# U.S., Israel talk tough ahead of Iran nuclear report



## Chelydra (Nov 5, 2011)

> updated 11/4/2011 8:08:18 PM ET 2011-11-05T00:08:18
> *A senior U.S. military official said on Friday Iran had become the biggest threat to the United States and Israel's president said the military option to stop the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons was nearer. *
> 
> *Both sides have stepped up their rhetoric before the expected release next week of a report by the U.N. atomic watchdog. Sources briefed on the document said it would support allegations that Iran built a large steel container for carrying out tests with high explosives that could be used in nuclear weapons.*
> ...





Finally the cafe now has a decent injection of NEW news to mull over.


On topic it seems things are heating up and Iran is not the innocent little country that some people believe it to be.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 5, 2011)

seems like isreal wants to set it off, good luck, leave the US out of it.


----------



## Chappz316 (Nov 5, 2011)

"Iran has become the biggest threat to the united states" - That's what it says but all i'm reading is.

"They're the people we can set up easiest to keep our perpetual state of war going to earn money for our war profiteers"


----------



## Zaru (Nov 5, 2011)

"Biggest threat to the united states"

Lol USA, try to bullshit people with that again when Iran can actually directly strike the US.

In fact, the ones doing the most damage to the US and its citizens have US citizenship themselves. And tax exemptions.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

Chappz316 said:


> "Iran has become the biggest threat to the united states" - That's what it says but all i'm reading is.
> 
> "They're the people we can set up easiest to keep our perpetual state of war going to earn money for our war profiteers"



Military Action =/= Invasion

Israel managed to destroy Iraq's nuclear capacities without any lengthy war.


----------



## Oil Can (Nov 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> "Biggest threat to the united states"
> 
> Lol USA, try to bullshit people with that again when Iran can actually directly strike the US.
> 
> In fact, the ones doing the most damage to the US and its citizens have US citizenship themselves. And tax exemptions.



Agreed. The best strategy any army can have is to wait for its enemy to be able to do significant damage to it. Its like that old saying goes; "The best defense is an offense that can't do anything until its too late."


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

LOL I'd like to see Israel try. Iran's nuclear facilities are surrounded by S300 anti aircraft missiles, so again the Zionist are talking out of their asses.



Saufsoldat said:


> Military Action =/= Invasion
> 
> Israel managed to destroy Iraq's nuclear capacities without any lengthy war.



Iraq didn't have any S300 anti aircraft missiles. Trust me the IAF will be nothing more than target practice if they decided to invade Iran's airspace.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 5, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> Agreed. The best strategy any army can have is to wait for its enemy to be able to do significant damage to it. Its like that old saying goes; "The best defense is an offense that can't do anything until its too late."



Iran is not an "enemy" of the USA. They're not exactly on good terms, but can you imagine how many years it would take for Iran to build up to even remotely be a threat to the US? How absolutely insane (even for religious nutbag standards) they'd have to be to actually attempt attacking them? I mean not even the soviets attempted that. Countries abide to different rules than terrorists. Ultimately, the religious leaders have the say in Iran anyway, and as full of shit as they are, they probably have no interest in risking their comfortable, warm seats by throwing a grenade into the largest hornet nest of the world.

No, this is all about Israel and the USA's oil fuckbuddies in the region. 

Or is there any evidence for Iran wanting to become a threat to the US that I'm missing?

You have to realize that with your logic, anyone could attack any small country that doesn't fully like them. Because, you know, they might become a threat in 200 years.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

By the way what would Iran gain from attacking the US. Iran is a threat to Israel not the US, threat to Israel =/= threat to US. The politicians only make it seem as if they're the same because they're being controlled by Zionist corporates/bankers. 



> "I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
> 
> *Ariel Sharon*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Iraq didn't have any S300 anti aircraft missiles. Trust me the IAF will be nothing more than target practice if they decided to invade Iran's airspace.



The technology matters little if the people operating it are inexperienced and incompetent. Alternatively, Mossad could just assassinate all the scientists working on the nuclear program.



DragonFist5 said:


> By the way what would Iran gain from attacking the US. Iran is a threat to Israel not the US, threat to Israel =/= threat to US. The politicians only make it seem as if they're the same because they're being controlled by Zionist corporates/bankers.



What would Iran gain from attacking Israel? Nothing, but we're talking about a theocracy, not a sane government.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The technology matters little if the people operating it are inexperienced and incompetent. Alternatively, Mossad could just assassinate all the scientists working on the nuclear program.



Actually the Iranians are smarter than you give them credit for, Russia refused to sell them their S300 missiles and they still managed to produce/test them successfully, on their own. Assassinate LOL? And this would be achieved easily how??? You might as well have said Ahmadinejad gets assassinated. 





> What would Iran gain from attacking Israel? Nothing, but we're talking about a theocracy, not a sane government.



A Palestinian state.


----------



## Herekic (Nov 5, 2011)

I love it when the media pumps these countries as some sort of threat to the US


it would take the entire ME to even give the US amusment.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

Herekic said:


> I love it when the media pumps these countries as some sort of threat to the US
> 
> 
> it would take the entire ME to even give the US amusment.



The US is broke anyway, isn't it funny how everytime there's a political problem somewhere around the world the US gets involved while China doesn't. meanwhile the US is having economical issues while China is the worlds fastest growing economy.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Actually the Iranians are smarter than you give them credit for, Russia refused to sell them their S300 missiles and they still managed to produce/test them successfully, on their own. Assassinate LOL? And this would be achieved easily how??? You might as well have said Ahmadinejad gets assassinated.



Why kill Ahmadinejad? He has no say in Iranian policy.

I think you underestimate the level at which Israeli intelligence penetrates its surrounding countries.



> A Palestinian state.



I asked what *Iran* has to gain from it, which is nothing. Iran doesn't give two shits and a fuck about the Palestinians, no country in the middle-east does.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why kill Ahmadinejad? He has no say in Iranian policy.
> 
> I think you underestimate the level at which Israeli intelligence penetrates its surrounding countries.



erm...He's the president of Iran

One problem: Iran doesn't border Israel, killing someone who is greatly protected by the Iranian government isn't exactly a walk in the park.





> I asked what *Iran* has to gain from it, which is nothing. Iran doesn't give two shits and a fuck about the Palestinians, no country in the middle-east does.



Turkey, Egypt, Hezbollah and nearly every other member of the Arab league care about Palestinians. 

You should watch this:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYT0PBPniY&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## DremolitoX (Nov 5, 2011)

Man...fuck Israel, and fuck the US for being Israel's bitch. If they want to go fight Iran they should do it alone.


----------



## Hinataeye (Nov 5, 2011)

Don't worry, all I see is Iran's nuclear facility is underground underneath a Mountain, they are going to nuke Israel I guarantee it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> erm...He's the president of Iran



Yeah, just the president. Not the head of state, not even second in command.



> One problem: Iran doesn't border Israel, killing someone who is greatly protected by the Iranian government isn't exactly a walk in the park.



And yet . .



> Turkey, Egypt, Hezbollah and nearly every other member of the Arab league care about Palestinians.



No, they don't. Palestine and anti-semitism are nice, political devices to divert people's attention away from actual issues. Nothing more, nothing less.



Hinataeye said:


> Don't worry, all I see is Iran's nuclear facility is underground underneath a Mountain, they are going to nuke Israel I guarantee it.



Oh look, another genocidal nazi.


----------



## Oil Can (Nov 5, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> "I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
> 
> Ariel Sharon



You must be pretty happy about this considering you are Jewish and are thereby one of the millions that control the US government.

Though do you think you can give me a link to where you got this quote? I would like to uncover the Jewish conspiracy so I can help convince people to do what we all know needs to be done.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Yeah, just the president. Not the head of state, not even second in command.



He is the president thus the *political* head of state. The ayatollah's job is to represent a board of Islamic scholars which are in charge of maintaining an Islamic republic in Iran. 






> And yet . .



interesting. But Iran must have improved its national security since then,
 which is why Israel is now looking at taking military action against them. 





> No, they don't. Palestine and anti-semitism are nice, political devices to divert people's attention away from actual issues. Nothing more, nothing less.



*"*Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed from bombs that have rained down on them from Israel," he said during an official visit to South Africa. "You sleep at night peacefully and secure, yet Palestinians can't find a single trace of peace in Palestine.*"*
*
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan*


*"*People around the world are fully aware of what is happening in the occupied Palestine. Women and children are being murdered and adolescents taken prisoner. Houses are being demolished and farms burnt down. Yet, when the people of Palestine resist these conditions, they are accused of terrorism. At the same time, the occupier, which does not abide by any principles and terror is part of its pronounced and routine policy enjoys the support of the previously mentioned governments. Let me be blunter. State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism.*"* 

*Mahmoud Ahmadinejad*


*"*Among them, there were Muslims, Christians, and Jews living together. But then violent organizations came, bringing with them many large groups of people from various parts of the world to Palestine.*"* 

*Hassan Nasrallah* 


*"*The Camp David agreement is not a sacred thing and is always open to discussion with what would benefit the region and the case of fair peace and we could make a change if needed,*"*

*Essam Sharaf*




Ehandz said:


> Though do you think you can give me a link to where you got this quote? I would like to uncover the Jewish conspiracy so I can help convince people to do what we all know needs to be done.



Sure


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The technology matters little if the people operating it are inexperienced and incompetent. Alternatively, Mossad could just assassinate all the scientists working on the nuclear program.
> 
> 
> 
> What would Iran gain from attacking Israel? Nothing, but we're talking about a theocracy, not a sane government.



yeah, don't answer his question with a question.  he asked what does iran gain from attacking US.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

^
No point wasting our time. The simple answer is: he can't answer that question.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

The answer was implicit, for any non-retard to see.

They have nothing to gain, but that never stopped mad islamofascists from doing anything.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2011)

Say Israel is destroyed, what will Iran do afterwards? Since their foreign policy agenda seems to rotate only around this issue.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The answer was implicit, for any non-retard to see.
> 
> They have nothing to gain, but that never stopped mad islamofascists from doing anything.



