaded by muslim armies in the Middle East (you won the war), than you got involved in another 3-5 wars (some were "military interventions" or "conflicts") some won, some were draw, some considered to be won by enemies.

Somwhere between 1948 and 1970, you loved country developed , outside NPT (again, this is not a subject, israelis consider their right to have nukes) a nuclear program (rogue, w/e, not the point), a nucleat program that deterred a big coallition of muslim states to form, invade your country and defeat you, ultimately causing either another exile or another Holocaust.

Its 2012.Iran develops a NUCLEAR program.They say its peaceful.You say it might be not.THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
Lack of evidence is not important.The important thing is that you, the prime minster of Israel, along your family, the government, are faced with TWO and ONLY TWO decissions :
-believe Iran when they say the program is entirely peaceful
-or don't believe them.

If you believe them, NOW (in 2012), that their nuclear program is peaceful, you have absolutely NO REASON whatsoever to try and stop them (from diplomacy to military actions).However, Iran, like it or not ITS A RELIGIOUS STATE.Their PRESENT leaders might be sane and don't want to build any nuclear weapons OR develop the instalations and tech to be able to build nuclear weapons.
However, can you, FIRMLY and 100% be sure and bet your ENTIRE PEOPLE to the fact that a FUTURE leadership of Iran will KEEP the PRESENT leadership promises? Nope, you can't say what will happend tomorrow.

Your MIND is build on those 2 axes : -"NEVER AGAIN" and "MUSLIMS HATE US".Your mind is build like that because you are an ISRAELI and you were GROWN with this.Its true? Its a lie? Don't matter, you, as an israeli, BELIEVE IT.

So you see, as a PM of Israel, you actually have NO OTHER WAY than to attack Iran, NO MATTER if you believe it or not.
As an israeli, you are not 100% sure that Iran will keep the promise NOT to build nukes or NOT to have the ABILITY (which is the REAL DEAL BTW) to build nukes.
As an israeli, you do not want another Holocaust...
And, as an israeli, you believe muslims HATES you.

So what you got is : Iran, a MUSLIM country (they all might LOVE israelis...won't matter, because israelis believe they are hate them) with the POTENTIAL future (1,2,5,10,15 years) ability...ABILITY to build nukes (the image of a second Holocaust becomes more and more real in your head, your ISRAELI head and with a POTENTIAL future iranian leadership that might be opnely hostile toward you.

How could a country like Egypt or Saudi Arabia be stoped to develop a nuclear program IF Iran is doing it? What stops Jordan to do the same?And i mean DECLARED PEACEFUL nuclear programs, BUT, declared by their PRESENT leaders?
How could you, the PM of Israel be sure that Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan will STOP only to peacefull nuclear programs? You can't, and even if you are NOW, a future leadership of ANY or ALL of those 3 above countries might want nuclear weapons.

There are A LOT OF UNKNOWS if Israel ACCEPTS AND BELEIVE Iran NOW, unknows that might, in 5-10-20 years, lead to this Middle East : Israel, Egypt,Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan MIGHT become, one of them or any of them a NUCLEAR POWER with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
At least NOW, you, the PM of Israel know this, for sure : YOU ARE THE SOLE COUNTRY WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, thesole reason that stoped muslims to destroy your country and people.

Once only ONE of the above countries are ABLE (only able ) to build nuclear weapons...ITS GAME OVER for Israel.You can't DESTROY the knowledge.Sooner or later, a muslim country in ME will have build nukes.ANd from that point on, you can ALSO be NUKED.And it only takes ONE NUKE to finish Israel fro good.

Now, i believe many of you will say : "What about Pakistan?Aren't they muslims and ALREADY have nukes?How this work with our theory of the above?"

Well, if you have patience and small knowledge, this is why Pakistan DID NOT and WILL NOT launch a nuclear strike against Israel :
-A succesful nuclear strike needs : element of surpise, a large number of decoy-missiles and a good enough numeber of nuclear-tipped missiles.Pakistans arsenal is small (around 60 nukes) and they need them to keep in check India, their declared no.1 enemy.Pakistans LONG range missiles (needed to attack Israel) is also small, not enough to mount decoys AND nuclear missiles in a "safe" number.There will be NO surprise, the distance from Pakistan to Israel is big enough for Israel to retaliate.
-But most important thing is that India, as FIRST enemy of Pakistan, will realize (after Pakistan will launch a nuclear attack on Israel) that Pakistan is not only CAPABLE but also WILLING to launch nukes against a country that is AFTER India on their enemy list.This will prompt an indianNUCLEAR preemtive strike against Pakistan.

