Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

um...what are you talking about?

Um, Syria.

Mrtraveler01: RoyBatty: Doktor_Zhivago: Hai guis is this the thread where if you don't 100% agree with every action the nation of Israel has done ever then you obviously want to put the Jews in death camps and are a Holocaust denying neo-nazi islamofacist?

Yeah, haven't seen anyone suggest that

Give it time. .

Why not expect Mr. Zhivago to read the thread and participate with his/her enlightening new perspective rather than threadshiat all over it like a typical dumbass?

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

um...what are you talking about?

Um, Syria.

yes, but this is a discussion about Israel possibly attacking Iran.

Syria is to the north of Israel while Iran is further to the west. plus - Iran does not share a border with Israel. So i'm trying to see how you could have confused the two nations.

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

um...what are you talking about?

Um, Syria.

yes, but this is a discussion about Israel possibly attacking Iran.

Syria is to the north of Israel while Iran is further to the west. plus - Iran does not share a border with Israel. So i'm trying to see how you could have confused the two nations.

Being intentionally obtuse is very endearing.

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

um...what are you talking about?

Um, Syria.

yes, but this is a discussion about Israel possibly attacking Iran.

Syria is to the north of Israel while Iran is further to the west. plus - Iran does not share a border with Israel. So i'm trying to see how you could have confused the two nations.

He works for Fox News?

3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.


Ask Israel if they tolerated Syria building a nuclear weapon

3_Butt_Cheeks:

Being intentionally obtuse is very endearing.

i'm not the one who walked into a thread about Israel and Iran and started talking about Syria. you might wanna back up and start over again because you aren't making very much sense.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Being intentionally obtuse is very endearing.

You think you're being endearing?

Weaver95: Syria is to the north of Israel while Iran is further to the west. plus - Iran does not share a border with Israel. So i'm trying to see how you could have confused the two nations.

"The world tolerates what it wants to tolerate when it's politically expedient."

You're talkin' 'bout the Bush Doctrine here.
Them's fightin' werds.

cameroncrazy1984: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Being intentionally obtuse is very endearing.

You think you're being endearing?

i'm sure this is clear as day to 3_Butt_Cheeks. problem is, he can't seem to articulate his thoughts very well in a public forum. Might as well just stand in the back of the room and shout 'FREEBIRD!' that would at least make more sense.

2004
2003
lets skip some

1996
1995
(1995) Iran May Be Able to Build an Atomic Bomb in 5 Years, U.S. and Israeli Officials Fear
1994 may stop the Koreans from providing nuclear technology and a nuclear-capable missile to Iran,
1993 Israel Seeks to Keep North Korea From Aiding Iran...may stop the Koreans from providing nuclear technology and a nuclear-capable missile to Iran,
1992 ISRAEL HINTS AT ATTACK ON IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM
....

related
(Dec 2000) Iran threatens 'astounding & unexpected retaliation' if Israel attacks Lebanon, Syria (4)

(Nov 2004 ) Colin Powell announces that the U.S. has intelligence that shows Iran is developing a nuclear missile. Also announces unfortunate typo from a couple years ago mixing up Qs and Ns (thread)

(Jan 2005) Israel claims Iran will have nukes in 12 months; threaten pre-emptive strike. Israel still unable to confirm if it has nukes itself (thread)

(Jun 2006) Stop us if you've heard this one before: So there's this muslim country, right, and they "could develop nuclear weapons in just five years" (thread)

(Nov 2006) To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Israel's deputy defense minister says that military strikes are possible to curtail Iran's nuclear program (thread)

(Nov 2006) Deja vu all over again: White House brushes off report saying that Iran has no nuclear programs (thread)

(Jan 2007) Israel air force training to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities back to the stone age using low-yield nuclear bunker busters. This will end well (547)

(Jan 2007) Israeli think tank: "Israel can attack Iran on its own." Rest of the world: "Be my guest"(125)

(Feb 2007) If the world won't do anything about Iran's nuclear weapons program, Israel will. And they probably won't worry about collateral damage(121)