Do you mean AlQaeda?? Bin Laden hated the US because anyone in his position would have hated them, not that killing civilians is justified but the US government had everything coming. They kept the Saudi king in power who was nothing more than their bitch. They supported illegal settlements on Palestinian land and watched as those zionist killed Palestinians one by one!

Don't get me wrong Bin Laden wasn't good guy but he became the way he was due to, how the US acts towards his people and his country. They imposed a King in his country and made sure that this king would be invincible. They allowed and justify the mass murder members of his own faith.



mr_shadow said:


> Say Israel is destroyed, what will Iran do afterwards? Since their foreign policy agenda seems to rotate only around this issue.



It would have a new friend in the region: Palestine!


----------



## hyakku (Nov 5, 2011)

Lmao the forums are getting more awesome again. This dragon fist guy is awesome. Also, I'm not sure if you don't follow the news, but a bus full of Iranian scientists were blown up, followed by a nuclear scientist being gunned down. Lets not forget stuxnet either. 

If you're going to talk about shit, get it right. Lmao, Israel couldn't assassinate high ranking Iranian executives. You finally have made me laugh hard enough to move out of my warm spot in bed and get the day started.

Also, what would Iran gain from attacking America? Greater regional clout / legitimacy? With a nuclear bomb they could cripple the economic balance of power by attacking an urban epicenter on a coast line. Increase regional insecurity and decrease global confidence in Americas enforcement abilities (because no matter how many times you all put your fingers in your ear and try to ignore the facts on the ground, the majority of the world still approaches America to be the arbiter / enforcer [see: Libya for only one recent example]). Encourage other actors that may be contemplating pursuing more hostile policies towrds the west and embolden them?

But yea, I guess like that other asshat says, much better to wait for them to be able to launch a nuke at America or Israel, then we should do something. Lmao, where do some of you learn things?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Do you mean AlQaeda?? Bin Laden hated the US because anyone in his position would have hated them, *not that killing civilians is justified but the US government had everything coming.*



"Not that racism is justified but blacks had everything coming". Yeah, doesn't sound like a contradiction in the least.



> They kept the Saudi king in power who was nothing more than their bitch. They supported illegal settlements on Palestinian land and watched as those zionist killed Palestinians one by one!



Right, soon there won't be any Palestinian left. Oh wait, their population is floroushing and they have a better standard of living than Egypt.



> Don't get me wrong Bin Laden wasn't good guy but he became the way he was due to, how the US acts towards his people and his country. They imposed a King in his country and made sure that this king would be invincible. They allowed and justify the mass murder members of his own faith.



Bin Laden never had an issue with muslims getting killed, Al-Qaeda did that frequently. Also the Bin Laden family had very close ties to the Saudi royal family, so you can stop the bullshitting. He never had a problem with the monarchy until it rejected him and his band of terrorists in favor of US support during the gulf war. He was butthurt that the Saudi King values tanks and soldiers higher than some band of bearded buffoons.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 5, 2011)

I still don't get how Israel is allowed to keep quiet about their Nuclear program while Iran can't.  "Iran's a bunch of wackos" is not a proper answer.

I think it's time Israel stops getting treated like a baby.  It's a grown man now, fearing its safety when it has one of if not the strongest military power in the ME is a bit far-fetched.  Anyone that nukes Israel will basically paint a big red target on their ass toward the non-ME world.  Iran is not stupid enough to do that.


----------



## Vom Osten (Nov 5, 2011)

This thread is hilarious, honestly guys, keep it up.

It's cute that people here think the Iranians would last particularly long against the US/Israel, but realistically speaking, that would a very short war as the Iranians don't have anywhere near the capabilities to strike effectively at either party. 

An airstrike against Iranian nuclear targets would lead to a tit-for-tat response by both parties, but the Iranians wouldn't dare to escalate, as any actual war would lead to the downfall of the theocracy. Wars keep governments in power only if they win them, and there isn't a chance in hell that Iran would walk away from this one with anything less than a humiliating defeat.

As for the Arabs loving their Palestinian brethren, that's simply bullshit. They're nothing but political pawns, which is easy to see considering how Palestinians are treated in Arab countries.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 5, 2011)

afgpride said:


> I still don't get how Israel is allowed to keep quiet about their Nuclear program while Iran can't.  "Iran's a bunch of wackos" is not a proper answer.



Firstly, Israel doesn't threaten other countries with annihilation. Secondly, Israel has nuclear weapons. Nothing you can do about it now.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Firstly, Israel doesn't threaten other countries with annihilation.


This is one misconception, Ahmadinejad didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map as a lot of people here have said before.  He said "The Imam said this regime must vanish from the page of time".  The _actual_ context of it was, and this is from his point of view, as the Soviet Union disappeared, so will the Zionist regime and humanity will be liberated.   He wants a change of government and for the Zionism to disappear, not necessarily "wipe Israel off the map" like the media has been feeding everyone.  His foreign minister even said he was talking about the regime.  It's just a case of comments getting twisted and turned for propaganda.  There's been lots of cases where his words have been misconstrued or outright fabricated, and it's no surprise when it's so easy to do so.

Now obviously Iran is no friend of the U.S. nor Israel, but twisting the words of a leader to paint an image should be left for the yes-men to eat up, not people in intelligent discussions about the issue.  




> Israel has nuclear weapons. Nothing you can do about it now.


Well then I guess when/if Iran finishes up, there will be nothing to do about it either. :\


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 5, 2011)

So Dragonfist, you ARE a SagemodePrinz dupe!


----------



## Zaru (Nov 5, 2011)

afgpride said:


> Well then I guess when/if Iran finishes up, there will be nothing to do about it either. :\



Which is why they're trying to stop that from happening in the first place.


----------



## hyakku (Nov 5, 2011)

afgpride said:


> I still don't get how Israel is allowed to keep quiet about their Nuclear program while Iran can't.  "Iran's a bunch of wackos" is not a proper answer.
> 
> I think it's time Israel stops getting treated like a baby.  It's a grown man now, fearing its safety when it has one of if not the strongest military power in the ME is a bit far-fetched.  Anyone that nukes Israel will basically paint a big red target on their ass toward the non-ME world.  Iran is not stupid enough to do that.



Well you'd get it if you stopped wasting time thinking about Israel and actually took a millisecond to learn. Shit, google it. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea aren't. 

I think it's time Iran stops getting treated like a baby. It's a grown man now, maybe it shouldn't sign fucking treaties it doesn't intend to uphold.

Edit: Also the whole, Iranian government is controlled by religious people who have as part of their stated goal the destruction of an entire race of people. There's that too.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 5, 2011)

hyakku said:


> Well you'd get it if you stopped wasting time thinking about Israel and actually took a millisecond to learn. Shit, google it. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea aren't.


Maybe I should have rephrased better.  I meant more in terms of why Iran is being feared more for their growing nuclear power when a country like Israel is suspected of having them but keeps quiet about it.  Sure they signed the NPT, but objections should be entirely focused on them violating the treaty rather than simply them gaining Nuclear power.  India and Pakistan have been hostile forever, they haven't bombed each other.  North Korea is looked at as a wacko-state and they haven't pulled the trigger either.  A lot of the countries that are part of the NPT have and continue to violate it, yet they barely get so much as a second look.  Iran just happens to violate the safeguards agreement part of it which is taken more seriously.  

The bottom line is, nukes are used for military stability rather than actual weapons in this day and age.  Iran wants to gain that stability.  Point taken though.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 5, 2011)

> This is one misconception, Ahmadinejad didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map as a lot of people here have said before. He said "The Imam said this regime must vanish from the page of time".


Which is basically the same thing, it just doesn't sound as bad. Ahmadinejad wants Israel (and the US) gone completely.



> _They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan._





> The actual context of it was, and this is from his point of view, as the Soviet Union disappeared, so will the Zionist regime and humanity will be liberated. He wants a change of government and for the Zionism to disappear, not necessarily "wipe Israel off the map" like the media has been feeding everyone.


When it comes to Ahmadinejad, Zionist regime means Israel. He never actually mentions the country by name or in any other way recognizes it.



> _This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world._





> His foreign minister even said he was talking about the regime. It's just a case of comments getting twisted and turned for propaganda. There's been lots of cases where his words have been misconstrued or outright fabricated, and it's no surprise when it's so easy to do so.



Here's a continuation:



> _The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation._



Of course, even if he were only speaking of the Israeli government, to destroy that is to destroy Israel.


----------



## Syed (Nov 5, 2011)

I'd say let Iran have nukes, assuming they are developing some. Even if they weren't developing nuclear technology Israel would have found some other excuse to try to attack them. They're getting too powerful and aren't in the USA's pocket after all.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 5, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> Which is basically the same thing, it just doesn't sound as bad. Ahmadinejad wants Israel (and the US) gone completely.


No, it isn't the same.  He wants the influence of Israel and U.S. and their overall control gone, that doesn't mean he wants to fucking bomb their people out of existence.



> When it comes to Ahmadinejad, Zionist regime means Israel. He never actually mentions the country by name or in any other way recognizes it.


That's because he views the Israeli government as a Zionist regime and wants _them_ out of power.  At the very worst he would escort the Israeli's elsewhere (if he somehow takes over Israel), but he wouldn't actually nuke them without being nuked first, which isn't happening.  



> Here's a continuation:
> 
> Of course, even if he were only speaking of the Israeli government, to destroy that is to destroy Israel.


It's still not remotely the same as nuking all of its people.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 5, 2011)

Here we go again.......


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 5, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The shah's government signed it, not the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's like saying the United States should honor agreements made by the British governors of the 13 Colonies.



Did not know this...


----------



## Syed (Nov 5, 2011)

@Shinigami Perv

U hit the nail on the head man. Seems to me this is gonna be another Iraq war.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> "Not that racism is justified but blacks had everything coming". Yeah, doesn't sound like a contradiction in the least.



u have a lovely logic system there, if u can't do it to blacks, u can't do it to anybody , the fuck? 

i have a good idea, germany go entangle themselves in this shit


----------



## Oil Can (Nov 5, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> u have a lovely logic system there, if u can't do it to blacks, u can't do it to anybody , the fuck?



Shouldn't we treat everybody exactly the same?


