EXCLUSIVE: Iran in "open war" with Israel

security.blogs.cnn.com...

Iran is in an "open war" with Israel, President Shimon Peres said Monday, as he pointed the finger at Iran and Hezbollah for last week's bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israelis.

"Open War". What does that even mean? Is anyone else tired of these new terms that keep popping up? Why don't they just say they're at "war" already and get it over with? I'm not foaming at the mouth against Israel like many on ATS, and I've been known to defend them many times. I find this to be highly annoying though for some reason..

Peres said Israel had "enough" hard intelligence to link the Bulgaria attack to Iran and its proxy Hezbollah and believes more attacks are being planned as part of what he called an "open war against Israel." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Iran and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah movement were responsible for a number of attacks and attempted attacks against Israeli targets in Thailand, Georgia, India, Greece, Cyprus and other countries.

I always say, "I'm not over there, I don't get to judge what is really going on". This is what I say 99% of the time because I think many people have made up their minds one way or another, and some even point the finger at Israel no matter what happens it seems. In this case though, maybe an hour went by before they "knew" the bus bombing in Bulgaria was an attack by Iran. I'm still not sold on that, but to each their own.

I guess what we should be wondering is if an "open war" is the same thing as being at "war"... This is why I placed this in the WWIII section..

security.blogs.cnn.com...

"We don't have an initiative of terror," Peres said. "We don't do it. But self-defense is the right and the must of every people." He said Israel's policy was one of "prevention," rather than "retaliation." "If you have enough information about a certain person which is a ticking clock that can explode a bomb that can endanger civilian life, clearly you have to prevent him from doing so," Peres said, citing reports that the United States has killed as many as 3,000 people in drone strikes aimed at terrorist enclaves.

They don't have an initiative of terror? But, if they have enough information about a person that can be a danger in the future, clearly they have to prevent him from doing so. Clearly.


I wonder how close we are to Minority Report coming true? Clearly it is already happening in Israel. Clearly.

I wonder how they knew a finger was that of an Iranian terrorist so quickly?

Edit: Adding link from external text.
Click here for link.

I've never heard of that term either

Maybe it means an 'unoffical war', for example, attacks are expected to be carried out, but at the same time not officaly declaring war on each other? Like terrorist attacks done on behalf of one country, but because it's not an attack carried out by the countries army, it is not an 'official' attack?

I have no idea, but this is the best idea i could come up with.

If it's so "open" why aren't we all already aware of it? Why must he tell us what it is?

Yes, the word-play is quite annoying and likely purposefully confusing.

reply to post by superman2012


This is what confuses me as well. If they knew the Bulgarian bus attack was by Iran an hour afterward, then they must have known beforehand and did nothing?

reply to post by Wookiep


In my humble opinion, I think the phrase "open war" means that it was blatantly an intentional and illegitimate attack against whomever got hurt.

reply to post by Trolloks


Substitute "all out war" for "open war" and it might make more sense.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Wookiep

 

In my humble opinion, I think the phrase "open war" means that it was blatantly an intentional and illegitimate attack against whomever got hurt.

That could be, but then again that has me almost as confused as not having an explanation. It almost seems like it is intentionally annoying... They could just straight up be clear about it, or not say it at all!

Is self defense the angle they're taking in the mass genocide of Palestinians?

Seriously, Netanyahooooooooo, stop the war mongering and step up to the plate, or step aside. I've been hearing the same stories for how long now? Yeah, yet there is still no evidence released showing, without a doubt, that Iran is involved with anything.

So my proposition is A.) Go ahead and bomb, commence a huge war that will likely leave you without a country or B.) Shut the [SNIP] up!.

I'm sick of this guy and his propaganda.. All bark but no bite, it seems.

reply to post by Wookiep


Politics.

reply to post by QUANTUMGR4V17Y


I prefer his bark while it doesn't have the bite.

You know, I'm usually the last to find reasons to dislike Israel, but this is just outright stupid. First, if anyone really believes the Nation-State of Iran would stoop to a little BUS bombing as their 'big shot' before starting World War III, they're insane. A terror group supported, perhaps...but that isn't Iran.

If Israeli's with some positions of power keep saying these ignorant and inflammatory things in public, it seems to me that Iran may just get sick of it and take them right at their word, take them up on the offer and really leave someone wishing they'd chosen a different day to voice an opinion.

These people are all insane..both sides and no one seems to care about stopping any of this. It's just about pole position for who starts first.

"We don't have an initiative of terror," Peres said. "We don't do it. But self-defense is the right and the must of every people.

Wow talk about having a selective memory. Israel has a policy for assassinating people who they even think is a threat to them.
Israel's 'assassination policy'

The Israeli Government of Ariel Sharon is, like its predecessors, committed to the policy of assassinating individuals who it believes pose a threat to its citizens.

Not to mention they started modern day terrorism with the King David Hotel bombing and they even gave awards to terrorist against America for the Lavon Affair.

Israel has no right to complain about any terrorist attacks.

Maybe Open war is like open source
where anyone can jump in and work on it .... bad joke

From what I understand open war is no covert ops and such
and it is known to the "public" now, any operation is known/ movement.

but then again I could be wrong

Originally posted by EvilBat
Maybe Open war is like open source
where anyone can jump in and work on it .... bad joke

From what I understand open war is no covert ops and such
and it is known to the "public" now, any operation is known/ movement.

but then again I could be wrong

Hey, it's as good an explanation as any. Thanks!

They always come up with different terms to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. This is intentional and will always be. For instance, define what is a "terrorist", or "anti-semitic"... I had a friend who said:
Terrorist is ANYONE from ME and anti-semitic is anyone who disagree with a jew

Seriously?!?!? YES! These terms are meant to be hard to define, because it will bring peoples attention to the term itself not the act. I mean, "terrorist" can be anyone who disagree on what an US citizen may think. And don't you try to say "you're wrong", because that is exactly what the MSM is throwing inside the sheeple's minds. Want some proof? Try to wear a "arabic style" suit, with the turbant and everything, walk around and just stay still in a corner. There will take minutes for a cop to come over and ask "Watcha doin' pal?"
The point is, they will use words puzzles to make people lose time trying to define it(just like we are doing here) and meanwhile they do whatever they want and classify any act against them as such.