Now, imagine that Israel sits down and let Iran aquiring the ABILITY to build nukes.Israel MIGHT let this happend because the distance is big enough for their interceptors to hit iranian missiles...BUT Iran have ENOUGH missiles that can reach Israel to be able to mount a large number of decoys.But lets say Iran will NOT build nukes.However, Egypt, emboldened by US and Israeli inaction, will develop (in time ofc) their own nuclear program, declared, like Iran did, PEACEFULY.

But Egypt is TOO CLOSE to Israel.Israel will not want Egypt to have the ABILITY to build nukes, because once they are able to do it, they will have ALL they need for a sucesful nuclear strike : short distance = element of surprise, thousands on missiles (you need only cheap short-range missiles, NOT expensive long range ones) = plenty of decoy missiles...and it only needs ONE or TWO nukes to obliterate the small state of Israel.

Remember, you are thinking like an ISRAELI.Would you WAIT Iran to have the ABILITY (only the abilty) to build nukes? Would you wait Egypt to do the same? Or Saudi Arabia? Or even Syria?Would you RISK your live, your family lives and your peoples lives WAITING?

Lets say that Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Syria will NOT use nukes before Israel does.But they all have the ABILITY to build nukes, and since ALL of them are MUSLIM nations (that you, as israeli, believe they hate you) who STOPS them to ANIHILATE YOU CONVENTIONALY?

You are NO LONGER the sole nuclear armed nation in Middle East, you are no longer able to turn a DEFEAT into victory by threatening or even use nukes.
You will be the LOSER after a conventional or NUCLEAR war with your muslim enemies.You might DESTROY ALL OF THE ABOVE countries, but you will LOSE.Muslims are 2,3 BILLIONS and have plenty of countries.You have 7 millions and a midget country.

Will you (Israel PM) WAIT or act NOW, while you are still SOLE nuclear power in ME ?
Will you WAIT for the UNKNOWN or act now, while at least KNOWING that Iran is the only target?
Will you attack now, have casualties and damge BUT still rebuild later or wait until your country is parking lot?

There is NO OTHER WAY for israelis.They BELIEVE that there is NO OTHER WAY.
No matter what they choose to do NOW, for them, its 2 options, and both options mean WAR, but in one of the options they, ISRAELIS, believe that can WIN.

And this is what matters : How ISRAELIS see the Iran nuclear program, not how OTHERS see it, OR how the program is actualy.Might be entirely PEACEFUL, but iranians NEED to convice Israel that it is.And even if they are CONVINCING Israel that the program is PEACEFUL...they CAN'T CONVICE ISRAEL that the program WILL REMAIN PEACEFUL.

Tomorrow, next week, next month, or year or decade...Israel will HAVE TO ATTACK.And i think its "easier" to attack ONE target now (Iran) than MORE targets later.

EDIT: As for the "succes" or the "failure" of an Israeli potential attack on Iran.Israel CANNOT completely destroy ALL iranian nuclear sites.They don't have the air power to do it...
BUT...all it needs is for Israel to attack ONE nuclear site (lets say Natanz) to prompt an iranian answer, drag US into war (iran blocks Hormuz Strait, or hits a US base or hits an Israeli military base and kill amrican soldiers, or a FALSE FLAG) and once US is in...its either WW3 (thus not even Russia and China wants that, its game over for them, the US, and everyone else)...or its iranian nucler sites destroyed and their nuclear program stoped or delayed for decades.

Not to mention that anyone else who is in ME, thinks five times before starting a nuclear program, EVEN PEACEFUL.

I am just thinking like an ISRAELI.And i am thinking logicaly, i believe that i have to choose between two ways, both bad for me...but one is less bad that the other.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Recollector because: *

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:36 PM
But Iran is based on a religion of peace, it doesnt matter what you think, its what they BELIEVE (who do I sound like?).