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 5, 2011)

afgpride said:


> This is one misconception, Ahmadinejad didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map as a lot of people here have said before.  He said "The Imam said this regime must vanish from the page of time".  The _actual_ context of it was, and this is from his point of view, as the Soviet Union disappeared, so will the Zionist regime and humanity will be liberated.   He wants a change of government and for the Zionism to disappear, not necessarily "wipe Israel off the map" like the media has been feeding everyone.  His foreign minister even said he was talking about the regime.  It's just a case of comments getting twisted and turned for propaganda.  There's been lots of cases where his words have been misconstrued or outright fabricated, and it's no surprise when it's so easy to do so.
> 
> Now obviously Iran is no friend of the U.S. nor Israel, but twisting the words of a leader to paint an image should be left for the yes-men to eat up, not people in intelligent discussions about the issue.



Actions speak louder then words and Iran is our principle enemy, arming all of our direct enemies in what is pure aggression. They . Playing the tired old "omg he was misquoted" card doesn't cut it. We have every right to act against a state that takes completely unjustifiable aggression towards us. If Iran left us alone and didn't take these aggressive acts against us, perhaps our strike wouldn't be justifiable.

And to people saying this "omg US don't fight for Israelzzz!" nonsense, there's no precedent to support this. The US may give Israel money (that's re-invested back into the US economy) but they've never fought a war for Israel, unlike the Arabs. US has spilt its own blood to protect the Arabs from Saddam Hussein and regularly fights their wars for them, the most recent example being Libya. So don't worry about the US being involved unless the Arabs start demanding it, not Israel. 

Oh and Dragonfist, Iran does not have S-300's nor anything similar to it. Please attempt to provide a legitimate source for this. P.S.: Iran _claiming_ it has such weapons does not constitute a reliable source, as the Iranian regime regularly lies and exaggerates its military capabilities (See the Saqeh Fighter or that target drone they claimed could fire cruise missiles).

Currently the best strategic SAM in Iran's arsenal is their version of the S-200, a system Israel regularly gets around in Syria.


----------



## Nyasi (Nov 5, 2011)

DremolitoX said:


> Man...fuck Israel, and fuck the US for being Israel's bitch. If they want to go fight Iran they should do it alone.



I second this.


----------



## Flowergirl (Nov 5, 2011)

the Holy Bible says that the Jews are the chosen people of GOD himself if you go against the Jews, you are going against GOD. I hope the Iran KNOWS that


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2011)

Its probably good that China and Russia are also against Iranian nukes, althoug they express it in kinder words. I think the Chinese position is something like "the tension between Iran and the western world should be solved with dialogue and not by threats from either party".

Captain Obvious quote? Yeah, but it is better than "leave Iran alone, darned imperialists!".


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 5, 2011)

Flowergirl said:


> the Holy Bible says that the Jews are the chosen people of GOD himself if you go against the Jews, you are going against GOD. I hope the Iran KNOWS that



 i lol'ed i almost pissed my pants


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 5, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i lol'ed i almost pissed my pants



Well the person is some sort of dupe created today, likely by the butthurt members. I imagine you'll pretend otherwise though.


----------



## Geralt of Rivia (Nov 5, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> Shouldn't we treat everybody exactly the same?



Can we also treat flies and mosquitos with equality? 

Just wondering.


----------



## DremolitoX (Nov 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Well the person is some sort of dupe created today, likely by the butthurt members. I imagine you'll pretend otherwise though.



The set they chose is rather curious. Why would they have some baby's eye as an avatar (something that's supposed to be tender/cute or whatever) but as a sig have some faggy looking jew mistreating some muslim woman (supposed to be vile to the average person)


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The answer was implicit, for any non-retard to see.
> 
> They have nothing to gain, but that never stopped mad islamofascists from doing anything.



 Yes, I remember the time the Iraqi army knocked down the twin towers like it was yesterday.
Attacks on the US by Muslim governments is a common occurrence and recorded throughout history.


----------



## kingcombo (Nov 5, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> seems like isreal wants to set it off, good luck, leave the US out of it.



You wish. US wants to bend over for isreal every chance they get.


----------



## Blue (Nov 5, 2011)

Simmer children, a military strike against Iran is against America's interests, and the State Department is almost certainly putting pressure on Israel not to blow their load.

The reasoning being is the American strategy re: Iran is to wait for the Iranian people to realize their leaders are fucking insane and kill them - or allow us to kill them, ala Gaddafi - (they're well on the road to this already) and Israel laying waste to Iran (specifically, their nuclear program, which enjoys strong nationalist support among the Iranian population) would almost certainly align the vast majority of Iranians behind their government.

Personally I'd support an Israeli surgical strike (which would easily succeed, probably with no Israeli losses, by the way) because Iran with nukes is a nightmare that shouldn't be allowed to even be thought of, worse even than another 100 years of a pariah lunatic state.
The State Dept probably disagrees on the grounds we could negotiate disarmament once Iran is sane again, but who the fuck knows what Ahmadinejad will do once he has a big red button?


----------



## Zaru (Nov 5, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> but who the fuck knows what Ahmadinejad will do once he has a big red button?



He? Not much. The president isn't that powerful. The "democracy" in Iran doesn't go very far.


----------



## Raiden (Nov 5, 2011)

We shall hire Zaru to take out the enemy from within.


----------



## Blue (Nov 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> He? Not much. The president isn't that powerful. The "democracy" in Iran doesn't go very far.



Well, I use Ahmadinejad (it's very cool that Firefox's spell check knows his name) as a euphemism for the Supreme Leader and the rest of the crazies. Ahmmy tried being more than a codpiece for the theocracy a few months back and failed miserably.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> He? Not much. The president isn't that powerful. The "democracy" in Iran doesn't go very far.



Speaking of the fact that the Supreme Leader is a higher authority than the president, who is lined up to succeed Khamenei once he "reunites with God"? Any hopes we can get a (relatively) liberal Supreme Leader?

Khamenei is 72 at present, so not super old. But old enogh that there should positioning going on for the event of his demise.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> He? Not much. The president isn't that powerful. The "democracy" in Iran doesn't go very far.



While the Iranian "presidency" isn't that powerful, Ahmadinejad is. He has made a  coalition with the Revolutionary Guard, which now enacts de facto control over the country (not only militarily and politically but also economically due to its mass corruption). Khameini has lost control of the force meant to protect him, as the IRGC is far more attracted to Ahmadinejad's as A.) He looks the other way to the IRGC's corrupt accumulation of Iranian wealth and B.) He's a staunch supporter of more militant/imperialist foreign policy. Though that isn't to say Khameini isn't a terrorist douchebag who should burn with the rest of the geezers oppressing Iran.

Khameini is no Khomeini, I'd reckon these days he has less control over the affairs of the country then the Ahmadinejad-IRGC coalition. This is really a reason why the tired old phrase "Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead" really isn't accurate at all. Khameini is the one becoming the figurehead.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 5, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> While the Iranian "presidency" isn't that powerful, Ahmadinejad is. He has made a  coalition with the Revolutionary Guard, which now enacts de facto control over the country (not only militarily and politically but also economically due to its mass corruption). Khameini has lost control of the force meant to protect him, as the IRGC is far more attracted to Ahmadinejad's as A.) He looks the other way to the IRGC's corrupt accumulation of Iranian wealth and B.) He's a staunch supporter of more militant/imperialist foreign policy. Though that isn't to say Khameini isn't a terrorist douchebag who should burn with the rest of the geezers oppressing Iran.
> 
> Khameini is no Khomeini, I'd reckon these days he has less control over the affairs of the country then the Ahmadinejad-IRGC coalition. This is really a reason why the tired old phrase "Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead" really isn't accurate at all. Khameini is the one becoming the figurehead.



Didn't Khameini reassert himself and Ahmadinejad recently lose a power struggle or something?


----------



## Blue (Nov 5, 2011)

hcheng02 said:


> Didn't Khameini reassert himself and Ahmadinejad recently lose a power struggle or something?



Yeah, Ahmadinejad tried to remove some incompetent douchebag that had the support of the theocracy from power recently (something he was well within his rights as president to do) and Khameini reinstated the guy instantly. Had the effect of emasculating Ammy significantly in the eyes of the powers that be.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 5, 2011)

Anyone know why Iran is US public enemy #1?
There are countries with worse human rights.
There are many countries who are stronger.
What are the sanctions for?

And countries don't use nuclear weapons, they're a war _deterant_.
So I don't see the threat.
And it is definitely hypocritical to say that other countries can't have nukes when you do.

Anyone watch that Larry King interview with Ahmajinedad? (It's on YouTube)



mr_shadow said:


> Speaking of the fact that the Supreme Leader is a higher authority than the president, who is lined up to succeed Khamenei once he "reunites with God"? Any hopes we can get a (relatively) liberal Supreme Leader?
> 
> Khamenei is 72 at present, so not super old. But old enogh that there should positioning going on for the event of his demise.



The Supreme Leader is like the Shia Pope...in theory another scholar should take his place...but Khamenei was the 1st, so...


----------



## Chelydra (Nov 6, 2011)

You do know that these other countries are irrelevant to us because they cannot attack us or have little to no interest in doing so. Iran on the other hand not only has the ability they also have the desire to attack the US or Israel either with conventional weapons or pass off a nuclear weapon to a terror group to do their dirty work for them. (Pakistan would likely do this too, but its easier to STOP a country from getting nukes than taking them away)


----------



## First Tsurugi (Nov 6, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> Anyone know why Iran is US public enemy #1?
> There are countries with worse human rights.
> There are many countries who are stronger.
> What are the sanctions for?



Iran is undermining our interests across the entire region of the Middle East.
There may be countries that are more oppressive but they at least generally keep to themselves.



> And countries don't use nuclear weapons, they're a war _deterant_.
> So I don't see the threat.



The deterrent aspect is still a problem. If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons they would feel comfortable enough to be more daring and overt than they already are because they have that backing them up.



> And it is definitely hypocritical to say that other countries can't have nukes when you do.



Not when those countries are radical Islamic theocracies.


