Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again!

mike65

Issuing idle threats in the direction of Europe this time.

full bbc story

"You imposed a group of terrorists... on the region. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

The "ultimatum" was directed at European states in particular.

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

If lets say a cell of Iranian assasins took out a leading Jewish figure in a European state does anyone here think anything would be done in reply or might it be left for Isreal to deal with? ie Europe cops out. I supect so.

Mike.

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

Issuing idle threats in the direction of Europe this time.

full bbc story



If lets say a cell of Iranian assasins took out a leading Jewish figure in a European state does anyone here think anything would be done in reply or might it be left for Isreal to deal with? ie Europe cops out. I supect so.

Mike.

Ahmadinejad has about as much power as Pat Robertson has in the United States, the world would be a much better place without either of those two people, but he is not the big threat that he is made out to be. The office of president in Iran is similar to the office of president in Ireland.

sovtek

In the "reality" based world it's an unlikely scenario that Ahmadinejad is going to attack anyone. I wonder how much of those quotes were taken out of context or mistranslated.

is_that_so

Isn't it the case that if it's Friday Ahmadinejad is going to say something inflammatory. As likely as not it is tied into reminding us that Iran have not gone away and they are not going to. Any time he says something it tends to be for home consumption, even though it is widely reported. Now imagine if Ahmadinejad had been the one talking about the "axis of terror"

Iran hasn't actually done anything apart from upset everyone with their nuclear ambitions and their usual support of miliant elements.

lostexpectation

israel threatened to bomb unifil positions again if they intefered with israel overflights of lebanon

AbusesToilets

is_that_so wrote:

Isn't it the case that if it's Friday Ahmadinejad is going to say something inflammatory. As likely as not it is tied into reminding us that Iran have not gone away and they are not going to. Any time he says something it tends to be for home consumption, even though it is widely reported. Now imagine if Ahmadinejad had been the one talking about the "axis of terror"

Iran hasn't actually done anything apart from upset everyone with their nuclear ambitions and their usual support of miliant elements.

With respect there has been quite a bit done by the Iranians in formenting trouble in Lebanon with Hezbollah and in Iraq,funding insurgents along with Syria etc.
And most likely the European nations would do nothing in the event of an attack on their soil,either against them or another target

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

israel threatened to bomb unifil positions again if they intefered with israel overflights of lebanon

UNIFIL needs to equip itself with more SAMs.

And do a better job of facilitating the disarming of Hezbullah.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

UNIFIL needs to equip itself with more SAMs.

And do a better job of facilitating the disarming of Hezbullah.

NTM

yeah, cause it's the U.N.s fault when Israel bomb them, and it's the U.N.s fault when Hezbollah attack Israel. It's never Israels fault for anything that happens in the middle east

sovtek

AbusesToilets wrote:

With respect there has been quite a bit done by the Iranians in formenting trouble in Lebanon with Hezbollah and in Iraq,funding insurgents along with Syria etc.
And most likely the European nations would do nothing in the event of an attack on their soil,either against them or another target

Obviously you aren't aware of what the Spanish government did after the Madrid attack.
Secondly...you got any evidence of Iran being behind insurgents in Iraq or Lebanon for that matter. Thats other than White House hacks claiming it as being so.

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

With respect there has been quite a bit done by the Iranians in formenting trouble in Lebanon with Hezbollah and in Iraq,funding insurgents along with Syria etc.
And most likely the European nations would do nothing in the event of an attack on their soil,either against them or another target

I keep forgetting everything that comes from a right- wing source is automatically true even without a semblance of proof. Hearsay is enough if the source fits your worldsview

you seem to have forgotten in 2004 0r 2005 Syria handed over 30 key players who were said to be funding the insurgency from Syria.
Also, according to Iranian intelligence MI5 and the CIA are helping sunni groups based in the South-West of Iran foment trouble.
The Sunday Telegraph more or less confirmed this in an article quoting security sources. Iran will never attack europe unless war is declared on them. This is similar to the canard that an Al-Qaeda cell was operating in Palestine a few years ago.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

With respect there has been quite a bit done by the Iranians in formenting trouble in Lebanon with Hezbollah and in Iraq,funding insurgents along with Syria etc.
And most likely the European nations would do nothing in the event of an attack on their soil,either against them or another target

Speaking of formenting trouble..