This thought experiment involves way too many ifs. If I was the prime minister of Israel and if I though Iran would get a nuke and if I believed they will attack Israel then I MUST attack them.

Heres a thought: if Israel wants war, declare it and stop trying to drag every nation into your irrational fears.

edit on 25-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:40 PM
obviously israeli leadership knows the iranian nuclear program limitations, they want to remove the regime from power though, the point isn't nukes, it's control.

and they aren't going to strike iran in my honest opinion. if they do i'll eat my words, but I believe they would want to bring iran down internally so that the nuclear infrastructure remains intact for a future israel-american proxy gov't to continue to the process.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
How hard is it to put yourself in Iran's shoes and see that an attack on Israel is inevitable?
edit on 25-2-2012 by RowdyAmerican1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:44 PM
put youself in iran's shoes. they had their land just given away to the Zionist. i completely see both of them having valid pointsbut more so the iranians though. i think if they cant settle it diplomatically let them go to war about it. that's why war exist. to settle conflicts. but that doesn't mean america should be involved with it.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:55 PM
Well, i can put my self in Irans shoes AND Isarel STILL ends in war.

Sure, as an iranian, i BELIEVE i am peaceful (tho since 1979 we chant Death to Israel and Death to America after every friday sermon, in thousands and tens of thousands...but hell, i BELIEVE i am peaceful)...the problem is Israel does NOT believe me.

As for the "ifs" the whole post and see that there were so many "ifs" only to prove, logicaly, that there will be NO "if".

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:04 PM
List of countries by military expenditures

18 Israel Israel 13,001,000,000
25 Iran Iran 7,044,000,000

Israel got 400 nukes. Iran got nothing.
Israel got NATO's backing along with a lot of Gulf States (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain) Iran got Syria's backing, who's very weak and in civil war, Hizbullah who's at most got 10 000 fighters.

Enough said.

Mossad chief says nuclear Iran no threat

Israel's Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said a nuclear Iran would not necessarily mean the destruction of Israel, Israeli diplomats said.

Pardo addressed a forum of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem earlier in the week. He said while Israel continues its efforts to foil a nuclear Iran, if the Islamic Republic achieves nuclear capability it would not mark the end of Israel, diplomats present at the lecture told Haaretz.

CIA says Iran is not building nuclear weapons

Ex-Mossad chief Dagan: Military strike against Iran would be 'stupid'

Remove the crazies (Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman) from office and problem solved.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:13 PM
Funny how the disarming of all nuclear weapons held by all parties presently isn't an option on the table. Then they would be justified and require full access to see if their nuclear program is "peaceful". Problem solved.

If any nation, on any continent, has nuclear weapons, we will get nowhere. The threat will never go away until all weapons currently existing are dismantled. Get some strict monitoring of nuclear materials, and if a discrepancy shows up we should have a select group monitor and investigate the matter further. You know, something like the UN should be doing.

Its really not that hard to solve these problems. The people running governments are just making this whole problem grow way out of proportion, while using the threat of retaliation as a means to hold power.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:13 PM
Deserves an S&F, so I gave it one. Nice psychological treatise of the subject matter.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:14 PM
Again...its not about who is RIGHT and who is WRONG.Or who have more valid points over the other.

The point is that Israel DO NOT BELIEVE and DO NOT trust Iran.And the other way.It really doesn't matter who strike first.Both governments (at least in declarations) BELIEVE that the OTHER is ready, able and WILLING to strike first.

This is why i said at the start that is NOT warmongering, or a case against Iran or to defend Israel.
I was trying to be in the shoes of an israeli, born, learnt and grown with this mantras (since 1948) :

Later, i tried to put my self in the shoes of an iranian,born, learnt and grown with this mantras (since 1979) :

We talk about ALL in Israel that are aged 63 and younger and ALL in Iran 33 years and younger.I KNOW many israelis AND iranians want nothing than PEACE...but there are NOT ENOUGH of them both.

Israel and Iran are on collision course and i believe ist inevitable.There is HUGE misstrust, fear and hate among BOTH of them.
I justified my logical option that Israel will strike first, because Israelis are much more fearfull than Iranians (1948 vs 1979), have much more misstrust than Iranians.Probably hate also, but i think hate it is split in equal ratios.