(Dec 2007) Israel PM warns Iran can develop nuclear bomb by last Tuesd.. a few month...err..2010, yeah, definitely 2010(33)
2008 Israeli intelligence now believes Iran will have nukes by next year, and Israel is seriously considering preemptive unilateral military action. This headline brought to you courtesy of the years 2005-2030 (170)

Nov 3 2011 Israel sends Iran a little hint by test-firing a missile that can 'tap' them on their shoulders and put a bang in their ear (213)

Jan 26, 2012 Iran: "We're ready to negotiate." Israel: "Negotiate our bombs" (143)

Feb 5, 2012 Obama's Dilemma: how to dissuade Israel from bombing Iran without alienating pro-Israeli voters in November. So, the Obama admin has told Israel that the U.S. won't support an attack on Iran... quietly (247)

Feb 12, 2012 Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer: Israel 'will strike' Iran to 'prevent a second holocaust'. From the video, it's almost like he's cheering for it (329)

March 19, 2012 Israel publicly: OMG Iran is DAYS away from having a nuclear bomb we have to strike NOW. Israel privately: Yeah, you're right, Iran probably hasn't even decided IF they're building a bomb yet (175)

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Weaver95: Syria is to the north of Israel while Iran is further to the west. plus - Iran does not share a border with Israel. So i'm trying to see how you could have confused the two nations.

"The world tolerates what it wants to tolerate when it's politically expedient."

welcome to the human race.

that aside, if Israel up and attacks Iran then f*ck 'em. I'll actively oppose any US aid to Israel under those conditions.

Guess the year...

Benjamin Netanyahu
"Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb, without having to import either the technology or the material," Netanyahu said. "[The nuclear threat] must be uprooted by an international front headed by the US. It necessitates economic sanctions on Iran."

Answer

Doktor_Zhivago: Hai guis is this the thread where if you don't 100% agree with every action the nation of Israel has done ever then you obviously want to put the Jews in death camps and are a Holocaust denying neo-nazi islamofacist?

Pretty much you anti-Semite Hitler-loving bastard.

The "world" is ok with atrocities in many many countries, like the limp UN, they will do nothing if Israel defends itself against specific threats levied by Iran. Not to mention, the US will fully support with money and military any action they take.

The world, which means the US and A!, has tolerated Israeli shenanigans since Day One. Tolerated and aided and abetted. Bibi knows Obama is the wimpiest president we might see in our lifetimes and certainly the weakest president he might see in what remains of his political lifetime. If he pops Iran, what ramifications does that have for the US November elections?

3_Butt_Cheeks: The "world" is ok with atrocities in many many countries, like the limp UN, they will do nothing if Israel defends itself against specific threats levied by Iran. Not to mention, the US will fully support with money and military any action they take.

As long as you understand that goes both ways. if another country (or group) feels threatened by the US then you are supporting the rights of those countries and groups to preemptively strike this country in order to protect their interests.

cman: Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

Iran is a benighted country ruled by a wicked religious theocracy, its leaders are, to a man, vile shiatheads. They might very well wish Israel was destroyed and every Jew killed, their rhetoric surely does nothing to quell that suspicion.

All of that is true, and none of it justifies making them right by launching a war of aggression and conquest.

HotIgneous Intruder: . If he pops Iran, what ramifications does that have for the US November elections?

A supportive and oh-so-concerned Obama gets a boost.

RoyBatty: Doktor_Zhivago: Hai guis is this the thread where if you don't 100% agree with every action the nation of Israel has done ever then you obviously want to put the Jews in death camps and are a Holocaust denying neo-nazi islamofacist?

Yeah, haven't seen anyone suggest that, but I am glad you are here to take a stand.

You won't see that, but only because it's Friday night and Tatsuma isn't allowed to work on the Sabbath.

/Which is why tonight is different than every other night: we can have a reasonable discussion of Israel on Friday night.

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: The "world" is ok with atrocities in many many countries, like the limp UN, they will do nothing if Israel defends itself against specific threats levied by Iran. Not to mention, the US will fully support with money and military any action they take.

As long as you understand that goes both ways. if another country (or group) feels threatened by the US then you are supporting the rights of those countries and groups to preemptively strike this country in order to protect their interests.

Oh, you were talking about Israel...and Iran, remember? As long as you understand, your logic goes both ways.

