Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

WakeUp

Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz has called for a naval blockade of Iran within two to six months, saying sanctions have failed to convince the Islamic republic to abandon its alleged nuclear weapons program. - (link)

ikeano29

the stuxnet virus is the start to cyber warfare by the israeli's and the usa

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20017201-245.html

gizmo

ikeano29 wrote: »

the stuxnet virus is the start to cyber warfare by the israeli's and the usa

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20017201-245.html

Why do you think it was the Americans or the Israeli's?

"With the forensics we now have, it is evident and provable that Stuxnet is a directed sabotage attack involving heavy insider knowledge," he wrote.

And who built the station? Spoiler: It was neither the Americans nor the Israelis. It was the Russians.

And then we have...

Russian digital security company Kaspersky Labs released a statement that described Stuxnet as "a working and fearsome prototype of a cyber-weapon that will lead to the creation of a new arms race in the world." Kevin Hogan, Senior Director of Security Response at Symantec, noted that 60 percent of the infected computers worldwide were in Iran, suggesting its industrial plants were the target. Kaspersky Labs concluded that the attacks could only have been conducted "with nation-state support", making Iran the first target of real cyber warfare.

Duiske

WakeUp wrote: »

Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz has called for a naval blockade of Iran within two to six months, saying sanctions have failed to convince the Islamic republic to abandon its alleged nuclear weapons program. - (link)

Isn't it interesting that Iran, (who have signed up to the nuclear nob-proliferation treaty and who have said they have no interest in nuclear weapons) have sactions imposed on them, while Pakistan, who has refused to sign the treaty and continues to expand its nuclear weapons program escapes sanction because it is an American ally ?

Pakistan steps up nuclear construction

Just goes to show how American foreign policy works.

"Our friends can do as they please, the rest of you bend over"

WakeUp

Duiske wrote: »

Isn't it interesting that Iran, (who have signed up to the nuclear nob-proliferation treaty and who have said they have no interest in nuclear weapons) have sactions imposed on them, while Pakistan, who has refused to sign the treaty and continues to expand its nuclear weapons program escapes sanction because it is an American ally ?

Pakistan steps up nuclear construction

Just goes to show how American foreign policy works.

"Our friends can do as they please, the rest of you bend over"

Exactly, Iran is currently under a 4th round of UN sanctions and seperate unilateral ones by the US & EU. The double standards are quite simply shocking both from the US and even more so from Israel who wont even admit they have a nuclear arsenal, some 400 warheads. Yet they threaten and give it all that to other countries yet refuse point blank to admit or sign up the NPT themselves. Same with Pakistan the US just turn a blind eye if and when it suits them. The hypocrisy is alarming really.

fontanalis

So it's been 113 days since the op.

Jeboa Safari

WakeUp wrote: »

Exactly, Iran is currently under a 4th round of UN sanctions and seperate unilateral ones by the US & EU. The double standards are quite simply shocking both from the US and even more so from Israel who wont even admit they have a nuclear arsenal, some 400 warheads. Yet they threaten and give it all that to other countries yet refuse point blank to admit or sign up the NPT themselves. Same with Pakistan the US just turn a blind eye if and when it suits them. The hypocrisy is alarming really.

While I don't agree with Pakistan having nuclear weapons, surely they're going to want to make sure that hostile nations like Iran won't get nuclear weapons. Iran having nukes could also cause a nuclear arms race with Irans enemies in the Persian Gulf. I don't see why you'd be so shocked by this, of course you wouldn't want your perceived enemies and threats getting hold of more and more powerful weapons, especially nuclear ones.

WakeUp

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

While I don't agree with Pakistan having nuclear weapons, surely they're going to want to make sure that hostile nations like Iran won't get nuclear weapons. Iran having nukes could also cause a nuclear arms race with Irans enemies in the Persian Gulf. I don't see why you'd be so shocked by this, of course you wouldn't want your perceived enemies and threats getting hold of more and more powerful weapons, especially nuclear ones.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country how do you know they are hostile. What gives the US and Israel the right to prevent another country from accuring a nuclear weapon, especially Israel , assuming that is what Iran wants to do. We don't know if this is the case as things stand this is purely conjecture, the western media keeps telling us that is what Iran wants but why should we believe them after the sh1ite we were told in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

What's your position then, you seem to be of the opinion that it is ok to make sure Iran wont get nuclear weapons assuming they want them. In your view is it ok to launch a pre-emptive strike, based on conjecture , agains't that nation just like Iraq in 2003 when the world was fed bullsh1t about the mythical WMD?. Is it ok to start a naval blockade agains't Iran which would be a de-facto declaration of war, based on conjecture?