I see this like a torch that falls towards a pool of gas...i just don't know when it will blow up.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Recollector because: *

edit on 25-2-2012 by Recollector because: *

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:21 PM
Disarmamnet is not an option on the table because is their table...and its unrealistic.

Vitchillo...pls, pls read at least as much as you write here

I presented, logicaly, that the war is inevitable because...pls read the original post.No matter how amny nukes Israel have NOW, or the fact that Iran have ZERO...but also NOW.

In short...IF Iran will be have the ABILITY (not the will, the ability alone) to build nukes in 1 year, or 5 years...HOW would ANYONE ENSURE Israel that Iran will NOT build nukes in 20 years? or 30 years?
Or how about Saudi Arabia?

I can't re-write 500 words again, pls READ my WHOLE original post.

You are smart and patient enough to read and see where i was wrong...if i was.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:30 PM
These are the exact talking points argument, and are largely not in dispute because there is no counter to the points created to justify killing.

Do the whole thing again and ask "why Iran has to attack Israel?" give all the non talking point reasons why Iran must, either tomorrow or ten years from now, attack a country that isn't giving them any bother at all.

Then, remove the talking points from both sides and look at the real, actual, reason the talking points were created: Iran refuse to be a part of the central bank. Partly on principal and partly because of the British intrusion in their sovereign business. The central bank owners want them to comply or die, the talking points were created to justify the actions that they will take.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:47 PM
If war is so inevitable it would have happened by now. I wonder who is pulling the strings and what they are waiting for, maybe a republican to come to office, maybe the financial tyranny to end, maybe for Iran to attack, maybe all these things. The bilderbergers want to keep a tight control on oil so maybe, just maybe they are being cautious with this war, maybe they know they cant win. It goes without saying that a strong force doesnt hesitate this long, or warn their enemy so long if it is really a battle for survival. I think Iran is a cold war, they have had issues with them since the fifties, war will never break out, because it benefits both nations too much

1.Iran gets to shout death to america, and they rally around the iranian flag, benefit only to the mullahs.
2. America gets to puff their chest up and act tough, which is a psychological tactic to make America seem like the land of the free and brave.
3. Israel, admittedly has no real benefit other than the mass brainwashing of their population over a perpetual holocaust threat, so again benefitting the government and not the people.

So this cold war benefits all three governments but none of the people. At least its safe to say that there is more to this conflit than just religious extremism, unless you call corporate globalism a religion.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by crankyoldman
These are the exact talking points argument, and are largely not in dispute because there is no counter to the points created to justify killing.

Do the whole thing again and ask "why Iran has to attack Israel?" give all the non talking point reasons why Iran must, either tomorrow or ten years from now, attack a country that isn't giving them any bother at all.

Then, remove the talking points from both sides and look at the real, actual, reason the talking points were created: Iran refuse to be a part of the central bank. Partly on principal and partly because of the British intrusion in their sovereign business. The central bank owners want them to comply or die, the talking points were created to justify the actions that they will take.

I belive you, me and anyone else here is NOT a Rotchild, Tony Blair, any of the tho "bushes" to be able to SUSTAIN, with proofs, that the real reason to attack Iran is because central bank owners want so.

But, at least, you partially are agreeing with me : there WILL be an attack on Iran, which underscore the "heavy" word on my thread title : INEVITABLE.

The diference between me and you is that i use LOGIC to prove a use fiction.
I use a talking point argument because its ALL i can do.And since its prety much ALL you can do also..try a talking argument, based on logic...its all we have, really.

Unless your are a Rotchild ( and i think you are not )

Everyone tried in last 8 years to prove that Israelis right, or Iran is right, or Israel will never attack Iran, or, on the contrary, the attack was inevitable every 3 months.But NEVER i have seen a LOGICAL explanation WHY.All i have seen were conspiracy theories, in different forms : its about oil, its about banksters, Russia and China will not allow it (like they are some kind of galactic powers), US will kick Irans ass because Israels wants so.

Some, like Vitchillo (who i highly respect it) are documented and presents their opinions based on facts.

But nobody actualy tried to make 2 steps back and ask himself : it is LOGICAL to believe what Netanyahu said? Or Ahmadinejad ? Or whatever known war analyst or Middle East expert?