The US are warmongering again..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6080204.stm

lostexpectation

sovtek wrote:

Obviously you aren't aware of what the Spanish government did after the Madrid attack.
Secondly...you got any evidence of Iran being behind insurgents in Iraq or Lebanon for that matter. Thats other than White House hacks claiming it as being so.

what did spain do again?

AbusesToilets

lostexpectation
what did spain do again?

They voted to change their government and subsequently Spain pulled out of Iraq.

Frederico
Speaking of formenting trouble..

The US are warmongering again..

They're performing a military exercise,concentrating on anti-missle engagement and ship interdiction.What's your point?The Iranians performed one a few months back,trumpeting their new anti-ship torpedo.It's nothing more than sabre rattling.Do you not consider the Iranian Presidents repeated calls for the annhilation of Israel and the Jewish people warmongering?
And as for evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq,here's an article i found in Time after a quick google:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093747,00.html
It talks about how Iran trained and deployed insurgents to Iraq.I'm on lunch so don't have time to go into it fully,but i will later

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

They voted to change their government and subsequently Spain pulled out of Iraq.

They're performing a military exercise,concentrating on anti-missle engagement and ship interdiction.What's your point?The Iranians performed one a few months back,trumpeting their new anti-ship torpedo.It's nothing more than sabre rattling.Do you not consider the Iranian Presidents repeated calls for the annhilation of Israel and the Jewish people warmongering?
And as for evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq,here's an article i found in Time after a quick google:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093747,00.html
It talks about how Iran trained and deployed insurgents to Iraq.I'm on lunch so don't have time to go into it fully,but i will later

Of course theres evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, they are neighbours! It's quite strange for someone to accept American involvement in Iraq under the most far-fetched circumstances yet somehow be surprised or dismayed by Iran's involvement in Iraq, its next door neighbour.

His repeated calls for annihilation? as opposed to what? Israel who just flattened southern Lebanon? He can sit there and call for the annihilation of Israel all he wants, the likelihood of Israel attacking Iran is FAR higher than Iran ever attacking anyone, ever. As someone pointed out, he's just pulling a Bush on the situation, diverting Iranian public attention from the real social problems in Iran.

Moriarty

It has also been documented that Iranian shaped-charge explosives have been used by insurgents in Iraq. There was a bit of a flap about it around a year ago by British forces iirc. Whether they ended up in the hands of insurgents by direction of the Iranian central government or not was.. less clear.

Frederico

I would be very surprised if Iran was NOT involved in Iraq. I do find it quite strange how sometimes rightwing people seem to become alarmed that somehow Iran may be doing bad things in Iraq.. the irony is beyond comprehension..

sovtek

lostexpectation wrote:

what did spain do again?

They carried out a criminal investigation and arrested/charged/tried based on that investigation.
They even proved an American citizen was innocent of involvement after the FBI tried to frame him.
What they didn't do was invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing, nor collectively punish a people for the actions of a few.

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

He can sit there and call for the annihilation of Israel all he wants, the likelihood of Israel attacking Iran is FAR higher than Iran ever attacking anyone, ever.

I would seriously doubt that,given that Israel is a democratic society and would have absolutely nothing to gain from attacking Iran.The assualt on Lebanon was initiated by Hezbollah,an Iranian backed terrorist organisation,most likely to divert international attention away from Iran's nuclear plans and to put pressure on the US government

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

I would seriously doubt that,given that Israel is a democratic society and would have absolutely nothing to gain from attacking Iran.The assualt on Lebanon was initiated by Hezbollah,an Iranian backed terrorist organisation,most likely to divert international attention away from Iran's nuclear plans and to put pressure on the US government

Yes you would seriously doubt Israel attacking Iran, fine, but it's ALOT more likely than Iran ever attacking Israel.. thats my point. Nothing to gain? Israel attacked Iraq to take out a reactor in the eighties.

The Israeli's can do all the kidnapping, murdering, white phosphorus dropping, overflying, resolution breaking, wallbuilding, sanctioning, occupying, terrorising, UN killing, invading it wants, but its okay by us cos its pro West.. you know.. the 'good guys'.