What I find shocking is the hypocritical position of both the US and Israel preaching to the world about who can and cant have nuclear weapons keeping in mind that nobody knows for sure if this is what Iran intends to do. Israel refuses to admit to their some 400 nuclear warheads and will not sign up the NPT. The US turns a blind eye to countries it deems "friendly" and is still one of the largest proliferator's of nuclear weapons throughout the world including western Europe. You can't seriously be trying to justify Israels stance towards Iran's nuclear program whilst at the same time they stick two fingers up at the international community by refusing to admit to their own arsenal or sign up the NPT. Israel has no right to preach or threaten anybody with regard to nuclear anything, they havent a leg to stand on.

Jeboa Safari

When was the last time Iran attacked another country how do you know they are hostile.

They recently laid claim to the country of Bahrain, saying it should become a province of Iran, and also occupy islands belonging to the UAE. Intelligence agencies have also shown they have sleeper cells in countries like Kuwait, ready to strike if called upon. They are a different faction of Islam to their neighbours so that creates tension, as well as being a larger power than them. If they arm themselves with nuclear I wouldn't be surprised to see Saudi Arabia and maybe a couple of others do the same. It would also let Iran act with impunity, and invade neighbours, without fear of serious retaliation from the major countries if they could retaliate with nuclear weapons. They also supply Hezbollah.

What gives the US and Israel the right to prevent another country from accuring a nuclear weapon, especially Israel , assuming that is what Iran wants to do. We don't know if this is the case as things stand this is purely conjecture, the western media keeps telling us that is what Iran wants but why should we believe them after the sh1ite we were told in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

In Israels case, self preservation and defense I imagine, they are surrounded by hostile neighbours, who would probably jump at any chance of weakness to destroy them. I don't think the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing, and only the superpowers should have them. Also want to keep oil secure, because like it or not, its a valuable resource, and most wars are about access to resources, be it land, food or whatever.

What's your position then, you seem to be of the opinion that it is ok to make sure Iran wont get nuclear weapons assuming they want them. In your view is it ok to launch a pre-emptive strike, based on conjecture , agains't that nation just like Iraq in 2003 when the world was fed bullsh1t about the mythical WMD?. Is it ok to start a naval blockade agains't Iran which would be a de-facto declaration of war, based on conjecture?

If they feel threatened by them, and feel that they could take them out now with minimal casualties and cost, then yes. However, I think that time has passed, and Iran is getting stronger, so it's probably too late and highly unlikely to happen.

What I find shocking is the hypocritical position of both the US and Israel preaching to the world about who can and cant have nuclear weapons keeping in mind that nobody knows for sure if this is what Iran intends to do. Israel refuses to admit to their some 400 nuclear warheads and will not sign up the NPT. The US turns a blind eye to countries it deems "friendly" and is still one of the largest proliferator's of nuclear weapons throughout the world including western Europe. You can't seriously be trying to justify Israels stance towards Iran's nuclear program whilst at the same time they stick two fingers up at the international community by refusing to admit to their own arsenal or sign up the NPT. Israel has no right to preach or threaten anybody with regard to nuclear anything, they havent a leg to stand on.

The US is obviously going to treat its allies different than its enemies. I don't necessarily support Israel, but I can see where they come from, they're surrounded by neighbours who don't even recognize their right to exist. If they feel genuinely threatened by Iran having weapons capable of destroying them, then I wouldn't blame them for taking pre-emptive action. War is sometimes required when diplomacy fails. They have them (I believe anyway) as a second strike option, and aren't going to use them first.

WakeUp

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They recently laid claim to the country of Bahrain, saying it should become a province of Iran, and also occupy islands belonging to the UAE.