----------



## ashher (Nov 6, 2011)

Its funny to see guys rationalizing Israel's (and US's) attacking of Iran because Iran *might* attack them. According to this 'logic', Iran has the full right to attack Israel right now, because Israel is *definitely* gonna attack them. The hypocricy is so blatant that the whole thing has become a farce. The country which has been issued most warning from United Nation's nuclear power monitoring agencies is Israel, and it has done nothing more than shit on them. So Israel gaining nuclear weapon(which everybody knows they already have) is not a problem, because its not the people of great USA who are gonna suffer from Israeli weapons, its gonna be the middle eastern muslims, like in Iran. They are not to be counted as human beings at all, so nothing to worry about.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> Its funny to see guys rationalizing Israel's (and US's) attacking of Iran because Iran *might* attack them. According to this 'logic', Iran has the full right to attack Israel right now, because Israel is *definitely* gonna attack them. The hypocricy is so blatant that the whole thing has become a farce. The country which has been issued most warning from United Nation's nuclear power monitoring agencies is Israel, and it has done nothing more than shit on them. So Israel gaining nuclear weapon(which everybody knows they already have) is not a problem, because its not the people of great USA who are gonna suffer from Israeli weapons, its gonna be the middle eastern muslims, like in Iran. They are not to be counted as human beings at all, so nothing to worry about.



Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty, Iran did. So Iran is bound by international law not to develop nukes.

Besides, Iran is a dictatorship and I can't put enough emphasize on that. Theocracies and dictatorships shouldn't have nukes period.


----------



## Squall Leonhart (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> Its funny to see guys rationalizing Israel's (and US's) attacking of Iran because Iran *might* attack them.



You make it seem like it didn't already happen for years now with their proxy forces.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 6, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> The Supreme Leader is like the Shia Pope...in theory another scholar should take his place...but Khamenei was the 1st, so...



Not exactly. He does not rule over all Shia in the world. A better comparison would be to a Patriarch in Orthodox Christianity, althoug not a perfect match.

The "pope" of Shias is the Imam. These are descendants of Fatima and Ali and therefore heirs to Muhammad. Shia hold the Imam to be the rightful ruler of all Muslims in the world.

Unfortunately the 12th Imam mysteriously vanished in the 9th century without leaving any children. Shia think he is still alive (sustained by God) but living unrecognized in a secret location until Judgement Day. Regardless, for practical purposes he might as well be dead.

The line of Imams being broken (or on hold), Shia have to look elsewhere for leadership. There is an idea that most lay people are not able to understand Sharia by themselves. So you should turn to an older, distinguished scholar and take him (it's always a "him" as far as I know) as your rolemodel and teacher.

The highest-ranking scholars seem to often enogh, not sure if always, come from the house of Muhammad. The Imams were only the main branch of the family, there are multiple side branches that extend from the daughters or younger brothers of the main branch. Not as fanchy as the Imam branch, but it still counts as being a relative of the The Prophet.

The more famous of these Grand Ayatollah might have thousands or millions of "disciples". In theory it is completely free to chose which Grand Ayatollah you want to be your role model, althoug in practice many families collectively decide on one that they all follow, and then go on to follow the best student of that person once the GA dies.

I imagine that people tend to go to a Grand Ayatollah who lives close to them. So many Iranians would have Ali Khamenei as their role model. But there are also several who follow Ali Sistani from neighbouring Iraq. Khamenei's position as Supreme Leader does not make it mandatory for Iranian Shias to use him as their example. It's two separate functions held by the same man.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Oh and Dragonfist, Iran does not have S-300's nor anything similar to it. Please attempt to provide a legitimate source for this. P.S.: Iran _claiming_ it has such weapons does not constitute a reliable source, as the Iranian regime regularly lies and exaggerates its military capabilities (See the Saqeh Fighter or that target drone they claimed could fire cruise missiles).
> 
> Currently the best strategic SAM in Iran's arsenal is their version of the S-200, a system Israel regularly gets around in Syria.



Nope, Iran has released an air defense system known as Mersad (ambush in persian). Its is designed to trail and hit "any enemy aircraft at a distance of 70 to 150 kilometers (40 to 90 miles).




If Israel seriously believes that Iran's bluffing, then let them send their airforce into Iran. Lets see how long their planes will remain in the sky.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Nope, Iran has released an air defense system known as Mersad (ambush in persian). Its is designed to trail and hit "any enemy aircraft at a distance of 70 to 150 kilometers (40 to 90 miles).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Megaharrison: "Provide a source that doesn't just consist of Iran claiming something"

You: "Here's two articles of Iran claiming something"


----------



## bullsh3t (Nov 6, 2011)

US should take a back seat on this like it did in Libya that way people won't bitch to the US as much.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Megaharrison: "Provide a source that doesn't just consist of Iran claiming something"
> 
> You: "Here's two articles of Iran claiming something"



Its been confirmed by multiple, military generals/ so we can safely presume that it's true. Since Iran made the weapons you'd expect them to confirm it, you wouldn't expect Finland to confirm  the news.

Here's another article on the air defense system:


Like I've said if Israel is willing to take a gamble and attack Iran's nucleur facilities which are well hidden (underground). They could go right ahead and try!


----------



## Zaru (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Like I've said if Israel is willing to take a gamble and attack Iran's nucleur facilities which are well hidden (underground). They could go right ahead and try!



Israel isn't "gambling", they likely have a thorough intelligence network there.

And well, forgive us for not always taking what Iran says at face value, considering they blatantly photoshopped missiles before


----------



## Blue (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Here's a Wikipedia article on the air defense system:



You've been claiming that the Mersad is based on the S-300, which is an antiquated but moderately capable system. 

This article claims it's based on the Hawk, which is 1960s-era garbage. That is actually much more credible.

The S-300 is 1980s Soviet tech, which is still considerably beyond the ability of Iran to engineer, let alone improve. That's not even considering the serious upgrades the S-300 has received to make it a credible threat in today's battlespace.


----------



## Son of Goku (Nov 6, 2011)

Chelydra said:


> On topic it seems things are heating up and Iran is not the innocent little country that some people believe it to be.



What country is? Israel? USA? :rofl


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> You've been claiming that the Mersad is based on the S-300, which is an antiquated but moderately capable system.
> 
> This article claims it's based on the Hawk, which is 1960s-era garbage. That is actually much more credible.
> 
> The S-300 is 1980s Soviet tech, which is still considerably beyond the ability of Iran to engineer, let alone improve. That's not even considering the serious upgrades the S-300 has received to make it a credible threat in today's battlespace.



Oah sorry the article hasn't been updated, here's a more rescent article about the new generations of Mersad:


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> Its funny to see guys rationalizing Israel's (and US's) attacking of Iran because Iran *might* attack them. According to this 'logic', Iran has the full right to attack Israel right now, because Israel is *definitely* gonna attack them. The hypocricy is so blatant that the whole thing has become a farce. The country which has been issued most warning from United Nation's nuclear power monitoring agencies is Israel, and it has done nothing more than shit on them. So Israel gaining nuclear weapon(which everybody knows they already have) is not a problem, because its not the people of great USA who are gonna suffer from Israeli weapons, its gonna be the middle eastern muslims, like in Iran. They are not to be counted as human beings at all, so nothing to worry about.



We are allowed to strike at Iran because they undertake unprovoked aggressive acts against us, such as arming, sponsoring, funding, and directly commanding terrorist groups which attack us. On the other hand, Iran;s actions constitute clear aggression so the comparison with Israel is inaccurate.



			
				Dragonfist5 said:
			
		

> Its been confirmed by multiple, military generals/ so we can safely presume that it's true. Since Iran made the weapons you'd expect them to confirm it, you wouldn't expect Finland to confirm the news.
> 
> Here's a Wikipedia article on the air defense system:
> 
> You might also want to watch this:


----------



## Blue (Nov 6, 2011)

Can't wait for Israel to fuck Iran sideways and for Iran to take pictures of their crash-landed missiles and claim it was the entire destroyed Israeli air force.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, that's not the S-300 or anything like it. It has a 30km range vs the S-300PMU-2 200km range Iran was interested in.
> 
> The Mersad is actually just a MIM-23 I-Hawk, a system that's about 50 years old.
> 
> ...



Yeah I posted the video and article of the outdated version, my bad. Here are 2 article about the latest version, the new an improved mersad:


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Can't wait for Israel to fuck Iran sideways and for Iran to take pictures of their crash-landed missiles and claim it was the entire destroyed Israeli air force.



Can't wait for the Israeli airforce to get hunted down like bird by Iran's new Mersad.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Yeah I posted the video and article of the outdated version, my bad. Here are 2 article about the latest version, the new an improved mersad:



Yeah, a modified 40 year old MIM-23I with a 30km range and a AN/MPQ-50 radar (which only has a 90km detection range and lacks any kind of ECM) isn't nearly on the level of the S-300PMU-2, nevermind better then it. It's still ultimately a 50 year old system designed to engage entirely different capabilities of aircraft then what exist now. Iran is just spouting bullshit as usual. You really need to stop swallowing Iran's showboating.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, a modified 40 year old MIM-23I with a 30km range and a AN/MPQ-50 radar (which only has a 90km detection range and lacks any kind of ECM) isn't nearly on the level of the S-300PMU-2, nevermind better then it. It's still ultimately a 50 year old system designed to engage entirely different capabilities of aircraft then what exist now. Iran is just spouting bullshit as usual. You really need to stop swallowing Iran's showboating.



Nope that's the older version, the newer version is called the *Bavar-373*. This is the latest article released on the defense system:


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Nope that's the older version, the newer version is called the *Bavar-373*. This is the latest article released on the defense system:



It's still a MIM-23.



vs



Still a 50 year old system with outdated radar and no ECM. You need to stop accepting whatever nonsense Iran spouts. There's nothing to back up their claims besides the statement, and looking at the actual facts you see what a load of BS it is.


----------



## Raiden (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> By the way what would Iran gain from attacking the US. Iran is a threat to Israel not the US, threat to Israel =/= threat to US. The politicians only make it seem as if they're the same because they're being controlled by Zionist corporates/bankers.



There is also concerns about Iran triggering an arms race within the region. As it is, I think US politicians believe too many countries in the ME have their hands on nuclear weapons.