Jimboo_Jones

Moriarty wrote:

It has also been documented that Iranian shaped-charge explosives have been used by insurgents in Iraq. There was a bit of a flap about it around a year ago by British forces iirc. Whether they ended up in the hands of insurgents by direction of the Iranian central government or not was.. less clear.

Humm I seem to remember that the insurgents started to use explosives 'simalar' to the ones that hezbollah uses, and its thought that hezbollah had been taught how to use them off Iran. Kind of a third hand circumstantial sort of evidence at best.

As for what Europe would do if Iran killed a prominent Jewish person? Well I guess it would be a lot more than what they would do to Isreal if they took out a prominent Muslim person in Europe.

But I don't think that the leaders of either of the countries would care to much about Europe that much to be honest.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

yeah, cause it's the U.N.s fault when Israel bomb them, and it's the U.N.s fault when Hezbollah attack Israel. It's never Israels fault for anything that happens in the middle east

I think you mis-interpreted my comments.

Is not the UN supposed to be the neutral stabilising force which keeps the other two opposing sides in check? Otherwise, what's the point of their being there?

Israel currently flies around over Lebanon. They're not supposed to. So they should be stopped, or persuaded to that it's not in their best interests. Having some way of the UN making life a little riskier for Israeli pilots strikes me as being a good way of doing this. As it stands, the UN's anti-air abilities are negligible.

On the other hand, there's no apparent indication that the UN is taking any action to support the disarming of Hezbullah either.

Which begs the question then: If the UN isn't stopping Israel and Hezbullah, what the hell are they doing there? They can continue not-stopping them from home just as easily.

NTM

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

Yes you would seriously doubt Israel attacking Iran, fine, but it's ALOT more likely than Iran ever attacking Israel.. thats my point. Nothing to gain? Israel attacked Iraq to take out a reactor in the eighties.

Israel attacked the reactor in Iraq because they felt the prospect of an nuclear iraq posed a definitive threat to their existance.And as for the likeyhood of Iran attacking Israel,they already sponsor Hezbollah,providing money and materials.So while they don't directly attack them,they're happy to supply those that do

Húrin

mike65 wrote:

If lets say a cell of Iranian assasins took out a leading Jewish figure in a European state does anyone here think anything would be done in reply or might it be left for Isreal to deal with? ie Europe cops out. I supect so.

Mike.

I doubt it would be left to Israel, because Jewish or not Iranians would have killed a citizen of that country. There wouldn't be military action, but I can imagine sanctions being imposed.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Israel attacked the reactor in Iraq because they felt the prospect of an nuclear iraq posed a definitive threat to their existance.And as for the likeyhood of Iran attacking Israel,they already sponsor Hezbollah,providing money and materials.So while they don't directly attack them,they're happy to supply those that do

Then by that logic they could just as easily attack Iran for exactly the same reason.. they have the US as a buffer and in the region to support them straight away..

The Hezbollah situation is more of a proxy war being fought between America/Israel on one side and Syria/Iran on the other..

I think Hezbollah tactics are pretty vile, but the IDF are no better, and I could easily argue they are worse, they certainly seem inflict alot more pain, suffering, terror and death than Hezbollah do.

If I'd a choice to live in Israel or Iran, I'd feel ALOT safer living in Israel to be honest.

Pakistan has lots of nukes (pointed at the world's biggest democracy), they are a jaded military regime, probably housing Bin Laden, and are most certainly (indirectly) exporting fundamentalist islamic terrorism.. now thats a realistic threat.

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

Then by that logic they could just as easily attack Iran for exactly the same reason.. they have the US as a buffer and in the region to support them straight away..

The Israelis and the Iranians bothed viewed the possiblity of an Iraqi nuclear programme as dangerous enough to warant an attack on the Osirak reactor.The Iranians attempted to destroy in 1980 during the Iran/Iraq war,but were unsuccessful.

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

I think Hezbollah tactics are pretty vile, but the IDF are no better, and I could easily argue they are worse, they certainly seem inflict alot more pain, suffering, terror and death than Hezbollah do.

