Netanyahu to set "clear red line" for Iran in U.N. speech

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
how can we go in and steal the oil if iran is radiated?...the large oil companies will demand a conventional war....or they can hire severly poor southeast asians to work in radiated oil fields if nukes are used


It wouldn't be a huge problem, the fallout will drift East from location of strikes the Oil fields wont be down wind, the fires as they burn from conventional hits will be worse it would only take a couple of nukes to make Iran surrender. One emp burst, One Tehran, One major facility




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   


You literally make no sense.

We make general statements to convey a general tone. Everyone uses them, philosophy and logic sanctions them.


No, they are used as blanket statements about a subject, and that is never true. Like, all planes are safe, or that all countries aided Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews. Planes crash, and some countries did not help Germany exterminate Jews. Like Finland, Albania, and Italy, to a lesser extent, as I said earlier. Blanket, generalized statements are never true, and cloud any discussion they are used in. People often use it to denigrate people or cultures, as well, by saying group A does action X, all the time. That is why I said it isn't a good way to start or end a discussion.





The camps were EXTERMINATION facilities. If you destroyed the camps - you would in fact be preventing the Germans from carrying on with their 'efficient' extermination program.


I very clearly stated why they would be unable to destroy the camps without killing all prisoners there. To carpet bomb the facility, would have killed everyone. They would have repaired any damage very quickly, and started the killing again.



You have clearly never read up on the history of the Holocaust.

Every day 6000 people were killed, after 1944. This means, there were very few PERMANENT inhabitants of the camps. The vast majority of those people killed came off trains, got undressed, and went strait to the gas chambers.


My response above, goes for this, as well.

Germany, if it had known that the Allies knew the location of the camps would have ramped up the killing, and this is probably just one more reason why the Allies didn't target it. Bombing the camp would not have stopped the killing. They would have been shipped to a different facility, or shot.

The main goal of the Allied air strategy was to engage the Luftwaffe, and wear them down, for the invasion. The invasion was to defeat the German military, so that the German policies of aggression could be eliminated. This is the easiest explanation as to why bombing anything other than a military target was a non-issue. And, as I said above, it wouldn't have done much, other than get the prisoners killed in a different way, or even killed faster. If the Germans even thought that the Allies were going to target the camps they would have just found a different way to kill them.

The killing would not have been stopped.

This also has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and will be my last post about it. Sorry for any potential derailing of this particular thread.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
^ Yup.


I Scrolled through, and was expecting the next pic to be an ACME Anvil , falling on his head.
This Joker is calling for Potential WW3?

They should put him back in the corner with his Crayons.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Obama won't back him up and he won't bail him out. Obama doesn't like Israel. He simply doesn't.


I think it's deeper than not like Israel; I think it's a general dislike for all things Jewish.

The only rational, plausible answer is: they are scheming against the Jews.


Nothing your saying here is correct, nor is your final assumption plausible or rational as you put it

What your doing is taking YOUR personal feelings and making assumptions.

While in Politics there are always some who have their racial or religious biases in Military there are Military goals as priority over all things these goals are COLD

When I say cold I mean personal feelings take a back seat to strategy almost always, even to a degree of for instance allowing your own fleet to be bombarded by a nation and your own people to die so that you can engage in a war you think will work out to your benefit, certainly no one in Washington had a particular bias against the sailors in Pearl Harbor or the people working in the World Trade Center

Allowing the Holocaust to happen (mostly) was not personal the outcome was desired Israel is there for a reason, multiple reasons, it's not Hate it's indifference. The Outcome is that if need be, there is a state in the ME to take the fall for the destruction of the region. It is not very difficult to understand in Europe where WW3 would be fought even before WW2 ends there were quite few crusades and that however WW2 ends that there would be a new European order when over was obvious the next threat, the threat for 2000 years to Europe is the ME, Israel was placed and given nukes for strategic reasons. Hate? No just cold

Don't get me wrong your really close...

Everybody wants to rule the world the Catholic Church, Yes very convenient to eliminate both Jews and Islamics one day, you just shouldn't make it so personal and biased, it's not "dislike of all things Jewish, he who controls the word of God controls the masses.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Mainly though

This is just sad.

After 5,000 years the end of Judaism will come even if they Take Iran with them because the International community refused to stand behind them.

And when History tells this story, this fate will have been met by a people

because of one mans complete lack of ability to use power point
edit on 27-9-2012 by penninja because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 




No, they are used as blanket statements about a subject, and that is never true.


Address the 'blanket statements'. What is being addressed here?

My general statement was Europe turned away. It's a general statement, reflecting the general tone of Europes main organizations.




Planes crash, and some countries did not help Germany exterminate Jews.


That is a horrible metaphor, firstly, and secondly, it is TRUE that GENERALLY, the majority of the countries in Europe yielded to Germany's Jewish policy.

