One reason Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal

Originally posted by RATSOYFY37
Iran won't strike a nuclear missile at Israel, why would they conduct such a hairbrained operation if the weaponry can be transferred to a loyal proxy, such as Hezbollah or Hamas?

I will not deny this is a possibility but first you will need to prove they have the capability to produce something that can be effective


The danger of Iran having nuclear technology is not the tenuous and scanty prospect of the use of said technology by the Iranian state itself, but rather the utilization of nuclearly enriched materials by Iran's cells abroad against Israeli or international targets.

again prove they could do this

It has been positively confirmed that Hezbollah operates in proximity to the Mexican border; would you take the chance that a nuclear device will be employed close to or inside American soil? The operative conclusion stemming from the aforementioned realization is that the Iranian nuclear program has to be abolished, lest a catastrophe of an international scale will occur.

1 I am not american so an attack on american soil would not directly affect me and 2 can you prove Hezbollah are actually on the Mexican border, and would they be capable of such atrocities because I don't at least not with help

As for your remark that Iran wouldn't risk ravaging the so-called "holiland": first of all, this claim is anything but new. Secondly, it's wrong: the Islamic mentality allows inflicting bane to Muslims if it serves the purpose of Jihad, so you shouldn't expect this objective-centered enemy to treat its adversaries with any form of dignity and decency, much less respect their religious sentiments. Iran will annihilate the Palestinians -- their Muslim brethren -- just to invoke maleficence to their perceived Israeli enemy. But again, let me repeat this once again for the mentally-challenged: the basis for the opposition to the Ayatollahs' nuclear program is not the slim risk that in some indefinite future Iran will decide to turn Israel into a drainage via a direct capitalization of an atomic bomb, but rather the arrival / smuggling of nuclearly enriched materials to the hands of terrorist organization such as Hebollah, Hamas, or even Al-Qaeda, who will then proceed to employ said materials in order to extirpate, say, a city which belongs to the "infidels".

They would need such materials to smuggle in would they not? and lets forget that it's Holy Land for A minute if they did nuke or dirty bomb that area and got found out, as they would that would be their demise now unless your truly desperate and have nothing to lose this is a stupid move to make.


Some believe that Israel does not deserve its own nuclear weapons. Without addressing this claim in lenght, let me remark that the danger posed to the world by Israel's nuclear reactors is miniscule tody compared to the danger it will pose when Israel turn into a theocracy. However, whether or not Israel's reactors constitute any danger to the international community, it is irrelevant when addressing the Iranian affair; two wrongs (regardless of whether or not Israel's nuclear program is indeed 'wrong') don't make a right; and so there's no reason to mention Israel's nuclear program when discussing the Iranian issue, and the preceding claim regarding the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Israel's nuclear program has been brought forth for the sake of its dismissal alone, not for its relevancy to the discussion and not for its refutation / validation.

personally I believe nobody needs nukes and all nuclear reactors pose risks to Earth and mankind, but that being said I believe people don't really need guns but if my enemy had a gun or potential enemy I would want one just incase.

Every opportunity ought to be seized to remind the global community of the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear program: a) the transfer of the nuclear weaponry into the control of terrorists; b) the subversion of the balance-of-power as well as (and more so) of the balance-of-terror hitherto established in the Middle-East; c) the fortification of the Ayatollas' grip over the Iranian citizenry, i.e. the strengthening of the Iranian regime; and d) the propaganda potential of such a nuclear achievement and its sway over the Islamic as well as the non-Islamic worlds. This argument, with all its reasonings, culminates in the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program has to be abolished, the sooner the better.

point B and C hold strong points but propaganda wise nukes just don't work anymore, and for oint A well like I said they would need sais nukes or dirty bombs plus some dumb scapegoat to use such device



apologies for not being so computer literate I haven't quite got how to quote properly guess I'm mentally challenged

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.

Racism much?

edit on 3-6-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Please explain how that statement is racist.

Or rather, look up the etymology of "Aryan" and its academic usages and linguistic historic associations (NOT distorted by Western influence and Nazis).

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.

Racism much?

Please explain how that statement is racist.

Or rather, look up the etymology of "Aryan" and its academic usages and linguistic historic associations (NOT distorted by Western influence and Nazis).

The poster I quoted pitted the "Aryans" of Iran against the despot Arabs. It is quite obvious he was talking about race.
"Aryan" as a term, refers to a Proto-Indo-European/Proto-Indi-Iranian people or language. Going on about the etymology would be as silly as calling someone an idiot, and then saying "I was referring to the etymology and original meaning of idiot, from the greek 'idios', meaning 'private' and 'pertaining to oneself'". But alright, we shall TRY and give the benefit of the doubt, and with your insistence that I look up the etymology, (being from the sanskrit or proto-indo-european "noble" or "noble one"), and replace that meaning in their:

"Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is of the Noble Ones, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is."

"Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Noble, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is."

Sorry, still racist.

reply to post by RAY1990

One reason I believe Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal is simple and one I haven't came across one ATS, I don't think they would do it if they had the capabilities simply because it's Holy land I mean the repercussions of a nuclear attack itself would devastate a country now imagine doing that to a land that a big percentage of the planet hold as sacred to their belief system one way or another.

Thats where you're wrong. That land isn't holy to them or they wouldn't be killing people on that land and soaking the ground with their blood. Even the Dome of the Rock means nothing, they pray towards mecca and point their asses at Mt. Moriah and they will even tell you the Dome means nothing, it's just their way to piss in jew faces because jews have to look at that thing and it's a symbol of defeat to the jews as long as that thing stands.

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.

Racism much?

Please explain how that statement is racist.

Or rather, look up the etymology of "Aryan" and its academic usages and linguistic historic associations (NOT distorted by Western influence and Nazis).

The poster I quoted pitted the "Aryans" of Iran against the despot Arabs. It is quite obvious he was talking about race.
"Aryan" as a term, refers to a Proto-Indo-European/Proto-Indi-Iranian people or language. Going on about the etymology would be as silly as calling someone an idiot, and then saying "I was referring to the etymology and original meaning of idiot, from the greek 'idios', meaning 'private' and 'pertaining to oneself'". But alright, we shall TRY and give the benefit of the doubt, and with your insistence that I look up the etymology, (being from the sanskrit or proto-indo-european "noble" or "noble one"), and replace that meaning in their:

"Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is of the Noble Ones, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is."

"Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Noble, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is."

Sorry, still racist.

edit on 4-6-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

That is your interpretation of the poster's statement. I saw no "pitting" one against the other; rather, my interpretation is that it seeks to show that Iran is not, according to many erroneous beliefs, A) an Arab nation and B) a despot nation, and in that Arab nations are not despot nations (as many believe). I do not see that it was demeaning Arab nations by using the term despot, but seeking to say that Iran is not, according to belief, "one of those despot nations," those being Arab.

That my interpretation. But, my interpretation could be wrong.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Sounds like you wouldn't mind knocking it down yourself I never said it's holy to Iran although in aspects it is.... what I was trying to indicate is that it IS holy land to millions if not billions if they were to do something so stupid which I doubt they will they would piss a lot of people off.

Also if you can prove the land what the dome of the rock sits on means nothing to Iranians could you please inform me I'm always willing to learn

Originally posted by RAY1990
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Sounds like you wouldn't mind knocking it down yourself

I never said it's holy to Iran although in aspects it is.... what I was trying to indicate is that it IS holy land to millions if not billions if they were to do something so stupid which I doubt they will they would piss a lot of people off.

Also if you can prove the land what the dome of the rock means nothing to Iranians could you please inform me I'm always willing to learn

edit on 4-6-2012 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)

I have said this before and i will say it again, that Dome ain't something 4 pounds of C-4 cannot rectify. Then all you need is a broom and a dustpan and then you could throw it in the dumpster.

I'm just lucky enough i don't need the temple, the one Jesus walked in has been long gone for 2000 years but that Dome is still an eyesore because of the misery that damned thing causes. I'd blow it back to hell myself if i thought it would stop the wars.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


It won't stop wars it would most likely cause more, I know how much that land means to the Jews also the Muslims and the Christians it's one reason why peace partially prevails their. It is sacred land for many and I guess A prized possession for any race.

But that being said you seem to have a lot of hate towards the builders of the muslim faith is their need for that?

reply to post by RAY1990

But that being said you seem to have a lot of hate towards the builders of the muslim faith is their need for that?

I don't hate the people, i hate their religion because i know what Allah is and he is not what they think he is. He pre-dates Islam and goes all the way back to Sumerian and Babylonian religions. I see the potential in the people if they could be free of him and Muhammad, when they profess to believe in Christ yet they keep Muhammads commandments over the Messiah's. I majored in anthropology with an emphasis on archeaology and studying mythos was always my hobby. That particular rabbit hole goes down 5000 years worth of ancient religions.

reply to post by jiggerj


I don't think the Iranians or Persians agree with you there

reply to post by Liquesence


Thank you!