----------



## Flowergirl (Nov 6, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Well the person is some sort of dupe created today, likely by the butthurt members. I imagine you'll pretend otherwise though.



huh are you stupid? i am butthurt but it seems more that other people are butthurt and give me negative reputation. im peaceful.

well then megaharrison say me whats wrong with my statement? thats how it is. you cant say anything against it, can you? no?


----------



## ashher (Nov 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty, Iran did. So Iran is bound by international law not to develop nukes.
> 
> Besides, Iran is a dictatorship and I can't put enough emphasize on that. Theocracies and dictatorships shouldn't have nukes period.



haha...world community couldn't even get Israel to sign the treaty, exactly what i'm talking about. And its great to know that you're the one to decide whom to have the nuclear power and whom not to(even though only country in the history to attack with atom bomb was USA and a democracy), once again...exactly what i'm talking about.


----------



## ashher (Nov 6, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> We are allowed to strike at Iran because they undertake unprovoked aggressive acts against us, such as arming, sponsoring, funding, and directly commanding terrorist groups which attack us. On the other hand, Iran;s actions constitute clear aggression so the comparison with Israel is inaccurate.



sure, sure...everyone allege their favorite countries of sending terrorists these days...a cheap and user friendly excuse. And no one says a word about how quatar sent her own soldiers into libya...cause that was what USA wanted.


----------



## bullsh3t (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> haha...world community couldn't even get Israel to sign the treaty, exactly what i'm talking about. And its great to know that you're the one to decide whom to have the nuclear power and whom not to(*even though only country in the history to attack with atom bomb was USA and a democracy*), once again...exactly what i'm talking about.



The war would've lasted longer and killed millions more. Japan learned a lesson don't fuck with the USA!!


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> sure, sure...everyone allege their favorite countries of sending terrorists these days...a cheap and user friendly excuse. And no one says a word about how quatar sent her own soldiers into libya...cause that was what USA wanted.



it's the cartoon deer again.


----------



## Raiden (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> sure, sure...everyone allege their favorite countries of sending terrorists these days...a cheap and user friendly excuse. And no one says a word about how quatar sent her own soldiers into libya...cause that was what USA wanted.



Iran  has been directly responsible for killing American troops in Iraq


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 6, 2011)

ashher said:


> haha...world community couldn't even get Israel to sign the treaty, exactly what i'm talking about. And its great to know that you're the one to decide whom to have the nuclear power and whom not to(even though only country in the history to attack with atom bomb was USA and a democracy), once again...exactly what i'm talking about.



Go cry to mommy that your favorite islamofascist regime doesn't get to have nuclear weapons. Comparing the situation of the first atomic bomb to today shows your level of intellectual maturity.


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 6, 2011)

Flowergirl said:


> huh are you stupid? i am butthurt but it seems more that other people are butthurt and give me negative reputation. im peaceful.


No you stated something completely retarded then I negged you for it and you got butthurt and whined on my profile about it.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Go cry to mommy that your favorite islamofascist regime doesn't get to have nuclear weapons. Comparing the situation of the first atomic bomb to today shows your level of intellectual maturity.



Actually that's a really good point, Iran hasn't started a war in 300 years while the US committed the biggest act of terrorism in human history. Nothing AlQaeda does could ever measure up to the Nuclear terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



President Goobang said:


> Iran  has been directly responsible for killing American troops in Iraq



America has been directly responsible for the death of civilians in Iran by selling Saddam chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 6, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Actually that's a really good point, Iran hasn't started a war in 300 years while the US committed the biggest act of terrorism in human history. Nothing AlQaeda does could ever measure up to the Nuclear terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



The Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't even existed for 300 years. It's barely 30 years old and has already been involved in the longest conventional war of the 20th century.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't even existed for 300 years. It's barely 30 years old and has already been involved in the longest conventional war of the 20th century.



I'm talking about the country Iran, not the current regime. The Iran and Iraq war was started by Saddam who was sold chemical weapons by the US so he could terrorize civilians.


----------



## Akatora (Nov 6, 2011)

They should be allowed nuclear power where russia helps em out making certain there isn't inriched Uranium useable for warheads in iran.


They need to be more open regarding this stuff.
Sure if they and their people wish to live in seclusion fine, but potential Nuclear power?... seriously if this keeps going I predict millitary actions about April next year.


Aka wait till the winter is over and the most important function of Oil has decreased.

i doubt we'll see an invasion, but I could easily imagine said facilities being destroyed.(would become troublesome in the region for the west in general, China would likely exploit this to)


will be interesting to see how the Media will trat it around the world.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 6, 2011)

Iran is going to get the bomb whether or not Israel and the USA attack it so why shoot ourselves in the foot?

Leave them to crash and burn on their own. All attacks do is strengthen the regime and strengthen hate against the USA and Israel, not to mention cost lives and money.

Iran is doing huge damage to itself getting atomic weaponry anyway, it costs them money they don't have offends and scares all its neighbours.

Of course I don understand if that that's a risk Israelis aren't willing to take since its their lives that are on the lines but you're probably going to be wrong.


----------



## Blue (Nov 6, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Iran is going to get the bomb whether or not Israel and the USA attack it so why shoot ourselves in the foot?



You'd be surprised how hard it is to make a nuclear weapon without the correct equipment, which costs some hundreds of millions of dollars and Iran is, of course, absolutely prohibited from purchasing from anyone. Every intelligence estimate available says that even if Iran said fuck it and openly went full retard for nukes, and everyone let it, it would be 2013 at the earliest before one would be available, more like 2015 in all likelihood.

Ruining their enrichment facilities would set their program back at least 10 years, and they're cognizant of that fact; they've put the bulk of their centrifuges in a hardened underground location. If Israel thinks it can crack that bitch open, I say let it.


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 6, 2011)

> Actually that's a really good point, Iran hasn't started a war in 300  years while the US committed the biggest act of terrorism in human  history. Nothing AlQaeda does could ever measure up to the Nuclear  terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Ugh.....

Wow.  Spinning the nuclear bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki as a terrorist attack.  A....are you really this disingenuous?

_*We were at war with japan.*_  We did those two bombings to end the war with the least amount of bloodshed possible.  We even TOLD them what we had planned and they refused to surrender so we bombed them in order to put an end to world war 2.

Furthermore it was probably the best course of action we had, I know we had another plan that involved an outright invasion but I can't for the life of me remember the name of it.

Something tells me that you know better than this and are just saying this crap to try and smear the US because it fits your agenda.

And now I have a headache because I facepalm'd so hard......


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 6, 2011)

Chelydra said:


> You do know that these other countries are irrelevant to us because they cannot attack us or have little to no interest in doing so. Iran on the other hand not only has the ability they also have the desire to attack the US or Israel either with conventional weapons or pass off a nuclear weapon to a terror group to do their dirty work for them. (Pakistan would likely do this too, but its easier to STOP a country from getting nukes than taking them away)



I really don't think any country is stupid enough to attack the US or Israel (with US support)

And no one would pass their nukes onto someone else, I'm sure they could easily be traced back.



The Pink Ninja said:


> Iran is doing huge damage to itself getting atomic weaponry anyway, it costs them money they don't have offends and scares all its neighbours.



Iran is HATED by the rest of the ME, that isn't gonna change any time soon.
I think it's because they're shia.
I read that the rest of the ME wants the US to attach Iran.

Iran has loads of money though, I read BBC article a while ago, A few $ per barrel, totals to a few $billion per year.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 6, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Iran is going to get the bomb whether or not Israel and the USA attack it so why shoot ourselves in the foot?
> 
> Leave them to crash and burn on their own. All attacks do is strengthen the regime and strengthen hate against the USA and Israel, not to mention cost lives and money.
> 
> ...



Israel probably shouldn't directly attack Iran for the reasons you mention. However, doing everything to prevent from getting nukes is the right thing to do. The last thing we need right now is another Pakistan - a fanatical Muslim state that is in economic and politic turmoil but we can't fully contain or ignore because of its nuclear weapons.


----------



## ashher (Nov 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Go cry to mommy that your favorite islamofascist regime doesn't get to have nuclear weapons. Comparing the situation of the first atomic bomb to today shows your level of intellectual maturity.



talking about 'my mommy' and 'intellectual maturity' in the same post...you just made my day sir rofl.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Nov 7, 2011)

Mega.  You are the israeli military expert here, how do you think this situation would play out.  Israel decides that Iran is too big a threat to be ignored so they go ahead and launch a pre-emptive strike against Irans nuclear facilities,  the United States does not support the strike.  Do you fly through Iraq?  Saudi Arabia?  do you even notify the United States before the strike?  Or would Israel not contemplate a strike without US approval?  just curious.  I like my war scenarios after all.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

isreal will not notify the US cause they don't give a shit about anybody


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 7, 2011)

> *Iran will be able to build nuclear bomb within months, IAEA says
> 
> 
> Western experts say IAEA report to reveal Iran has already acquired knowledge, technology, and resources to achieve nuclear capability.*
> ...




If this is true, then there is probably nothing that can be done at this point. They will have the bomb shortly if they understand the technology and are getting help from those who already have it. North Korea have it and Iran will shortly, they just need to be monitored. 

I can't imagine that even a military strike can delay them getting the bomb.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Nov 7, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> isreal will not notify the US cause they don't give a shit about anybody



that....  would probably be difficult for Isreal to pull off.  they Have to fly through Iraq,  Saudi Arabia, or Turkey "lol",If they dont notify the United States then I imagine you can cross off Iraq from that list  "assuming the United States still has a presence in Iraq at the time of the strike"  

If they fly through Saudi Arabia "with Saudi approval" then Iran has a casus belli with the Saudi's  and A Iran/Saudi & Isreal war WILL draw the United States into conflict against Iran.

If they fly though Iraqi Airspace "which the US controls at the moment"  then thats a casus belli by default.

Now there is the possibility that the Isrealis dont notify the US and fly though Iraqi airspace anyway.  thats when it gets....  Interesting to say the least.