I mean, really...we should ONLY trust ourselves and our way of thinking.
I have seen people absurdly thinking that MAD could work for Israel and Iran.They didn't even looked at a map, and see how small is Israel, they just "know" that nuclear powers can live in peace because of MAD.

Most, and i mean like 90% of ATSers that like or love or support Iran (or hate Israel), WITHOUT a minimal logic, believe that Israel can live with a nuclear Iran...without thinking TWO seconds more : maybe they can, but add on the list Egypt.Than TWO more seconds of thinking : add Saudi Arabia on list too.WoW, yes, Israel MIGHT live with a nuclear Iran...but with 3 nuclear powers?
And with UNSTABLE nuclear powers that can have a regime change that MIGHT be suicidal, or religiously fanatic, or even "help" Hezbollah plant a nuke in Tel-Aviv or, simpler...detonate it ashore from a fishing boat?

Israel CANNOT live with a nuclear Iran...because a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi Arabia, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear Jordan...ALL last 3, at PRESENT, not enemies of Israel...BUT ALL last 3, in the PAST, enemies of Israel.Who can, logicaly, admit, 100%, that in future they won't be enemies AGAIN, but this time as NUCLEAR countries?

I am NOT advocating an Israeli strike on Iran, or the other way.I know that this can lead to a broader conflict, spikes in prices (oil first, then rest)...

I am simply, logicaly, see that there is NO OTHER WAY (aliens did not tell anything and nuclear disarmamation is not a real option).Israel is FORCED to strike.If they can live with a nuclear Iran, they won't live with the next nuclear country in ME that wants to follow Iran's steps.

Logicaly, Israel is forced to fight now, against a POTENTIAL nuclear country, or later, AGAINST a nuclear country (Iran) AND a potential SECOND nuclear country.
Too risky...they WILL attack Iran, with all the risks involved.

I am not justify Israel using logic...for them, its do-or-die, wheter is justify it or not.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by filosophia

The ONLY thing that still stops Israel to attack Iran is US.

US does NOT want Israel to strike first, for well-known reasons, and are looking for excuses to attack Iran or Iran to attack first US or Israel.

This is why the attacks did not happened yet.And its inevitable...i did not said imminent.
The Sun will eventualy be a small white, its inevitable...tho not imminent.

It is first times (i did it in last week on many post) that i have the courage to use the word "inevitable".Many used it , even 8 years ago, and from there, others every 3 months.This is why you think i am on same category.

Don't be smart.Inevitable NOT equal imminent.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Recollector because: *

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Recollector

Well thats Israels fault for being best friends forever with the US, if they want to attack Iran, do it regardless of what their BFF says. Why should Israel obey the US?

But I think the real reason is Israel knows they cant handle Iran without the US.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:51 PM
I'll give it a shot.

I'm Prime Minister of Israel. I didn't get there by being stupid. I know that "Never Again" and "Muslims hate us" are the sort of rhetoric we feed the masses so that they are easier to manipulate. Much like "They hate our freedoms", "Better dead than Red", "It is our duty to liberate their citizens from an oppresive government", "If Vietnam falls then all of Asia becomes communist", and other such slogans were used to manipulate Americans so effectively.

Still, that does not mean that Iran is not a potential problem for Israel. As leader of the nation, it's my job to identify potential problems for my country and eliminate or minimize those problems. So, what are the major issues facing Israel in the future?

War? Possibly, but unlikely. I have a huge nuclear arsenal, and countries with nuclear arsenals don't get attacked, at least so far. I can think of only two reasons to attack a country, either you want something they have or you just want to wipe out the population. I can't think of anything that another country would want from Israel, but it's a safe bet that a nuclear attack would destroy it. If a Middle Eastern country just wanted to exterminate the population of Israel, it would be suicide. Even if Israel couldn't mount a nuclear counterstrike, the radioactive fallout from Israel's destruction would render the entire Middle East uninhabitable. Chemical or biological weapons, or even a massive conventional attack would allow an Israeli nuclear response. So Israel is pretty safe from an attack leading to a major war, but still vunerable to terrorism, or perhaps some national leader who cares so little about himself and his people that he is willing to commit suicide and genocide.

