It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
buster2010
Yeah right Israel doesn't have the nades to take on Iran by themselves. Even members of the Israeli military has said Israel can't take on Iran by themselves. It's time for Benny to shut his warmongering hole and listen to his own people.
Emerys
reply to post by Southern Guardian
Got to love the courage of such a small nation. America needs to look at them as an example. Constantly attacked and surrounded by enemies, yet they stand their ground.
jedi_hamster
reply to post by beezzer
luckily, with their current attitude, there won't be any legacy left other than a lesson for future generations what is the price of such crimes against humanity, because sooner or later, israel will be wiped out.
ChaoticOrder
reply to post by combatmaster
Whether they can or not is really beyond the point, the fact is they wont. They're worse than North Korea when it comes to making irrational threats and then not carrying through with those threats. First of all they'd be stupid to attack without having solid evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. As far as I know there is no such evidence and the UN inspectors have never found any solid evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The truth imo is that Israel simply wants to destroy Iran's legitimate nuclear power facilities in a move to weaken Iran.
beezzer
Should Israel wait for Iran to attack with nuclear weapons before making the decision to attack Iran, pre-emptively?
Let me put it in context.
Should America restrict all freedoms so that we don't get attacked by middle-eastern fanatics?
There are always going to be risks in living in a free society. Israel should understand that. Yes, they have enemies on all sides.
So do many other countries.
Humans are a warrior-species. But to sacrifice freedoms, humanity for an oppourtunity to strike just because you can, is taking a step backwards.
It is safer to attack first.
It is safer to reduce oppourtunities of terror by taking away freedoms.
It is safer living in bubble-wrap and not going outside.
It is safer never to take the first step.
We get @ 70 - 80 years of life on this rock. Some of us have children to pass on knowlege and our genes.
What kind of legacy should we give them?
One of cowadice and restrictions and pre-emptive attacks?
Or one of honour, nobility, risks, bravery, humanity.
Are you serious about Iran 'not' having a nuke program? if so.... im wasting my time (oh... but the inspectors) Lol! stay in your little dream world!
combatmaster
beezzer
Should Israel wait for Iran to attack with nuclear weapons before making the decision to attack Iran, pre-emptively?
Let me put it in context.
Should America restrict all freedoms so that we don't get attacked by middle-eastern fanatics?
There are always going to be risks in living in a free society. Israel should understand that. Yes, they have enemies on all sides.
So do many other countries.
Humans are a warrior-species. But to sacrifice freedoms, humanity for an oppourtunity to strike just because you can, is taking a step backwards.
It is safer to attack first.
It is safer to reduce oppourtunities of terror by taking away freedoms.
It is safer living in bubble-wrap and not going outside.
It is safer never to take the first step.
We get @ 70 - 80 years of life on this rock. Some of us have children to pass on knowlege and our genes.
What kind of legacy should we give them?
One of cowadice and restrictions and pre-emptive attacks?
Or one of honour, nobility, risks, bravery, humanity.
Tell that to the holocaust victims' surviving family members!
beezzer
combatmaster
beezzer
Should Israel wait for Iran to attack with nuclear weapons before making the decision to attack Iran, pre-emptively?
Let me put it in context.
Should America restrict all freedoms so that we don't get attacked by middle-eastern fanatics?
There are always going to be risks in living in a free society. Israel should understand that. Yes, they have enemies on all sides.
So do many other countries.
Humans are a warrior-species. But to sacrifice freedoms, humanity for an oppourtunity to strike just because you can, is taking a step backwards.
It is safer to attack first.
It is safer to reduce oppourtunities of terror by taking away freedoms.
It is safer living in bubble-wrap and not going outside.
It is safer never to take the first step.
We get @ 70 - 80 years of life on this rock. Some of us have children to pass on knowlege and our genes.
What kind of legacy should we give them?
One of cowadice and restrictions and pre-emptive attacks?
Or one of honour, nobility, risks, bravery, humanity.
Tell that to the holocaust victims' surviving family members!
Point taken. But when is pre-emptive justified?
ChaoticOrder
reply to post by combatmaster
Are you serious about Iran 'not' having a nuke program? if so.... im wasting my time (oh... but the inspectors) Lol! stay in your little dream world!
I said a nuclear weapons program, not a nuclear program. There is nothing wrong with them having a nuclear program. Present proof of Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or stop rambling about irrelevant nonsense.
Krazysh0t
reply to post by combatmaster
Typical Israeli tactic to gain support for their irrational wars. When someone doubts your authenticity just say, "Well remember the Holocaust!" As if that has any baring on what is going on today. That's almost like the President bringing children to his press conferences and saying think of the children while pushing some agenda. Actually wait, it is the same thing. Trying to illicit an emotional response in absence of logical support of your argument. Otherwise known as an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Until Israel is literally attacked by another country for something out of their control or something that they didn't provoke, I won't support any of their mad claims to go to war with other nations in the Middle East. I have been to that region in my lifetime while serving in the Army. Granted it was Iraq, but I still don't wish to send more of our soldiers over to that region to help out a worthless country whose national pastime appears to be pissing off their neighbors then crying for support.edit on 15-10-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)