The Ayran people originated from the Steppe people but most on ATS have probably never heard of them!

reply to post by babloyi


The Arabs and Persians are not the same people. Persians are Ayran and Arabs are a mixed breed of many races and Arabian clans - some semetic some not.

There's nothing racist about it; it's just fact.

reply to post by bluemirage5

Originally posted by bluemirage5
The Arabs and Persians are not the same people.

Certainly, they are not. I didn't say they were. Neither did you. But that isn't what I called racist.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Persians are Ayran and Arabs are a mixed breed of many races and Arabian clans - some semetic some not.

So now you are trying racism from using some different angle? "Mixed breed"? Considering migration and malleability of borders in the history of the world, I don't think you'll find any group or people who aren't a "mixed breed". Everybody is a "mixed breed". Iranis are a mixed breed. Jews are a mixed breed. So why mention that at all? What do you mean by it? Because they are a mixed breed, they are less intelligent and educated and more despotic?

reply to post by Liquesence

Still, I am glad you clarified for the previous poster Liquesence that you meant Aryan in the racial sense, and you WERE pitting the two against each other.

Using "arab" as an ethnolinguistic term, EVERYONE who is an arab (i.e. is of a family that speaks arabic as their major language) would be considered semitic, because it is a semitic language.
Still, even using some purely racial definition of "Arab" and "Semitic", I'd be curious to know of which arab group you are referring to that isn't semitic. Unless you are trying to mix the ethnolinguistic definition of "arab" with the racial one ("Blacks in Mauritania speak arabic, but they're not semitic, haha!"), I'd venture to say that any group you are able to name would be a minuscule, minuscule percentage of the Arab panethnicity as a whole, IF they exist at all.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
There's nothing racist about it; it's just fact.

True, nothing racist about what you said here. EVERYONE is a "mixed breed", so I question your exclusive reference to Arabs (Persians are not solely "aryans", and "aryans" also are a "mixed breed" of many races and clans", and Israelis, as you've said several times are not solely jews, and jews are definitely also a mixed breed of many races and clans), but nothing explicitly racist was said.
In your previous post, however, you made a derogatory comparison between the two. They may not be the same, but that doesn't make one "better" or the other "mentally deficient". It is interesting how you attempt to get away with this, when several other alternates would be put down as racist drivel IMMEDIATELY:
"The USA is not some despot South American nation; America is noble/Aryan/english-speaking/caucasian (insert your racist adjective of choice), their leaders are highly intelligent and educated".
"America is not some backward African nation; America is noble/Aryan/english-speaking/caucasian (insert your racist adjective of choice), their leaders are highly intelligent and educated".

So yeah, racist.

PS: You mistyped it several times now, so I guess I should clarify this as well: Ayran is a yoghurty milkshake drink. You mean Aryan. If you actually DO mean "ayran" as some group that derived from these "steppe people", well....I think you just invented a new thing, because no such thing exists (not that there is any evidence of a distinct 'aryan' people that derived from any steppe people either).

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


So do many religions... using parts and aspects of past or other religions within their own

reply to post by babloyi


Let me tell you again.....

the Ayrans (or Persians) like the Hebrew/Semetic clans, Indo-Caucasian and Native Americans originated from the Steppe people. Perhaps you need a lesson on ancient tribes and civilizations because they don't teach you that stuff in America hence why Americans are generally poorly educated about the outside world. Not your fault, it's just the way it is.

There is nothing racist about my posts because only you twisted it in that direction.

Explain to me what "noble" is, I'm having a hard time putting that in the same sentence with American "culture" ; oh, you mean you are "civilized" ? Yeah, I read your newspapers and watch your silly Hollywood garbage like everyone else...my bad!

reply to post by bluemirage5

Originally posted by bluemirage5
the Ayrans (or Persians) like the Hebrew/Semetic clans, Indo-Caucasian and Native Americans originated from the Steppe people.

You misspelt "aryan" again. Also, as I said, all persians are not aryans. Are you sure you read my previous post? Perhaps I didn't read whatever textbooks you are subscribing to. Perhaps the author's name was Gobineau ?

And you keep making this about the definitions of different groups. Here, let me remind you again what you said:

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.

Yes, that is racist.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Explain to me what "noble" is, I'm having a hard time putting that in the same sentence with American "culture" ; oh, you mean you are "civilized" ? Yeah, I read your newspapers and watch your silly Hollywood garbage like everyone else...my bad!

Oh, so I suppose you'd also make the statement
"Iran is not some uncultured American nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is."?

Odd that you knock American culture when 90% of what you know as "popular culture" is American, and you are writing in American english.