Shinigami Perv said:


> If this is true, then there is probably nothing that can be done at this point. They will have the bomb shortly if they understand the technology and are getting help from those who already have it. North Korea have it and Iran will shortly, they just need to be monitored.
> 
> I can't imagine that even a military strike can delay them getting the bomb.



now that is interesting,  but im not sure if it invalidates the argument of launching a strike to slow down/stop Iran nuclear capabilities,  It would go a long way for Isreal to take out there enrichment facilities,  that would stop them cold i think.


----------



## Kahvehane (Nov 7, 2011)

Chelydra said:


> Finally the cafe now has a decent injection of NEW news to mull over.
> 
> 
> *On topic it seems things are heating up and Iran is not the innocent little country that some people believe it to be.*




Who are these 'some' people, and which rock have they been hiding under this whole time?


----------



## Alexander Gustafsson (Nov 7, 2011)

What I'm worried about a Nuclear Iran is if what happens if one of their nukes "somehow" ends up at the hands of Hezbollah or another group and they nuke Israel? :S

Other than that I don't see a Nuclear Iran as a threat, they wouldn't dare strike US or Israel directly.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 7, 2011)

Destroyer of Kittens said:


> Mega.  You are the israeli military expert here, how do you think this situation would play out.  Israel decides that Iran is too big a threat to be ignored so they go ahead and launch a pre-emptive strike against Irans nuclear facilities,  the United States does not support the strike.  Do you fly through Iraq?  Saudi Arabia?  do you even notify the United States before the strike?  Or would Israel not contemplate a strike without US approval?  just curious.  I like my war scenarios after all.



They'd probably fly over Jordan/Iraq without eithers consent, but with quiet American consent. Infiltrating Saudi and Turkish airspace are other possibilities but given the distance I think we'd just make a straight shot. The Saudi's would probably look the other way as they're as worried about Iran as we are, the Turks can go fuck themselves. Strike Force would be between 50-75 fighters, mostly carrying GBU-28 5,000lb & PB1500 Bunker-Busters ande Delilah Cruise Missiles. Perhaps submarine-launched cruise missiles (IDF subs have such a capability) and Jericho-IIB Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles with conventional warheads. 

We'd pretty much have to notify the US at least a few hours before hand for the strikes to work, though seeking their approval is a different story. Contrary to what the Iranians say, they will not attack the US troops in Iraq or other Arab states as long as they stay out of it. If they attack the Gulf Arabs the US will come to their rescue as they always do and annihilate the Iranian military. The Iranian regime knows this and isn't that stupid.


----------



## Raiden (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> America has been directly responsible for the death of civilians in Iran by selling Saddam chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.



That's not the point man; I think everyone knows the US has quite a history of interfering with Iran's business. The point is Iran has created that narrative of being a actively anti US state; propaganda and false facts isn't necessary to make them look that way.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> They'd probably fly over Jordan/Iraq without eithers consent, but with quiet American consent. Infiltrating Saudi and Turkish airspace are other possibilities but given the distance I think we'd just make a straight shot. The Saudi's would probably look the other way as they're as worried about Iran as we are, the Turks can go fuck themselves. Strike Force would be between 50-75 fighters, mostly carrying GBU-28 5,000lb & PB1500 Bunker-Busters ande Delilah Cruise Missiles. Perhaps submarine-launched cruise missiles (IDF subs have such a capability) and Jericho-IIB Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles with conventional warheads.
> 
> We'd pretty much have to notify the US at least a few hours before hand for the strikes to work, though seeking their approval is a different story. Contrary to what the Iranians say, they will not attack the US troops in Iraq or other Arab states as long as they stay out of it. If they attack the Gulf Arabs the US will come to their rescue as they always do and annihilate the Iranian military. The Iranian regime knows this and isn't that stupid.



i suggest isreal  doesn't notify US, so they don't pawn this shit off on us when it blows up in everyone's faces


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 7, 2011)

*Megaharrison*

Your an Israel right?? Isn't military service mandatory in the occupied territories of Palestine i.e Israel.  How about you hop on one of those F16 fighter jets and fly over Iran's nuclear site, I'll be watching the news to see whether or not *"*Bavar 373 destroys Israeli plane in an attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program*"* hits the headlines. 

Iran will soon become a Nuclear state and the regime occupying Jerusalem will disappear from the page of time.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Iran will soon become a Nuclear state and the regime occupying Jerusalem will disappear from the page of time.


If Iran becomes a nuclear state then they will prove that they have been lying to the world for decades. 

Iran has claimed that all it's nuclear research is peaceful, and that it is in no way seeking to create nuclear weapons. If they "soon have them" it means that they only confirm that they cannot be trusted. 

I guess you have no problem with being dishonest if it furthers your own aims, please tell me is this a something that is acceptable in your religion?


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 7, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> If Iran becomes a nuclear state then they will prove that they have been lying to the world for decades.
> 
> Iran has claimed that all it's nuclear research is peaceful, and that it is in no way seeking to create nuclear weapons. If they "soon have them" it means that they only confirm that they cannot be trusted.
> 
> I guess you have no problem with being dishonest if it furthers your own aims, please tell me is this a something that is acceptable in your religion?



But Iran's nuclear facilities are in fact for peaceful purposes, they're for liberating Palestinians. 

As for the lying part like they say all is fair in love and war.  One of the comments that Ahmadinejad made about Gaddafi further proves that they're making nuclear weapons: 



> Ahmadinejad said that "Gaddafi?s downfall was made possible due to his decision to give up his nuclear weapons" using this as a reason why Iran should not be complicit in western demands that it abandon its nuclear program.


----------



## Keile (Nov 7, 2011)

Both these countries have nuclear weapons and programs. So it is hypocritical for either of them to excoriate another country for aspiring to have the same. The United States' discontentment comes primarily from the danger Iran poses to Israel, which just a wrongheaded way to conduct foreign policy. 

Israel is not the United States and Americans, particularly blacks and Mexicans, do not want billions of their tax dollars going to it every year.

Obama is a better president when he does what he believes rather than capitulating to congressional demands on Israel.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 7, 2011)

Keile said:


> Even if Iran's nuclear facilities are not for "peaceful purposes", the United States and Israel do not have the moral authority to read Iran her rights. Both these countries have nuclear weapons and programs, so it's hypocritical for them to criticize Iran's attempts.



The US shouldn't be lecturing anyone about Nucleur weapons. Unless it was Iran that dropped 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to show them of to the soviet union.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> *Megaharrison*
> 
> Your an Israel right?? Isn't military service mandatory in the occupied territories of Palestine i.e Israel.  How about you hop on one of those F16 fighter jets and fly over Iran's nuclear site, I'll be watching the news to see whether or not *"*Bavar 373 destroys Israeli plane in an attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program*"* hits the headlines.



I'm not a pilot, I'm in the infantry corps and will fight in whatever war that results from our self-defense action. Why don't you go and fight for your delusional and depraved war of destruction.



> Iran will soon become a Nuclear state and the regime occupying Jerusalem will disappear from the page of time.



Yes yes we've heard this same tired line for decades. Utterly unrealistic, unexplainable (how will Iran having nukes make Israel be destroyed), and doesn't take MAD into account.



			
				Keile said:
			
		

> Even if Iran's nuclear facilities are not for "peaceful purposes", the United States and Israel do not have the moral authority to read Iran her rights. Both these countries have nuclear weapons and programs, so it's hypocritical for them to criticize Iran's attempts.



We have a right to self-defense as Iran takes aggressive acts against us. As we are in a de facto state of a war of self-defense with Iran we have a right to deny them nuclear capacity. The Allies would have bombed a German nuclear site, we can bomb an Iranian nuclear site. If Iran wants this threat to go away, they can make peace or at the very least stop their aggression towards us. You will of course deny that we're at war with Iran, but when they have , , support our destruction, and sponsor all of enemies to murder our civilians I'd say otherwise.

Interesting you talk of "moral right" though when you've openly admitted that killing civilians deliberately is alright.


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> The US shouldn't be lecturing anyone about Nucleur weapons. Unless it was Iran that dropped 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to show them of to the soviet union.



You sir are sadly mistaken on your ideals and beliefs.

First of all we have bombs 600xs more powerful than them 2.

And no it wasn't to show Russia, albeit that was an alternative motive. But it was to end a war. War w/ Germany was over and people were getting anxious for the war to be over.

And unlike others Japan would fight till the end and we had to show superior force and technology to make them give up. And our next target was Tokyo and they still wouldn't give up until the last moment. Of which the president(after the bombs were dropped) pretty much shunned the bombs. We didn't know the power they had and how much of an impact they would have.

And Israel doesn't have nukes, please show me where you get this from. Nuclear weapons are solely for defensive purposes nowa days, but Iran has clearly stated that they won't to attack/destroy both Israel and U.S. and the means that they would come by that is undoubtly nuclear warheads.

Israel will strike before thanksgiving. They aren't a bunch of pussies who get hit first. They strike first and hard and will stomp Iran in a war. They have a superior airforce, which means they will win.

@Keile
Yes we do. Iran is clearly a threat to Israel and an enemy of the United States. If they don't want war then they will agree w/ the only superpower of the world, but they clearly want war.

If they would go about getting nuclear power w/o being so rash and outspoken about the destruction of the Zionist(Israel), then we might side w/ them if they let us closely monitor them facilities(of which they don't do).

You people need to realize that when your country is in the crosshair you don't want you enemy to get the most powerful weapon in the world. Granted Iran's bomb would be weak compared to current US warheads but still more powerful than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> But Iran's nuclear facilities are in fact for peaceful purposes, they're for liberating Palestinians.
> 
> As for the lying part like they say all is fair in love and war.  One of the comments that Ahmadinejad made about Gaddafi further proves that they're making nuclear weapons:



First, the cognitive dissidence that you have is astounding, the level of complete delusion that you live in that you can twist "peaceful purposes" into nuclear bombings of Israel is beyond any measure of rationality. 

Next, Iran had stated that it is not seeking to create nuclear weapons. 
"Ahmadinejad, who repeated Iran's frequent denials that the Islamic state is not seeking nuclear weapons and that its atomic programme is for peaceful purposes only"


So once again, you are completely fine with lying to push your own purpose, this makes it clear that NOTHING YOU EVER SAY SagemodePrinz should be believed. 
Because you are a dishonest person, who cares nothing for the truth, but instead only about your own aims.