Iran has often laid claim to Bahrain, based on its history of being a part of the Persian Empire. After the British withdrew from the area old territorial disputes resurfaced. The religious leaders of the Iranian Revolution revived the claim to Bahrain primarily on the grounds that the majority of Bahrainis were Shia Muslims.
There is a big difference though in laying claim to somewhere and actually physically going in and taking it. The US 5th fleet is based in Bahrain, any Iranian military force directed toward that country would be seen as a direct challenge to the US, basically it is never going to happen as long as the US have interests there. Iran has not threatened Bahrain with military force as far as I know.

As far as I can tell but I stand to be corrected the U.A.E’s claims on the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb are not recognised internationally. When the British left the area in 1971 the Iranians reclaimed the islands. The British agreed to give full authority of the Islands to Iran in return for Iran’s withdrawal of its claim on Bahrain. This was the deal that transpired and at the time Iran and Britain agreed on the fate of the three Islands, the U.A.E was just in the midst of being formed as a result of British withdrawal from the area and therefore could not lay claim on any territory as it was not yet an official state.

Intelligence agencies have also shown they have sleeper cells in countries like Kuwait, ready to strike if called upon.

Most countries have sleeper cells or agents in other countries around the world. This isn’t really unusual I don’t think. The real question is have they stole Irish passports and are now living as Mr. and Mrs. Murphy somewhere in Kuwait.:D

If they arm themselves with nuclear I wouldn't be surprised to see Saudi Arabia and maybe a couple of others do the same. It would also let Iran act with impunity, and invade neighbours, without fear of serious retaliation from the major countries if they could retaliate with nuclear weapons. They also supply Hezbollah.

I don’t buy into that argument at all and here’s why. The likes of Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region important/friendly to US foreign policy are covered under the US nuclear umbrella and have no need for a nuclear arsenal of their own. This idea that Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a first strike capacity against either Israel or a country important to US foreign policy, for example Saudi Arabia, to me is absurd. It would be national suicide on the part of the Iranians. The Iranians are many things but stupid and suicidal is not one of them. They are chess players just like the Russians. The same goes for Hezbollah. If Iran attempted to give them a nuclear weapon or any other resistance group the same within days the bomb would be traced back to them and boom bye bye Iran. I also couldn’t see them throwing their weight around against countries like Israel or ones important to the US. They are surrounded on all flanks by US and NATO forces so using the logic that they would act with impunity and might invade their neighbors would mean they would be messing with the big boys, personally I can’t see them doing that.

In Israels case, self preservation and defense I imagine, they are surrounded by hostile neighbours, who would probably jump at any chance of weakness to destroy them. I don't think the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing, and only the superpowers should have them. Also want to keep oil secure, because like it or not, its a valuable resource, and most wars are about access to resources, be it land, food or whatever.

Israel has a reported 400 nuclear weapons if anybody attempted to destroy their country it would also be the end of the attacking country too. They have subs armed with nuclear warheads patrolling the Persian Gulf 24/7 as I pointed out above it would be national suicide on any country with ideas of destroying Israel. I agree with you that proliferation of nukes is wrong but disagree with you in that I don’t think anyone should have them. We shouldn’t have the ability to destroy ourselves as a species and as things stand we do they are the destroyer of worlds.

If they feel threatened by them, and feel that they could take them out now with minimal casualties and cost, then yes. However, I think that time has passed, and Iran is getting stronger, so it's probably too late and highly unlikely to happen.

Any attack on Iran and the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands mainly civilians to begin with. I don’t think we are out of the woods yet, if Israel felt backed into a corner they may react. There are many tangents involved apart from the obvious I hope you’re right though. I don’t see what gives them the right to attack because they feel threatened I keep going back to this but Israel has 400 nukes they shouldn’t feel threatened, any country who seriously fcked with them would probably be obliterated to me that is not an excuse to attack first.

The US is obviously going to treat its allies different than its enemies. I don't necessarily support Israel, but I can see where they come from, they're surrounded by neighbours who don't even recognize their right to exist. If they feel genuinely threatened by Iran having weapons capable of destroying them, then I wouldn't blame them for taking pre-emptive action. War is sometimes required when diplomacy fails. They have them (I believe anyway) as a second strike option, and aren't going to use them first.