HotIgneous Intruder: The world, which means the US and A!, has tolerated Israeli shenanigans since Day One. Tolerated and aided and abetted. Bibi knows Obama is the wimpiest president we might see in our lifetimes and certainly the weakest president he might see in what remains of his political lifetime. If he pops Iran, what ramifications does that have for the US November elections?

an interesting question, though you ask it in a profoundly stupid manner. will the Israeli lobby be able to sway public opinion to support a war against Iran? they should be able to drum up the support of the hardcore GOP elite but the rest of the country is getting pretty tired of blowing up the desert. along with our economic troubles and other domestic problems, we could easily get bogged down in our own shiat and not worry much about what happens to Israel anymore.

Dwight_Yeast: You won't see that, but only because it's Friday night and Tatsuma isn't allowed to work on the Sabbath.

IIRC, It isn't the Sabbath where Tatsuma is.

IIRC, Tatsuma doesn't come around here anymore.

Regardless, I think you are misrepresenting Tatsuma's reactions.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: The "world" is ok with atrocities in many many countries, like the limp UN, they will do nothing if Israel defends itself against specific threats levied by Iran. Not to mention, the US will fully support with money and military any action they take.

As long as you understand that goes both ways. if another country (or group) feels threatened by the US then you are supporting the rights of those countries and groups to preemptively strike this country in order to protect their interests.

Oh, you were talking about Israel...and Iran, remember? As long as you understand, your logic goes both ways.

you aren't making any sense.

dericwater: cman: cman: You have a valid point. 9/11 was an attempt to draw the American military into openly attacking bin Laden. He wanted to do a sequel to the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.


ah, crap, forgot to define who "he" was. Fixt

Really? You think bin Laden was such an egoist as to fly planes into skyscrapers to cause a major nation to go after him? You don't think there were some other major geopolitical rationale for doing so?

Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.

Michael Scott Doran argued that the attacks are best understood as being part of a religious conflict within the Muslim world. In an essay, Doran argued that Bin Laden's followers: "consider themselves an island of true believers surrounded by a sea of iniquity".[17] Doran further argued that bin Laden hoped U.S. retaliation would unite the faithful against the West, sparking revolutions in Arab nations and elsewhere; and that the Osama bin Laden videos were attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East aimed at a violent reaction by Muslim citizens to increased U.S. involvement in their region.[18]

Correspondent Peter Bergen argued that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the idea of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region.[19]

Citation granted

Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

It would be easy to convict members of the Bush II administration for war crimes, particularly 1) conspiring to commit aggressive war and 2) waging aggressive war, just as was done at Nuremburg in 1945.

But we're not the people we once were, are we? 
And if Bibi went ahead and popped Iran, who would think to call the war crimes lawyers?
Certainly not the US and A.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

Is your monitor some sort of reflective surface?

Sure we do. We elected Bush to a second term, didn't we?

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Safest thing for Iran to do right now is just fake that they've got a nuclear missile. Do some suspicious "underground detonations," leak some falsified intel. It would be hard to pull off, since Israel probably has a bug up Mahmoud's ass, but the only thing that's going to prevent a possible WWIII is the appearance of mutually assured destruction.

Yeah, just like the safest thing to do around a belligerent cop is to point a toy gun at him.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

I really can't figure out what point it is you think you're trying to make. the only coherent thing i've heard from you is that you think state sponsored terrorism is a great way to influence foreign policy.

cameroncrazy1984: BarkingUnicorn: I don't think Israel is going to hit Iran first, but I wouldn't blame Israel if it did.

Uh, forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but why wouldn't you blame Israel for attacking another country unprovoked?

Israel hasn't been provoked?

cman: Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.

I just want to say that "The Osama bin Laden I Know I know" is a wonderful video.

The whole situation doesn't make a lot of sense, assuming Israel attacks unilaterally.

Ok, so here's Israel, worried that Iran will be going nuclear, and they decide to preemptively strike because they think - for the precise reason - Iran is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons against them. A country that you perceive to be insane enough to launch nuclear missiles is surely insane enough to march an army through Iraq, setting off the American casualty tripwire, and perhaps sending the region into meltdown.

