RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall

RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 9:34:23 PM)
Cherry picking isn`t intel.It`s dishonesty. You`re being so helpful with the soft balls tonight.[:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 9:43:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Cherry picking isn`t intel.It`s dishonesty. You`re being so helpful with the soft balls tonight.[:D] We have no interest in the texture of your balls and whatever youre doing to them.

Owner59 -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 9:45:47 PM)
A little to the right.....that`s it.....ahhh.....[:D]

domiguy -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 9:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Okay...I am willing once again to take bets. That an unprovoked attack by Israel upon Iran will not occur in the next 12 months. you people are idiots. Why don't you first define what you consider provocation, DG? And give us examples of the provocations that led to pre-emptive attacks on the Syrian nuclear plant (Operation Orchard) and the Iraqi Osirak reactor (Operation Babylon)? In 1981 you were 12. 'nuff said. Operation Orchard. 2007 both the white House and the CIA confirmed that it was a nuclear facility with a military purpose. There was no outcry from any neighboring Arab nations and the IAEA found significant traces of uranium at the site. It was a reactor that was not supposed to be there and they blew it up. Provocation? You are Isral and an illegal and unauthorized nuclear reactor is being built, what do you do? This is what I do know. Israel will not attack Iran in September and that wilbur is an idiot. Which two of those points would you like to argue?

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 10:01:09 PM)
I don't think an attack is a given by September but only time will tell. BTW a lot of people have denied that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, claiming it was a mistranslation but that doesn't appear to be so even according to the NY Times which isn't pro-Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 10:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Given that the consensus among US Intelligence Agencies (who are preseumably viewing the same intelligence as Mossad and Netanyahu) is that Iran is NOT building a necular weapons program, won't any attack on Iran under the pretext of "preventing/destroying Iranian nuclear capability' be an unprovoked attack? Interesting, since you are so quick to dismiss those same agencies' intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. Well done Willbur - you missed the point completely. US Intelligence agencies and Mossad are supposed to share information about these things. If one concludes that there isn't enough evidence to suggest a nuclear weapons programme, and the other takes the contrary view, then either one or both is misreading the intelligence. So who is more credible? Mossad, with a 20 year history of being consistently and completely wrong on this subject? Or the US - with a far from distinguished track record in the area? Whatever the case, if such doubts exist at this level, if the track record of those making the case for aggression is so tarnished, how can military action with all its inherent risks, be contemplated? Military action against something that might not exist? Hasn't any one learnt any thing from the Iraq fiasco? This is far too flimsy a basis for an act of war, an act of aggression with huge potential risks and unknown effects. Military action is a last resort in all instances. Until definitive evidence of Iranian nuclear ambitions emerges, such options ought not even be considered as serious policy options. That is sheer madness.

Owner59 -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 10:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I don't think an attack is a given by September but only time will tell. BTW a lot of people have denied that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, claiming it was a mistranslation but that doesn't appear to be so even according to the NY Times which isn't pro-Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html Threatening Iran only strengthens that guy`s hand. It`s arguable that some choice words threatening Iran used by shrub when he was in swagger-mode,even got this nut the winning edge in his 1st, very close election with a moderate. Ramping up the trash-talk and war retoric just helps the hard liners and radical elements.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 10:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I don't think an attack is a given by September but only time will tell. BTW a lot of people have denied that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, claiming it was a mistranslation but that doesn't appear to be so even according to the NY Times which isn't pro-Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html mistranslationists...the birthers of the Iran issue

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 10:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I don't think an attack is a given by September but only time will tell. BTW a lot of people have denied that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, claiming it was a mistranslation but that doesn't appear to be so even according to the NY Times which isn't pro-Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html Threatening Iran only strengthens that guy`s hand. It`s arguable that some choice words threatening Iran used by shrub when he was in swagger-mode,even got this nut the winning edge in his 1st, very close election with a moderate. Ramping up the trash-talk and war retoric just helps the hard liners and radical elements. Perhaps it would but regardless Iran is in his grip after he suppressed the Green Movement there. Its not just Israel thats scared shitless either, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt etc. are also secretly concerned because they accept Iran has expansionist plans http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

Owner59 -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 10:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I don't think an attack is a given by September but only time will tell. BTW a lot of people have denied that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, claiming it was a mistranslation but that doesn't appear to be so even according to the NY Times which isn't pro-Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html mistranslationists...the birthers of the Iran issue quote: Anaxagoras Anaxagoras......neo-cons and the Ahmadinejad`s of the world are two sides of the same coin. Counterparts if you will,who`s existence relies on the other,feeding off of the other.