You do agree it is hypocrisy on the part of the US and Israel right?...

enfant terrible

WakeUp wrote: »

What gives the US and Israel the right to prevent another country from accuring a nuclear weapon, especially Israel , assuming that is what Iran wants to do

What has right got to do with anything.

All countries do what's in their own interests.

The US and Israel have the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program and will do so if its in their best interest's not whether its fair on Iran.

If the power was reversed do you think Iran would allow Israel to have nuclear weapons.

ikeano29

gizmo wrote: »

Why do you think it was the Americans or the Israeli's?


And who built the station? Spoiler: It was neither the Americans nor the Israelis. It was the Russians.

And then we have...

You should try and read more than just one article about this.
this should bring you up to speed. i thought it would be more than obvious who was behind this worm in the first place.

http://news.techworld.com/security/3257021/israel-and-us-may-have-colluded-in-stuxnet-virus-creation/

Mahatma coat

Apparently Some bell ends at4chan have it now :eek:

Monty Burnz

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Apparently Some bell ends at4chan have it now :eek:

If true, I wonder how? Shouldn't pose a threat to anyone not using P1 centrifuges, should it? Or perhaps it could just infect SCADAs all over the world, with ? consequences.

Yitzhak Rabin

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0217/1224290022279.html

Irish Times wrote:

JERUSALEM – Two Iranian warships planned to sail through the Suez Canal en route to Syria yesterday, Israel said, calling it a “provocation” by the Islamic Republic.

...

Mr Lieberman, a far-right partner in prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s conservative coalition, called for world powers “to act soon and . . . put the Iranians in their place”. Signalling reluctance to deal with the Iranian warships alone, defence minister Ehud Barak said Israel had alerted “friendly nations in the region”.

Usual posturing shyte by both sides. Nothing will happen.

gizmo

yekahS wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0217/1224290022279.html

Usual posturing shyte by both sides. Nothing will happen.

The move has since been cancelled but I must say, I did get a chuckle from this part of Lieberman's statement:

"To my regret, the international community is not showing readiness to deal with the recurring Iranian provocations. The international community must understand that Israel cannot forever ignore (them)."

Coming from a country who really cares about the international community. :rolleyes:

uprising2

Iran holds 'Israel-linked spies behind nuclear killing'
The Iranian authorities have arrested a "network of spies" which they say was behind the assassination of a nuclear scientist a year ago, state TV reports.
In a brief statement, the authorities said the network was linked to Israel's Mossad secret service.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12149864

Brown Bomber

yekahS wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0217/1224290022279.html



Usual posturing shyte by both sides. Nothing will happen.

I really wish that racist, Nazi warmonger Lieberman would shut the **** up. The Suez Canal is an INTERNATIONAL waterway and Iran have as much right as anyone else to use it. Though Israel seem to have claimed ownership of all international waters if killing 9 innocent civilians wounding scores kidnapping hundreds more and stealing their ships and property.

Israel recently used the same waterway to send illegally nuclear armed subs, a "gift" from Germany for the holocaust to the coast of Iran.

Mahatma coat

yeah, I was thinkin about that, Its ok for them to send Warships to the gulf, but a different Law applies to Iran

Mahatma coat

anyway the Iranian boats are being ''Állowed''through

Time for another Flotilla

uprising2

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway the Iranian boats are being ''Állowed''through

Time for another Flotilla

"Egypt allows Iran warships to transit Suez: Mena
(AFP) – 16 hours ago
CAIRO — Egypt gave permission on Friday for Iranian warships to transit the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, state media reported, after Israel described the move as a "provocation."

Earlier, an Egyptian foreign ministry official said the Iranian request was passed on to the defence ministry, which has to approve the passage of any warship through the canal.
His comments came a day after a canal official and a shipping agent said the request had been cancelled, at the prompting of the Egyptian government. An Iranian diplomat said administrative reasons where behind the delay.
Iran's official Fars new agency, quoting senior naval commanders, has said the ships are the 33,000-tonne refuelling and support vessel Kharg and the 1,500-tonne light patrol frigate Alvand, both British-built.
The Kharg has a crew of 250 and can carry up to three helicopters. The Alvand is armed with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iVQb0f94rXQhVm5t6YIrmiRKfGEA?docId=CNG.813ef66e17e778452f7c064dc19cb7db.d21


No not another flotilla I think, the sailors on these boats will have big bad guns men with machine guns and other "stuff" that the peace flotilla didn't.