I think the IDf are better,as was seen during the recent engagement.The Israelis made a lot of efforts to minimise civilian casualties,given that Hezbollah were launching missile attacks from heavily built up urban areas

uberpixie

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think the IDf are better,as was seen during the recent engagement.The Israelis made a lot of efforts to minimise civilian casualties,given that Hezbollah were launching missile attacks from heavily built up urban areas

So Israel only dropped all those cluster bombs, hours before the cease fire, to minimise civillian casualites? :-)

(my bollix)

(1) Israel have the bomb as they have lots of neighbours that don't like them, and like having the leverage an atomic bomb gives them over their neighbours.
(they don't want anyone else to have the bomb)

(2) Iran want the bomb to keep Israel from bombing them/attacking them and to stop American trying to invade them.

(Which Amerca will if they have a chance, America/Israel might settle for a good "Shock and awe" bombing campaign in a few months, due to American commitments in Iraq:rolleyes:)

(3) The Leb is a buffer zone for Iran to keep America and Israel busy so they don't invade Iran.

(4) Iran is a direct opponent of the US gaining more control over the middle east, hence them being labled as part of the "axis of evil".

Tis all politics.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think the IDf are better,as was seen during the recent engagement.The Israelis made a lot of efforts to minimise civilian casualties,given that Hezbollah were launching missile attacks from heavily built up urban areas

They told us they were making an effort to minimise casualties, that seemed to be enough for some people, but I believe the reports and pictures and stories told a different story.

Those cluster bombs the Israeli's dropped are still causing 3 to 4 casualties a day, they used white phosphorus, they turned Southern Beirut into rubble, flattened many towns, they put the country back a decade, they killed more children than they killed Hezbollah fighters, didn't really achieve any aims, except prehaps boosting Hezbollah's status as a legimate resistance instead of aggressive terrorists.

It was a dirty dirty war, of course presented to us on a silver media platter, the propaganda came thick and heavy However in this new age of skeptisism people were starting to see through the spin and lies. The Hezbollah with all their might caused a few dozen Israeli casualties, whereas the IDF with as much apparent restraint as possible killed over 1000 civilians, and nowhere near that number of Hezbollah fighters.

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think the IDf are better,as was seen during the recent engagement.The Israelis made a lot of efforts to minimise civilian casualties,given that Hezbollah were launching missile attacks from heavily built up urban areas

you seem to be more informed than an IDF solider who described fighting Hezbollah. His account of fighting Hezbollah differs from yours. Also, If they were making great efforts to minimise casualties why drop so many cluster bombers in civilian aeras. You will have noticed there is a U.S. investigation into this.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs8398

nacho libre

lostexpectation wrote:

what did spain do again?

Asnar tried to pin it on ETA

uberpixie

uberpixie wrote:

(2) Iran want the bomb to keep Israel from bombing them/attacking them and to stop American trying to invade them.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the USA bombed Iran back to the stone age, or otherwise posed some serious challenge to that nut Ahmadinejad, it would go some way towards the redemption of Bush...as long as he tried to minimise civilian casualties etc. etc.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the USA bombed Iran back to the stone age, or otherwise posed some serious challenge to that nut Ahmadinejad, it would go some way towards the redemption of Bush...as long as he tried to minimise civilian casualties etc. etc.

Minimising casualties sure worked in Iraq did'n it. It's arguable that Bush actually gave rise to Ahmadinejad and it's highly immoral to bomb a country because someone spouts some rhetoric (and rhetoric used out of context on many occasions as well as purposfully mistranslated).

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Bush actually gave rise to Ahmadinejad

That may be true, but the world can only deal with the situation that it now faces, and not wring it's hands about bad decisions in the past.

sovtek wrote:

it's highly immoral to bomb a country because someone spouts some rhetoric

If he just kept mouthing off, it would be one thing. Mouthing off with nuclear potential to back him up is another. This problem isn't going to dissolve into warm handshakes all round and Ahmadinejad seeing the error of his ways.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the USA bombed Iran back to the stone age, or otherwise posed some serious challenge to that nut Ahmadinejad, it would go some way towards the redemption of Bush...as long as he tried to minimise civilian casualties etc. etc.

eh what?

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

That may be true, but the world can only deal with the situation that it now faces, and not wring it's hands about bad decisions in the past.

No the hands were wrung before these bad decisions were made.

If he just kept mouthing off, it would be one thing. Mouthing off with nuclear potential to back him up is another. This problem isn't going to dissolve into warm handshakes all round and Ahmadinejad seeing the error of his ways.