Lets count, shall we, to make final my very clear and sane point:, and thus point out the crudity of your own:

Countries which yielded to the Nazis, and even took part in their extermination policy:
Austria
Romania
Latvia
Estonia
Lithuania (especially)
Slovakia
Netherlands (in the beginning, the dutch states opposed the Nazis; but the Nazis came in, imposed martial law, and began their propaganda campaign against the Jews; the Dutch population and Churches acquiesced)
Belgium
Hungary (the arrow cross party was vociferously anti-semitic)
France
Belarus
Ukraine
and Yugoslavia.


European countries that struggled against the Nazi extermination policy:
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Bulgaria (still allowing 14,000 Jews to get carried off to their deaths)
Greece (only partially, 54,000 Greek Jews were killed, from the ancient city of Salonika in the east, to the islands of the aegan; the only Greek Jews saved were the Jews of Athens, and that's after the Eastern Orthodox Church got involved - showing firsthand the influence Bishops/Cardinal have)
Italy (despite letting 8000 Jews, many thousand from Rome, get carted off to Auschwitz)
and Denmark

So you have countries with relatively tiny Jewish populations, like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, along with those other three - Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, who still let a combined 76,000 Jews get killed, against the rest of Europe, each country with massive Jewish populations.

My statement is justified, and if it's sweeping, it's because it reflects a sweeping fact of those years; persecuting the Jews, wanting their destruction, was a greater force than the opposite drive.




I very clearly stated why they would be unable to destroy the camps without killing all prisoners there. To carpet bomb the facility, would have killed everyone.


The camps had at most 100,000 inmates, mostly Jews. What needed to be destroyed was the gas chambers and the cremation facilities. These could have been destroyed without killing all those people in the camps - as they were separate areas.

Secondly, and more importantly, the gas chambers and cremation facilities were used to kill 40,000 people a week. The rationale behind destroying the gas chamber/cremation facility, was to prevent the Nazis from 'efficiently' killing more people.

This was all argued out when the Americans were told about it. They chose not to do it and gave a horribly dishonest - such as like what you are doing right now - reason for why it couldn't be done.




Germany, if it had known that the Allies knew the location of the camps would have ramped up the killing,


Do you know why the Germans created the extermination camps? Because the general killing - the massacres - which began the holocaust was too emotionally exhausting for Wehrmacht soldiers to handle. THAT was why they began to change their method. It was too inefficient, too dirty, and took too great a toll on the nerves of the soldiers carrying it out.




Bombing the camp would not have stopped the killing


Yes it would have.




They would have been shipped to a different facility, or shot.


Auschwitz was the hub; no other facilities could kill as many people as Auschwitz could.




and will be my last post about it. Sorry for any potential derailing of this particular thread.


It's tangentially related.

I brought it up because the world needs a literal read line drawn onto a diagram of a cannon-ball in order to get that Iran must be stopped.

The resistance towards this - especially on the part of the US administration, implies a desire to enable Iran against Israel; sort of like how Obama's state department has enabled Islamists by bringing them into power in Egypt, and soon-to-be Syria.
edit on 27-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
This about sums up Netanyahu's position when it comes to Iran.




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


I originally though this was a joke. But when I analyzed it, that's pretty much what he's thinking. lol



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Yeah at first I intended it to be, but it actually made sense and describes the situation perfectly.
edit on 27-9-2012 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
If Iran does already have nukes, then an invasion has zero justification. If it's correct that they have had them since 2003, then obviously they are peaceful.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Iran is saying they will attack if they THINK an attack is coming, its madness on both sides and only madness will result

please just let Israel do it but usa do nothing



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Even if Israel carries out the attack on their own, Iran will drag the US into the conflict because Iran feels the US armed Israel which gave them the means to do so.

It's a catch 22, damned if we do and damned if we don't



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


US is pulled in regardless.

US set a red line for Iran: don't block the strait of Hormuz

That's gonna be one of the very first things Iran is going to do if Israel attacks their nuclear facilities.

So, no way America's not gonna get pulled into this war.

One question is: will they reinstitute conscription?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The lines are definitely clear


edit on 27-9-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





The camps had at most 100,000 inmates, mostly Jews. What needed to be destroyed was the gas chambers and the cremation facilities. These could have been destroyed without killing all those people in the camps - as they were separate areas.


You clearly have no idea what carpet bombing does to a area. If they were to have carpet bombed the camps then everyone in those camps would be dead. They don't use precision point bombs just bombs with a lot of explosive power.



This is what a city looks like after it has been carpet bombed. No one in those camps would have survived.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
The lines are definitely clear


edit on 27-9-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)





posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
If Iran does already have nukes, then an invasion has zero justification. If it's correct that they have had them since 2003, then obviously they are peaceful.


When it comes to Israel talking about Iran logic isn't allowed.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Would that change the fact that 6000 Jews a die were being killed - and there was still 500,000 Jews in Hungary, 300,000 in Romania etc, awaiting deportation?

Killing 10,000 (100,000 was a typo) would be far better than to have allowed the Nazis to continue on in their extermination program.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Here's a few links with some reactions to the "RED LINE" I thought I should add :

www.6nobacon.com...

972mag.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Netanyahu is full of it, and still not a shred of evidence of his claims have been presented. Definitely a good opportunity for some memes at his expense, though!





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join