Jeboa Safari

uprising2 wrote: »

"Egypt allows Iran warships to transit Suez: Mena
(AFP) – 16 hours ago
CAIRO — Egypt gave permission on Friday for Iranian warships to transit the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, state media reported, after Israel described the move as a "provocation."

Earlier, an Egyptian foreign ministry official said the Iranian request was passed on to the defence ministry, which has to approve the passage of any warship through the canal.
His comments came a day after a canal official and a shipping agent said the request had been cancelled, at the prompting of the Egyptian government. An Iranian diplomat said administrative reasons where behind the delay.
Iran's official Fars new agency, quoting senior naval commanders, has said the ships are the 33,000-tonne refuelling and support vessel Kharg and the 1,500-tonne light patrol frigate Alvand, both British-built.
The Kharg has a crew of 250 and can carry up to three helicopters. The Alvand is armed with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iVQb0f94rXQhVm5t6YIrmiRKfGEA?docId=CNG.813ef66e17e778452f7c064dc19cb7db.d21


No not another flotilla I think, the sailors on these boats will have big bad guns men with machine guns and other "stuff" that the peace flotilla didn't.

Israel could easily take them out if they wanted, presumably from the air. Do you support Iran here?

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Israel could easily take them out if they wanted, presumably from the air. Do you support Iran here?

What's supporting Iran got to do with it?

I support International law, do you?

The Convention of Constantinople was a treaty signed by Great Britain, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey on March 2, 1888. The signatories comprised all the great European powers at the time, and the treaty was interpreted as a guaranteed right of passage of all ships through the Suez Canal during war and peace.— Excerpted from Convention of Constantinople on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constantinople_Convention_of_the_Suez_Canal

ARTICLE I
The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.
Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.
The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What's supporting Iran got to do with it?

I support International law, do you?



Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constantinople_Convention_of_the_Suez_Canal

Just wondering. I think it's provocative and unnecessary. Do you approve of what they're doing, regardless of whether it's legal or not?

uprising2

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Israel could easily take them out if they wanted, presumably from the air. Do you support Iran here?

Yes Israel could easily take them out from air, land, sea or even from below the sea, but why should they?
What about all the "provocation" Iran has recieved by USS ships docking off their coast.
Iran and syria are allies, Iran has as much right as Israel and USA to use the canal, it's written in international law as bomber has shown, and 2 ships of this size are no threat to Israel, they are exercising their right and not being bullied by the zionist regime, if they (zionists) could just ignore the fact Iranian ships may sail up the canal and then head on to Syria I'm sure the whole thing would pass off without any incident and they'd stay a little while then sail on home without unleashing any nukes on Israel.

(Edit: And I was replying to Mahatma's post saying another flotilla, but the same personnell and craft used to slaughter the peace activists wouldn't do to these Iranian ships what they did to to humanitarian aid vessel)








Do you support Israel here?, WTF has any vessel sailing through the canal got to do with Israel, will the Iranian ships be sailing in Israel's stolen water?
And yes I do support Iran's right to use the canal, much more that I supported all the USS this and that that have used it on their way to kill many poor innocent people during planned deceptive wars.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Just wondering. I think it's provocative and unnecessary. Do you approve of what they're doing, regardless of whether it's legal or not?

It's provocation?,
how about this for provocation:

Yesterday, the United States military, along with over two dozen other countires, held practice operations just 20 miles outside of Iranian territorial waters.
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/features-mainmenu-220/iran-mainmenu-247/3389-war-ships-off-the-coast-of-iran

It all depends on your point of view I suppose, some can close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears "every" time Israel carries out an attrocity of one kind or another, others dont.