How is it going to be solved? by war? just like Afghanistan and Iraq?
Its hypocrisy at the highest level, and its quite clear to me that this is a case of Rumsfeld and Cheney hellbent on going after their old eighties highschool enemy; Iran. They will of course ignore the brutal dictatorship in Uzbekistan, they probably haven't even heard of Mozambique, they've certainly forgotten, along with most of the American public, that a Saudi came up with the plan, that Saudi's flew those planes into those buildings, that Bin Laden is probably hiding in one of the biggest and fastest growing terrorist hotspots in the world; Pakistan.

Look how easily they manipulated us over Iraq, it was the next biggest threat, links to terrorism, Al Aqaeda, WMD..

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

They told us they were making an effort to minimise casualties, that seemed to be enough for some people, but I believe the reports and pictures and stories told a different story.

Those cluster bombs the Israeli's dropped are still causing 3 to 4 casualties a day, they used white phosphorus, they turned Southern Beirut into rubble, flattened many towns, they put the country back a decade, they killed more children than they killed Hezbollah fighters, didn't really achieve any aims, except prehaps boosting Hezbollah's status as a legimate resistance instead of aggressive terrorists.

It was a dirty dirty war, of course presented to us on a silver media platter, the propaganda came thick and heavy However in this new age of skeptisism people were starting to see through the spin and lies. The Hezbollah with all their might caused a few dozen Israeli casualties, whereas the IDF with as much apparent restraint as possible killed over 1000 civilians, and nowhere near that number of Hezbollah fighters.

The large number of civilian casualties came from Israel persuing Hezbollah into urban areas.Let me ask you a question,what form of military action would you have taken in pursuit of Hezbollah?And given that Hezbollah had already initiated rocket attacks on Israel prior to the ambush and kidnapping,military action was unavoidable.

AbusesToilets

nacho libre wrote:

you seem to be more informed than an IDF solider who described fighting Hezbollah. His account of fighting Hezbollah differs from yours. Also, If they were making great efforts to minimise casualties why drop so many cluster bombers in civilian aeras. You will have noticed there is a U.S. investigation into this.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs8398

In the article you linked to the Major being interviewed had this to say:
"Taylor says the one tactical area where the IDF has been particularly effective is also the area where they've been the most criticized: Attacks on villages where they believe Hezbollah supplies are stockpiled.

"The villages are used as logistic bases," he says, "but they usually fight from bunkers in outlying areas. They have tunnel systems with camouflaged entry points where they can enter in one place and exit somewhere else. We've been fairly successful at cutting off the supplies from the villages, which forces them to come out eventually."

The way to fight Hezbollah, he says, is to outlast them in a war of nerves."
What other way is an army meant to combat a force that operates in built up urban areas and uses civilian infastructure for it's operations?

AbusesToilets

(1) Israel have the bomb as they have lots of neighbours that don't like them, and like having the leverage an atomic bomb gives them over their neighbours.
(they don't want anyone else to have the bomb)

(2) Iran want the bomb to keep Israel from bombing them/attacking them and to stop American trying to invade them.

1:The fact of Israel having the bomb was/is the main element keeping the Arab nations which surround it from attacking it directly.Given that it has faced the prospect of all out annhilation on a number of occasions from coalition of Arab states,i don't see the problem with that.Israel is a functioning democracy,much more so than Iran,a country which it seems people here have much more affinity with.
2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times? 0 What would they gain from such an attack? Nothing,except the likeyhood of all out war across the middle east.Nobody in either administration is seriously considering such an attack

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote:

2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times?

Well, you could argue that Operation Preying Mantis was an American attack on Iran, though it was in response to USS Samuel B. Roberts being damaged by an Iranian mine so not really an unjustified one.

NTM

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

The large number of civilian casualties came from Israel persuing Hezbollah into urban areas.Let me ask you a question,what form of military action would you have taken in pursuit of Hezbollah?And given that Hezbollah had already initiated rocket attacks on Israel prior to the ambush and kidnapping,military action was unavoidable.