The realpolitik concerns are too great to ignore. With the Arab Spring over, there's already unrest and nations are feeling their way around secular and religious ideas of government. Israel attacks, you'll see Muslim fundamentalist theocracies spring up again overnight and we'll probably see a repeat from 1948 to 1967.

Normally I'd say "No country is dumb enough to risk that," but I honestly have no idea at this point with these religious zealots on both sides.

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

I really can't figure out what point it is you think you're trying to make. the only coherent thing i've heard from you is that you think state sponsored terrorism is a great way to influence foreign policy.

Shh..begone troll.

BarkingUnicorn: Israel hasn't been provoked?

For some, supplying arms to terrorists that attack Israel, terrorist bombings, and threatening to wipe them off the map is just pillow talk.

This is insane that we're even discussing this. You cannot attack upon the assumption someone might ,one day,do something.

cman: Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

Would you say that Obama speaks perfectly for you? And would you like to have some country hold you personally responsible for what Obama says?

I phrase it like that because I know who you are. I personally think Obama has done an excellent job with foreign policy.

Hobodeluxe: You cannot attack upon the assumption someone might ,one day,do something.

Of course you can. Is there some magical force that prevents pre-emption?

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

He's not the one who thinks that a country attacking another country is congruous to a country attacking another with no provocation.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Normally I'd say "No country is dumb enough to risk that," but I honestly have no idea at this point with these religious zealots on both sides.

Well, people have intense arguments about what occurs in the afterlife, then fail to note how silly it is when they kill each other over it.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

I really can't figure out what point it is you think you're trying to make. the only coherent thing i've heard from you is that you think state sponsored terrorism is a great way to influence foreign policy.

Shh..begone troll.

BarkingUnicorn: Israel hasn't been provoked?

For some, supplying arms to terrorists that attack Israel, terrorist bombings, and threatening to wipe them off the map is just pillow talk.

and Israel has done the same things. performed assassinations ,made threats and instigated terrorist actions within Iran using the Jundullah.

BarkingUnicorn: cameroncrazy1984: BarkingUnicorn: I don't think Israel is going to hit Iran first, but I wouldn't blame Israel if it did.

Uh, forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but why wouldn't you blame Israel for attacking another country unprovoked?

Israel hasn't been provoked?

No they haven't. They've been saying that Iran has been building a nuke since at least 1992.

Hobodeluxe: This is insane that we're even discussing this. You cannot attack upon the assumption someone might ,one day,do something.

I got a feeling about you. You might hit me.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weav, you are a terrible troll, or just clueless. Either way, go annoy someone else.

I really can't figure out what point it is you think you're trying to make. the only coherent thing i've heard from you is that you think state sponsored terrorism is a great way to influence foreign policy.

Shh..begone troll..

yeah, because THAT always worked in the past...

seriously dude - what the hell are you talking about? nothing you've said in this thread has been consistent and very little of it coherent. and what we could understand seemed to say that it was ok to attack a country you didn't like. which means you're ok with state sponsored terrorism, even if/when its used against THIS country.

so once again I ask for clarification. could you at least TRY to spell it out?

3_Butt_Cheeks: Hobodeluxe: You cannot attack upon the assumption someone might ,one day,do something.

Of course you can. Is there some magical force that prevents pre-emption?

so you're saying that you agree with the 9/11 attacks? Pear Harbor? stuff like that?

Hobodeluxe: and Israel has done the same things. performed assassinations ,made threats and instigated terrorist actions within Iran using the Jundullah.

They aren't threatening to wipe another country off the map, nor routinely bombing Iranian citizens within their borders. Te point being, they have been 'threatened' plenty, despite some proclamations denying it.

cameroncrazy1984: . They've been saying that Iran has been building a nuke since at least 1992.

that bit is probably true. Iran has been working on nuclear material for a while now. eventually they're going to get a bomb of their own. shiat, the technology is over 70 years old and VERY well documented. I hope we've got a plan to deal with a nuclear capable Iran because that's gonna happen eventually.

"Do we want a world in which leaders are free to launch military attacks on other countries simply on an assumption of hostile intent and military capacity?""




Too late. We already do that.

cameroncrazy1984: No they haven't. They've been saying that Iran has been building a nuke since at least 1992.

it was a simpler time


A Hammer Time.