So, war is not a problem, but terrorism is. And the insane leader scenario, while possible, is probably less likely than a major asteroid impact. Yeah, either one could happen, but I wouldn't invest a lot of resources into trying to prevent either one.

So what is Israel's major problem? The same problem nearly every other country in the world has.

Increasing population, diminishing resources.

As Prime Minister, I'm working on that. Slowly, systematically, we are eradicating the Palestinians and taking their land. I can justify this to my subjects by telling them that it's what God wants. Who's going to argue with God? Still, looking toward the future, I know that we will still need more land. And, at least as important, if not more so, I know that my country will need resources that are well beyond the reach of any land I can reasonably grab. Oil, rubber, lithium, helium, steel, food, etc., I need to make sure that access to essential raw materials is safeguarded for the future of my nation.

The problem is, I can't do that. Too many unfriendly nations around me make land supply routes precarious. A navy well equipped enough to protect shipping routes would be prohibitavely expensive, even if I could find enough friendly nations to trade with. Fortunately, there is a nation almost tailor made for the task. The United States.

Fortunately for me, everything in America is for sale, even the government. We have already installed several Israeli citizens in the US government. We use them to make laws that send us money, and we use that money to buy their weapons, influence their main stream propoganda outlets, and bribe other government officials. We're so successful at it that we have been caught twice commiting terrorist attacks against Americans, and they still send us money. Heck, we've even attacked a US Navy ship and they're still sending us money so we can bribe them even more. As long as we keep the US at our beck and call, we will have access to the natural resources we need, and they can keep the UN off our backs.

Of course, the US has their problems, too. Their debt is unsustainable, and their citizens are getting restless. Eventually, they will not be able to help us as much as we like. And, if our enemies are left alone to grow in peace, they will eventually become too strong for us to take their land and resources.

I guess the best long term plan is to have the American military interfere with the peaceful development of potential enemy nations so that we will always be strong enough to take whatever land and resources we need for the future. We should take steps to insure that this happens sooner rather than later, because when the next great depression hits the US, they may be unwilling or unable to do what we need. Maybe some false flag attacks can accelerate things.

Thank you for your pateince in reading this. I would hope that the above analysis isn't interpreted as being anti-Israeli, anti-semetic, anti-US, or anti- anything. Every nation on Earth is facing the same problem of increasing population and diminishing resources. I guess if this post is anti-anything it's anti-the-way-we-are-trying-to-solve-the-problem.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

I say you nailed it.
Thread can close now.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

israel just discovered 2 giant oil fields and gas fields of their coast.
they have more oil in shale then saudia arabia. They are becoming energy independent

they did not start the trouble with iran.
Hey iran and israel were friends until their crazy President took power. He is a dictator killing his own people like his buddy in syria assad

if someone threated you and had the weapons to do it what would you do?

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by Recollector

I understand your point, but you are using "their" logic. They said "Israel can't live with an Nuclear Iran" and so the logic used is based on that premise.

Let us look at it this way. We were told that we had to go to Vietnam to stop the "communist menace" . The logic programmed into us is a series of if/then statements. Ergo: Vietnam is communist, communism treats people badly, Freedom = US, means US hates communism. Conclusion, US must hate Vietnam. Logical step = kill those you hate, end problem.

The reason for the Vietnam effort was central bank, the "logic" came from the system put in place to make the inevitable outcome seem logical - killing the commie bastard Vietcong will save the world for freedom. Logical.

The effort to bring all of the countries into compliance with the central bank has been going on for 100 years, but no one ever said this for the simple reason that no one would fight for the "freedom of one fiat currency." So those who set up the plan - you'll have to spend years digging it up, smartly framed both the premise of the argument AND the logic used to evaluate the premise. They made sure the actual reason never came up. Remember, Islam does not believe in compound interest - neither does any other religious group, and they will die fighting against it. The ruler of Iran does not believe in nukes either.

The axis of evil were all non EMF complying countries, the premise were set, the logic just follows. Iran will be the last. I'll let you in on a little secret, even the banking thing is a rouse, the real reason for the effort - total annihilation of Israel in a 6 million people human sacrifice. The Israeli nukes aren't for Iran, they are for their own people. When the population gets to 6....

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in