I wouldn't have attacked them in the first place. From a military standpoint how about the IDF grow a pair and go in and fight Hezbollah instead of Nazi Germany-esque raising towns to the ground. They just flattened the place with little or no regard for human casualties, despite what the well groomed special media propaganda guys were saying.

The Brits didn't start fanning out into the countryside and dropping White phosphorus and clusterbombs on the Irish did they when the UK mainland was being bombed by the IRA, why? because thats unthinkable.

The Israelis achieved nothing with this attack, just made themselves a hell of alot more unpopular, lost alot of soldiers and strengthened Hezbollah. They didn't even get their two soldiers back. Seems like they can't help provoking others, more overflights, more houses demolished in Palestine, more Palestinians killed every day, more Lebanese killed every day, yet we're still so indoctrinated to believe they are the good guys.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times?

Well there was the little incident where the US shot down one of their airliners. When you constantly meddle with a country for years, support its enemies, plot coup d'etats, freeze billions of dollars of assets, replace the Shah, perform military manevuers as close as possible, etc, it doesn't count as a direct attack, but you shouldn't really be surprised if that country doesn't like you very much.

Just reading now that Rice is yet again urging the UN security council to adopt a resolution putting sanctions Iran. I don't remember that happening when Pakistan was getting nukes? do you?

I doubt the US will ever stop trying to provoke Iran.

I am basically 100% sure we will see some sort of special forces/air attack on Iranian facilities in the next 10 years almost definitely by Israel, with America nearby, unless the situation changes dramatically.

AbusesToilets

By Frederico Well there was the little incident where the US shot down one of their airliners. When you constantly meddle with a country for years, support its enemies, plot coup d'etats, freeze billions of dollars of assets, replace the Shah, perform military manevuers as close as possible, etc, it doesn't count as a direct attack, but you shouldn't really be surprised if that country doesn't like you very much.

As opposed to Irans record of peaceful interactions with the countries around it?I accept that the US and Iran have a history of confrontation,certainly since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs,but i think you're really streching things to propose that the society that Iran has is superior to that of Israel.Which is the impression i get from your posts.I am wrong in that?

Sgt. Sensible

Frederico wrote:

replace the Shah,

The US supported the Shah, and this led to the embassy hostage thing.

uberpixie

AbusesToilets wrote:

As opposed to Irans record of peaceful interactions with the countries around it?I accept that the US and Iran have a history of confrontation,certainly since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs,but i think you're really streching things to propose that the society that Iran has is superior to that of Israel.Which is the impression i get from your posts.I am wrong in that?

Since when does a society's supposed superiority come into this?

Israel: mass murder civillians, steal Palestinian land and water, torture their prisoners, have a strong right wing section of their society that would wipe all Arabs off the face of the earth if they could.

Iran: supports terrorism, have very strict religious laws about woman that we think are crazy are against human rights, have a very right wing section of their society that would love to wipe Israel and the US off the map.

Israel is much more free for women, but treat their Arab population like dirt.

TBH both are just as good/bad as each other.

Personally I don't like the actions of any of the countries involved US, Iran, Israel.

But to claim any one of the above countries is superior in it's society or morals is mis guided and quite frankly naive.

They are all an absolute shower of c unts. They all have blood on their hands.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

As opposed to Irans record of peaceful interactions with the countries around it?I accept that the US and Iran have a history of confrontation,certainly since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs,but i think you're really streching things to propose that the society that Iran has is superior to that of Israel.Which is the impression i get from your posts.I am wrong in that?

Superior? when do I propose that? I'm not particularily fond of Iran, but you cannot compare that country to Israel and America for the sheer level of aggression and provokation.

Mad Finn

AbusesToilets wrote:

1:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times? 0 What would they gain from such an attack? Nothing,except the likeyhood of all out war across the middle east.Nobody in either administration is seriously considering such an attack

Well in one sense your rhetorical question is justified. Israel after all was the go between during the Iran Contra affair when it supplied the Iranians with spare parts etc for its US built aircraft that it still possessed from the time when the Shah was in charge and Iran was America's policeman in central Asia.