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 11:28:51 PM)
quote: Perhaps it would but regardless Iran is in his grip after he suppressed the Green Movement there. Its not just Israel thats scared shitless either, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt etc. are also secretly concerned because they accept Iran has expansionist plans http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece At the link supplied, plenty of 'informed' speculation about possible Arab-Israeli co-operation, but not a word about Iran's alleged "expansionist plans". As far as I've heard, in its 30 odd years since the Revolution, Iran hasn't invaded any one, nor announced any intention of doing so. So could you please provide some evidence of these alleged 'expansionist aims'?

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (7/31/2011 11:56:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I don't think an attack is a given by September but only time will tell. BTW a lot of people have denied that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, claiming it was a mistranslation but that doesn't appear to be so even according to the NY Times which isn't pro-Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html Threatening Iran only strengthens that guy`s hand. It`s arguable that some choice words threatening Iran used by shrub when he was in swagger-mode,even got this nut the winning edge in his 1st, very close election with a moderate. Ramping up the trash-talk and war retoric just helps the hard liners and radical elements. Owner here's a few articles from the horses mouth: the Al Watan Daily in Kuwait http://alwatandaily.kuwait.tt/ArticleDetails.aspx?Id=120769# - note the colourful language used to describe Iran lol, and http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=308166 so it looks as if the Arab world regards Iran's increased posturing with quite a lot of fear.

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 12:49:41 AM)
"Any Israeli attack on Iran (with or without US support) will be a belligerent aggressive act of war. It runs the risk of plunging the entire region into full scale war. And it's far from clear that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons anyway." I would chalk that up to Israel feeling pretty confident, not only in their offensive capability, but their defensive capability. And noone has mentioned Russia. Half of eastern Europe might go with Russia, and if they do, Israel had better be as fucking tough as they think they are. Right now of course, if they really are contemplating this, are thinking about the odds and risks, as well as the possible gains. I don't want to go into what those gains are at his time, but they are real. To them. "Israel's real policy goal." No. I will explain later. "Interesting, since you are so quick to dismiss those same agencies' intelligence on WMDs in Iraq." Actually he has you there, as hard as it is to admit. But he doesn't recognize an agenda when he sees it, either that or he supports it. Take your pick, but either scenario makes it totally pointless to argue with him. Let him go on. We need those people to remind us how........ nevermind. T^T

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 4:21:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Interesting, since you are so quick to dismiss those same agencies' intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. Big difference here though. The intelligence agencies told Bush and Blair that the intel was dubious. Saying Bush and Blair twisted the intel isnt blaming the intelligence agencys. I thought you could do nuances but it seems not.

Owner59 -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 6:09:33 AM)
"nuance" is a French word......sounds French and all.......things like that scare the bejesus outa neo-cons......[:D]

Moonhead -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 6:20:57 AM)
Maybe we could tell him it's a freedom term, not a French one?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 7:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Interesting, since you are so quick to dismiss those same agencies' intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. Big difference here though. The intelligence agencies told Bush and Blair that the intel was dubious. Saying Bush and Blair twisted the intel isnt blaming the intelligence agencys. I thought you could do nuances but it seems not. Thats the liberal spin on it yes. Meanwhile you had Saddam himself and every intelligence agency Ive ever read said he either had nuclear WMDs or was capable of producing them on short order. That was the only "Dubious" part of the intel. The intel wasnt the least bit dubious about CHEMICAL WMDs.

Moonhead -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 11:51:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The intel wasnt the least bit dubious about CHEMICAL WMDs. Yes it was. This is the intel the CIA has since admitted it falsified to give the chimp and his poodle an excuse to invade, after all.

rulemylife -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 12:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Interesting, since you are so quick to dismiss those same agencies' intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. Big difference here though. The intelligence agencies told Bush and Blair that the intel was dubious. Saying Bush and Blair twisted the intel isnt blaming the intelligence agencys. I thought you could do nuances but it seems not. Thats the liberal spin on it yes. Meanwhile you had Saddam himself and every intelligence agency Ive ever read said he either had nuclear WMDs or was capable of producing them on short order. That was the only "Dubious" part of the intel. The intel wasnt the least bit dubious about CHEMICAL WMDs. Then let us hear about all those things you have read. The chemical weapons they found were from 1990, completely useless. And there was no evidence Iraq was nuclear capable. For once back up your bullshit.

Moonhead -> RE: Israel to attack Iran this Fall (8/1/2011 12:06:02 PM)
Oh, like that's going to happen.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875