And PLEASE explain why and how it is "provocative", because I'll fill a post with link after link of bigger and much more numerous provocations by the zionist regime of Israel.
.

uprising2

"If I were an Arab leader I would NEVER make terms with Israel... that is natural: we have taken their country" - David Ben-Gurion, father of Israel.

Israel's Racism Breeds Hateful Atmosphere for American Muslims
Political Commentary by Tim King Salem-News.com





Israel is a land of immense prejudice, and there is nothing wrong with simply writing and speaking the truth of it. Until Israel's apartheid government is forced to change, as happened in South Africa and the US during the Civil War, the problems will continue.
Americans need to make their voices heard if they care about what is right in this world.
I have a growing number of Jewish friends and supporters and they are 100% peaceful and honest and ready and willing to do what it takes to bring about change, but their government is not exactly friendly toward that, as we see in the video accompanying this report from RTV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSlFR541Uoo

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february132011/jewish-racism-tk.php

gizmo

The "provocation" that has been mentioned repeatedly by Israel centers on the claim that the ships are transporting weapons to Hezbollah, it has nothing particularly to do with Iran or Syria as a state.

If this is true then Israel has every right to complain but, as was pointed out above, the canal is to remain open for all ships during peace or war. As yekahs said, anything else is going to be posturing ****e.

What is interesting, however, is whether or not Iran is actually transporting those weapons and if so, to what end?

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

The "provocation" that has been mentioned repeatedly by Israel centers on the claim that the ships are transporting weapons to Hezbollah, it has nothing particularly to do with Iran or Syria as a state.

If this is true then Israel has every right to complain but, as was pointed out above, the canal is to remain open for all ships during peace or war. As yekahs said, anything else is going to be posturing ****e.

What is interesting, however, is whether or not Iran is actually transporting those weapons and if so, to what end?

wtf? Not that I think it's likely that Iran would actually supply arms to anyone so openly why shouldn't Hezbollah be able to arm themselves for self-defense? Having the lunatic Zionist state next door is a virtual guarantee that another Dahiya attacking civilians is just around the corner.

Is this any better?

Amnesty International: Gaza white phosphorus shells were US made

White phosphorus bombs used by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip were produced and supplied by American arms manufacturers, according to an Amnesty International report that called for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel.
(...)
"All of the evidence points to the failure of America to exercise due oversight of what they sell to Israel, which is in breach of their own laws... which require that weapons will not be sold to a country where they will be misused. And the manner in which these weapons were used in Gaza is a war crime."



The human rights group said that weapons experts in Gaza found white phosphorus artillery shells marked M825 A1 – a US-made munition – throughout the coastal strip. The Times published photographic evidence that Israel was using the M825 A1 shells on January 8. At that time, Israeli military spokesmen denied that the weapon was being used, saying: "This is what we call a quiet shell – it has no explosives and no white phosphorus".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5792182.ece

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

wtf? Not that I think it's likely that Iran would actually supply arms to anyone so openly why shouldn't Hezbollah be able to arm themselves for self-defense? Having the lunatic Zionist state next door is a virtual guarantee that another Dahiya attacking civilians is just around the corner.

Is this any better?

Amnesty International: Gaza white phosphorus shells were US made


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5792182.ece

Iran has been openly supplying Hezbollah with financial aid, training and even enjoys the public backing of the Iranian parliament, it's not particularly a secret. The problem is that it hasn't always been for self-defense with numerous issues of them being the initial aggressor in incidents with the Israelis.

And no, I don't consider it better, in fact I consider the actions of both sides despicable.

uprising2

gizmo wrote: »

The "provocation" that has been mentioned repeatedly by Israel centers on the claim that the ships are transporting weapons to Hezbollah, it has nothing particularly to do with Iran or Syria as a state.

If this is true then Israel has every right to complain but, as was pointed out above, the canal is to remain open for all ships during peace or war. As yekahs said, anything else is going to be posturing ****e.

What is interesting, however, is whether or not Iran is actually transporting those weapons and if so, to what end?

Well if Iran has armed Hezbolla with 60000000000000000000000000 million or so rockets we've all heard about without using the canal, 2 ships of arms ain't really that big a deal, maybe their just going to play wargames off the coast of syria or something like that, sure all democracies do that these days.