As to when America ever attacked Iran: well they did forment a coup to bring down the democratically elected Moussadeq in the 1950s. He had the outlandish idea of demanding a fairer deal from Western Oil companies for the billions they were making out of the Gulf oil fields. The cheek of him. He had to go. The little matter of upholding the democratic wishes of the Iranian people was secondary.

lostexpectation

Olmert compares Iran with Nazi Germany

One of the most controversial Israeli politicians in Israel's parliament or Knesset, Avigdor Lieberman, will now report directly to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his new cabinet position as Minister for Strategic Threats.Yisrael Beitenu is a dangerous extremist party with fascist tendacies.

???

Hogmeister B

AbusesToilets wrote:

1:The fact of Israel having the bomb was/is the main element keeping the Arab nations which surround it from attacking it directly.

Rubbish. Israel has been at peace with the major Arab states since the 1970s.

AbusesToilets wrote:

Given that it has faced the prospect of all out annhilation on a number of occasions from coalition of Arab states,i don't see the problem with that.

The only time israel ever came close to losing a war with the arabs was in the first six months of the 1947/48 war- there is no example of an arab coalition attempting to annihilate israel, ever. The only time they attacked, 1973, was to recover land stolen in 1967. On the other hand, Israel has on two occasions launched wars of aggression against her neighbours- once, inexcusably, in 1956, and once under the spurious claim of imminent attack, in 1967.

A quick glance at the respecive troop and equipment numbers in any of Israel's wars will show that the Arabs never had a chance of defending themselves from Israel, let alone annihilating her.

AbusesToilets wrote:

Israel is a functioning democracy,much more so than Iran,a country which it seems people here have much more affinity with.

Israel rules over 10 million people, of whom only 6 million are actually citizens. The rest are kept in fenced-in bantustans, blockaded, harassed and killed, with a huge proportion of their land and natural resources given to a few thousand 'settlers'. That is not a functioning democracy, that is a miniature imperial state.

AbusesToilets wrote:

2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran?

Repeatedly. They have assaulted the Iranian people by removing and killing their democratically elected leader (1953), facilitating their oppression by the brutal Shah for the next quarter-century, fomenting and backing Saddam's brutal invasion in the 1980s and destroying her navy (1988). Ironically the 1980s onslaught of direct and proxy warfare caused the victory of the conservative, dictatorial elements of the Revolution and the vanquishing of the liberals.

Manic Moran

Hogmeister B wrote:

Rubbish. Israel has been at peace with the major Arab states since the 1970s.

Kindof circular logic that, isn't it? The US and USSR were staring down each others nukes for 50 years. WWIII never kicked off. Ergo the nukes were useless. I would submit that the repeated trouncings that the Israelis gave the local Arab nations, combined with the nuclear deterrent, finally gave impetus to the concept that perhaps it's better to live in peace with Israel than to try to keep attacking it.

The only time israel ever came close to losing a war with the arabs was in the first six months of the 1947/48 war- there is no example of an arab coalition attempting to annihilate israel, ever.

What was 1948 then? A minor disagreement?

The only time they attacked, 1973, was to recover land stolen in 1967and once under the spurious claim of imminent attack, in 1967.

Considering the troop movements in Egypt and Syria, and the rhetoric from both, I don't know how spurious that claim was.

A quick glance at the respecive troop and equipment numbers in any of Israel's wars will show that the Arabs never had a chance of defending themselves from Israel, let alone annihilating her.

Well, at least you acknowledge then that the 13-1 odds that Israeli tankers faced in the Golan were a fair fight.

destroying her navy (1988).

As mentioned above, that was in response to the damage done to USS Samuel B Roberts by hitting an Iranian mine.

NTM

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

Kindof circular logic that, isn't it? The US and USSR were staring down each others nukes for 50 years. WWIII never kicked off. Ergo the nukes were useless. I would submit that the repeated trouncings that the Israelis gave the local Arab nations, combined with the nuclear deterrent, finally gave impetus to the concept that perhaps it's better to live in peace with Israel than to try to keep attacking it.

true

Considering the troop movements in Egypt and Syria, and the rhetoric from both, I don't know how spurious that claim was.

It was hardcore sabre rattling

Well, at least you acknowledge then that the 13-1 odds that Israeli tankers faced in the Golan were a fair fight.

Technology/training/tactics > numbers

Hogmeister B

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, at least you acknowledge then that the 13-1 odds that Israeli tankers faced in the Golan were a fair fight.

they shouldn't have been in the Golan anyway...