----------



## Keile (Nov 7, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> If Iran becomes a nuclear state then they will prove that they have been lying to the world for decades.
> 
> Iran has claimed that all it's nuclear research is peaceful, and that it is in no way seeking to create nuclear weapons. If they "soon have them" it means that they only confirm that they cannot be trusted.
> 
> I guess you have no problem with being dishonest if it furthers your own aims, please tell me is this a something that is acceptable in your religion?



I think every sovereign nation involved in nuclear talks with Iran knows that it is building nuclear weapons. 

After all, Iran is not the first nation to be disingenuous and duplicitous concerning its nuclear ambitions. 

Dishonesty in this context says nothing about religion. It just isn't fair that some nations can so freely manipulate the UN and use it to target other nations. For a long time Israel would not entertain questions about its nuclear program yet the US and UN did nothing. All nations, religious or secular, hide their queen piece from the sensors at the UN.


----------



## Blue (Nov 7, 2011)

Keile said:


> I think every sovereign nation involved in nuclear talks with Iran knows that it is building nuclear weapons.
> 
> After all, Iran is not the first nation to be disingenuous and duplicitous concerning its nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Dishonesty in this context says nothing about religion. It just isn't fair that some nations can so freely manipulate the UN and use it to target other nations. For a long time Israel would not entertain questions about its nuclear program yet the US and UN did nothing. All nations, religious or secular, hide their queen piece from the sensors at the UN.



Iran is crazy. Israel is not.

Pakistan, despite being a conservative Muslim country not unlike Iran, was able to develop nuclear weapons under the disapproval but not outright rejection of the international community, because Pakistan, despite being an immense dick, is not crazy.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

pakistan is fucking crazy, stop lying, iran is more stable than pakistan


----------



## Blue (Nov 7, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> pakistan is fucking crazy, stop lying, iran is more stable than pakistan



Nope.

Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. Pakistan is actually more like America than most any other Muslim country. A democratic republic with an acceptable human rights record, universal suffrage, socially progressive as hell, generally aggressive but responsible in its military dealings, they didn't win the oil lottery to the detriment of their service or industrial economics, and - the part that has it at odds with the west - they're nationalistic as fuck.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

i'll give u that they are a democratic republic, but with the recent assasination of bhutto and demonstrated high level plotting of terrorist acts, pakistan i not on more even keel than iran.  

when people talk about pakistan's nukes, it's "what if they lose control of them?"


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 7, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Nope.
> 
> Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. Pakistan is actually more like America than most any other Muslim country.



That's why they found Osama Bin Laden living in a villa next to the Pakistani intelligence for 10 years. Oah I forget Bin laden worked for the CIA too Lukz


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 7, 2011)

Keile said:


> Dishonesty in this context says nothing about religion. It just isn't fair that some nations can so freely manipulate the UN and use it to target other nations. For a long time Israel would not entertain questions about its nuclear program yet the US and UN did nothing. All nations, religious or secular, hide their queen piece from the sensors at the UN.



There are crucial differences:

1. Israel doesnt question other nations right to exist by using incendiary and coarse language.

2. Israel have not signed the non-proliferation treaty, hence it isnt obliged to allow it's nuclear capabilities to be inspected.

3. Israeli nukes would be a last ditch emergency option if it's national survival is at stake. In Iran's case, nobody has ever argued that Iran as a country or people is illegitimate and should be disbanded. Thus, since Iran isnt facing any existential threats, one can logically conclude that any future nukes would serve the purpose of ensuring the survival of the fundamentalist regime that is currently governing the country.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> There are crucial differences:
> 
> 2. Israel have not signed the non-proliferation treaty, hence it isnt obliged to allow it's nuclear capabilities to be inspected.



This is not a fact that favors isreal, why use it?  if i don't sign the "won't punch strangers in the face treaty" it means i have the right to punch strangers in the face? what?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 7, 2011)

Keile said:


> I think every sovereign nation involved in nuclear talks with Iran knows that it is building nuclear weapons.


The fact that most people know that Iran is lying mean very little to me. It doesn't factor into that they are being dishonest. Why should I believe that they are only going to be defense, or that they won't give them to terrorists, where do I derive any credibility?



Keile said:


> After all, Iran is not the first nation to be disingenuous and duplicitous concerning its nuclear ambitions.


But it is the topic of conversation at the moment, and people supporting their rights to these weapons must deal with the fact that they claim NOT to be pursuing them. 



Keile said:


> Dishonesty in this context says nothing about religion. It just isn't fair that some nations can so freely manipulate the UN and use it to target other nations. For a long time Israel would not entertain questions about its nuclear program yet the US and UN did nothing. All nations, religious or secular, hide their queen piece from the sensors at the UN.


The point about religion was to try and get a coherent position about the issue, instead of a complete double standard. Trying to attach a religious and universal standard on to obviously a topic that is held with a person bias.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> That's why they found Osama Bin Laden living in a villa next to the Pakistani intelligence for 10 years. Oah I forget Bin laden worked for the CIA too Lukz


You really fail history, SagemodePrinz. Bin Laden _never_ worked with the US, he directly turned down US aid during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. And the CIA never wanted to work with him. 

God why haven't you been banned yet?


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 7, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> God why haven't you been banned yet?


We don't ban people for having opinions, only if they escalate into full-blown racism or flaming. 

However, it's laughably obvious who "DragonFist5" really is.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 7, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> We don't ban people for having opinions, only if they escalate into full-blown racism or flaming.
> 
> However, it's laughably obvious who "DragonFist5" really is.


Aren't dupes supposed to be banned immediately though? He's SagemodePrinz trying to evade that permaban that was levied against him.


----------



## Blue (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> That's why they found Osama Bin Laden living in a villa next to the Pakistani intelligence for 10 years. Oah I forget Bin laden worked for the CIA too Lukz



I said Pakistan is like America, not that Pakistan likes America. 

The English language is hard, I know.



> Aren't dupes supposed to be banned immediately though? He's SagemodePrinz trying to evade that permaban that was levied against him.


No IP address match (and no outright admittal) means no ban. I haven't checked myself, but I assume someone has.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 7, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> I'm not a pilot, I'm in the infantry corps and will fight in whatever war that results from our self-defense action. Why don't you go and fight for your delusional and depraved war of destruction



Write a letter to your PM, ask him to attack Israel's Nuclear facilities. The only reason Israel hasn't done so already is because of the Bavar 373 missile.




> Yes yes we've heard this same tired line for decades. Utterly unrealistic, unexplainable (how will Iran having nukes make Israel be destroyed), and doesn't take MAD into account.



Israel won't be destroyed only the regime which will be removed from power via a joined military effort by Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon etc 



IchLiebe said:


> You sir are sadly mistaken on your ideals and beliefs.
> 
> First of all we have bombs 600xs more powerful than them 2.
> 
> ...



Neither of the atomic bombs were necessary, in terms of ending WW2. A US invasion of Japan was also unnecessary to end WW2. General Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral William Leahy and General Douglas MacArthur expressed regret in their memoirs of using the atomic bombs - you can find their full quotations on the net. At the end of the day, had the US done nothing (no invasion, no conventional bombing, no atomic bombing), Japan would've still surrendered in August 1945 because of the entrance of the Soviet Union. If there was one event that broke the willpower of the Japanese military to fight on it was the idea of the opening up of another front against the Soviets. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is one of those historians who concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to end the war due to the swift and devastating advance of the Soviet Union in Manchuria. In 1946, supported by the testimony of Japanese military officials, Paul Nitze of the US Strategic Bombing Survey, argued that Japan would've surrendered by 1 November 1945, without using atomic bombs, without a US invasion even being contemplated, and even without the entrance of the Soviet Union, such was the situation in Japan in August 1945.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an overkill of 200,000 civilians including women and children in a war that was long already over. Ironically, more Americans died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (3,200 interned US citizens) than the number of Americans who died at Pearl Harbor (2,000). Had Japan or Germany done the same thing to the US they would've been tried for war crimes. Had the Allies gone on to lose the war, Truman would've been tried for war crimes.



sadated_peon said:


> First, the cognitive dissidence that you have is astounding, the level of complete delusion that you live in that you can twist "peaceful purposes" into nuclear bombings of Israel is beyond any measure of rationality.



Iran would never launch a a nuclear missile first but what it would do is invade and liberate Palestine using conventional weapons only. 



> Next, Iran had stated that it is not seeking to create nuclear weapons.
> "Ahmadinejad, who repeated Iran's frequent denials that the Islamic state is not seeking nuclear weapons and that its atomic programme is for peaceful purposes only"



Off course he's going to say that, did Israel announce their nuclear weapons publicly when they first tested them. It's called being strategic and realistic.  



> So once again, you are completely fine with lying to push your own purpose, this makes it clear that NOTHING YOU EVER SAY SagemodePrinz should be believed.
> Because you are a dishonest person, who cares nothing for the truth, but instead only about your own aims.



Like I've said before all is fair in love and war



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You really fail history, SagemodePrinz. Bin Laden _never_ worked with the US, he directly turned down US aid during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. And the CIA never wanted to work with him.



The Bin Laden family and the Bush family were very close friends since George HW Bush and Bin Laden family had multiple joined deals involving their oil companies. When the soviets invaded Afghanistan the US encouraged the mujahideen to fight the invasion, they supplied them with weapons and in the case with Bin laden he was offered CIA training. When he came back to Saudi Arabia he was regarded as a hero by both the King and the western world until he turned against them and decided to form a group with the rest of the mijahideen which later became known as AlQaeda. 




SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Aren't dupes supposed to be banned immediately though? He's SagemodePrinz trying to evade that permaban that was levied against him.


----------



## bullsh3t (Nov 7, 2011)

Japan should've never attacked Uncle Sams crib if they weren't prepared for an ass whooping.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 7, 2011)

bullsh3t said:


> Japan should've never attacked Uncle Sams crib if they weren't prepared for an ass whooping.



too bad you whooped the asses of innocent civilians and punished the later generations which have been born deformed due to the nuclear radiation.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> The Bin Laden family and the Bush family were very close friends since George HW Bush and Bin Laden family had multiple joined deals involving their oil companies. When the soviets invaded Afghanistan the US encouraged the mujahideen to fight the invasion, they supplied them with weapons and in the case with Bin laden he was offered CIA training. When he came back to Saudi Arabia he was regarded as a hero by both the King and the western world until he turned against them and decided to form a group with the rest of the mijahideen which later became known as AlQaeda.


You do know you're full of crap right? First off, the second Bin Laden went to wage his own war against the Soviet Union-_he was disowned by his family_. Saudi Arabia doesn't regard him as a hero, they viewed him as a villain and terrorist and his visas and everything were revoked. 

Bin Laden _never got CIA Training_, he never got CIA weapons. The US helped the Mujahadeen, that's true, but not all the Mujahadeen became Al Queda. Hell, the second the Taliban took over, many Mujahadeen rebelled against them. 

You seriously don't know anything about this.


----------



## bullsh3t (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> too bad you whooped the asses of innocent civilians and punished the later generations which have been born deformed due to the nuclear radiation.



Am i suppose to feel bad? LOL plzz Japanese killed way more innocent civilians in China than people in their military. More innocent civilians died in ww2 than the military. Like I said ass whooped.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:
			
		

> Iran would never launch a a nuclear missile first but what it would do is invade and liberate Palestine using conventional weapons only.


You said Iran’s nuclear weapons were for “liberating Palestinians” if you believe this is going to be done with “conventional weapons” why did you before say it was going to be done with nukes. 
How then does having nukes change anything to do with Palestinians. 



			
				DragonFist5 said:
			
		

> Off course he's going to say that, did Israel announce their nuclear weapons publicly when they first tested them. It's called being strategic and realistic.


Israel never said that they were not developing nuclear weapons; they were always mute and never confirm or denied that they intended to make nuclear weapons. 



			
				DragonFist5 said:
			
		

> Like I've said before all is fair in love and war


I am glad that you are an admitted liar.


----------



## Watchman (Nov 7, 2011)

> Like I've said before all is fair in love and war



Unless it's to do with Israel, right? 

Also I didn't know SageMode was Permed, only Banned. What did he do to get a perm?


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 7, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> No IP address match (and no outright admittal) means no ban. I haven't checked myself, but I assume someone has.


That's weird, jizz gets banned all the time.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 7, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> pakistan is fucking crazy, stop lying, iran is more stable than pakistan



Pakistan has nukes because their eternal rival India had nukes.

It was in the 70's iirc, a different time (No 'War on Terror'), people knew the only one in danger was India & even then it would be the same as the USA/Soviet Union situation.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

wait, i thought pakistan got their nuke relatively recently, like the 90s


----------



## Blue (Nov 7, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> wait, i thought pakistan got their nuke relatively recently, like the 90s



1998, in fact. There was no Soviet Union, terrorism was already a reality, and Iran has always been crazy.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> 1998, in fact. There was no Soviet Union, terrorism was already a reality, and Iran has always been crazy.



lol, iran has existed for many many many 1000s of years, so wat r u talking about?


----------



## Blue (Nov 7, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> lol, iran has existed for many many many 1000s of years, so wat r u talking about?



The Islamic Republic thereof is a relatively recent abomination.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 7, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The Islamic Republic thereof is a relatively recent abomination.



u know what else is relatively recent , huh? :ho ohh, u made that one too easy.


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 7, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Write a letter to your PM, ask him to attack Israel's Nuclear facilities. The only reason Israel hasn't done so already is because of the Bavar 373 missile.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If they get involved the US and Europe will ally themselves against the extremist regime. And have you ever heard of the B-2 Spirit. None of them countries have an effective counter to. And the Bavar 373 would be obsolete against it.


DragonFist5 said:


> Neither of the atomic bombs were necessary, in terms of ending WW2. A US invasion of Japan was also unnecessary to end WW2. General Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral William Leahy and General Douglas MacArthur expressed regret in their memoirs of using the atomic bombs - you can find their full quotations on the net. At the end of the day, had the US done nothing (no invasion, no conventional bombing, no atomic bombing), Japan would've still surrendered in August 1945 because of the entrance of the Soviet Union. If there was one event that broke the willpower of the Japanese military to fight on it was the idea of the opening up of another front against the Soviets. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is one of those historians who concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to end the war due to the swift and devastating advance of the Soviet Union in Manchuria. In 1946, supported by the testimony of Japanese military officials, Paul Nitze of the US Strategic Bombing Survey, argued that Japan would've surrendered by 1 November 1945, without using atomic bombs, without a US invasion even being contemplated, and even without the entrance of the Soviet Union, such was the situation in Japan in August 1945.
> ]


LoLWut. Do you even understand what you are stating. That Japan solely gave up because we(US) gained another enemy, one of which was bruised and battered from WWII. So what they was going to give up even if we didn't bomb them, didn't invade them, and Russia wasn't threathening their land in China. WTF are you smoking, they were going to give up just because Germany lost, lol. And if we didn't bomb them then someone as of the USSR or even US would've against Vietnam Korea, Mujahadieen. And would've caused more devastation. Yes they was unneccesary I will agree, but in a sense of educating the world on the power they possessed we used them. And we used them to scare the Soviets, they wanted to attack us over Germany and was about to until we showed the Abombs off and they backed off for a while and then MAD tookover. Thats the problem w/ Iran. Would they care to be destroyed if they destroyed Israel.?


DragonFist5 said:


> The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an overkill of 200,000 civilians including women and children in a war that was long already over. Ironically, more Americans died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (3,200 interned US citizens) than the number of Americans who died at Pearl Harbor (2,000). Had Japan or Germany done the same thing to the US they would've been tried for war crimes. Had the Allies gone on to lose the war, Truman would've been tried for war crimes.
> ]


Winners write history. And you said it yourself, all is fair in love and war. We dropped the nukes to stop a war and to prevent more soldiers from dieing. And a war long over, you serious. We was just getting to the heartland of Japan, and remember they held significant amounts of land in China ATM. No he wouldn't have been tried. What did he do? Cause casulties of war? America always drops pamphlets telling the civilians to evacuate the city that it will be bombed, and they did drop them in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they did in Europe. Germany didn't drop any in London. Japan didn't drop none in Pearl Harbor. You are trying to paint us as criminals that did the greatest act of humanity against someone, when in reality we have tried to our fullest extent to prevent civilian casualties. Which they are a part of every war, and your great prophet Muhammed(thinking your Muslims) killed women and children in cold blood, and unlike the US we didn't have a sword and see into the eyes of the innocents before we painted the ground w/ their blood. Nor did he ever repent about killing innocents, unlike the US has repeately.



DragonFist5 said:


> Iran would never launch a a nuclear missile first but what it would do is invade and liberate Palestine using conventional weapons only.
> ]


Where is this Palestine you people keep talking about, I don't see it on any map of the past 100 years? And what are you all that butthurt that we could buy your holy land after WWII and then try to illegally reclaim it. Israel has the deeds to that land from muslims. Try to take the land back as you have been for the past 70 years. Maybe you might actually breach Jerusalem this time unlike the 6 day war, of which muslim countries(some you listed as the invasion force(Egypt, Syria(Palestine))).



dragonfist5 said:


> Off course he's going to say that, did Israel announce their nuclear weapons publicly when they first tested them. It's called being strategic and realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just like the USSR and China funded N. Korea and Vietnam. When was Bin Laden offered CIA training can you post a reliable source? Yes we gave them supplies and money to fight against the bigger evil. Did we know that he would go all extremist derkaderka jihad on us... no? We believed that atleast he would be supportive of the US in the ME and further our own investments in that area. 
And can you give a reliable source even stating that Israel has tested a nuclear weapon, because to my knowledge they have neither confirmed nor denied having nuclear weapons. And no one 100% knows if they do or not, they just speculate like the rash retard Iranian leaders are doing.

And you don't even take into the account of what state the countries that will attack Israel is in.

Iran- Falling apart from the inside thanks to protesters and a powerstruggle between the president and supreme leader.
Turkey- Really? They just got hit by a major earthquake and will not go against Europe thanks to it being the gate to the ME.
Syria- Same as what happened to Egypt.
Egypt- US supports their military. We fund damn near all of their military and give them technology and intelligence. So just like we did against the UK we can't stop the flow of cash and they won't be able to fund a war.

Not to mention all of these countries get large amounts of money from the US and Europe. Maybe China could fill in the gap when we stop our flow of money, but even then China doesn't like to fund a war it has no interest in. And like I've said US gets involved and its 100% fact that you will lose. You can't counter our technology and your missiles nor radar can even effectively counter the B-2. Not to mention our off-shore aircraft carriers and battleships capable of launching long range missiles.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You do know you're full of crap right? First off, the second Bin Laden went to wage his own war against the Soviet Union-_he was disowned by his family_. Saudi Arabia doesn't regard him as a hero, they viewed him as a villain and terrorist and his visas and everything were revoked.
> 
> Bin Laden _never got CIA Training_, he never got CIA weapons. The US helped the Mujahadeen, that's true, but not all the Mujahadeen became Al Queda. Hell, the second the Taliban took over, many Mujahadeen rebelled against them.
> 
> You seriously don't know anything about this.



Your going to have to read this very slowly, make sure it sinks in. This might take a while since you've been growing up on zionist BS shown on Fox news and CNN. 


*Spoiler*: __ 




*CIA*

According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American "black Muslims" were taught "sabotage skills". The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained "bin Laden's operatives" in 1989.These "operatives" were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets. The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services  MAK).MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was "partly culpable" for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

*Bin Laden*

Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad in 1980. An austere religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialised in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the mujaheddin.

The bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country's pro-US royal family.

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia's minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal. The new minister awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam's holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world's largest private construction company.

Osama bin Laden's father died in 1968. Until 1994, he had access to the dividends from this ill-gotten business empire.

(Bin Laden junior's oft-quoted personal fortune of US$200-300 million has been arrived at by the US State Department by dividing today's value of the bin Laden family net worth  estimated to be US$5 billion  by the number of bin Laden senior's sons. A fact rarely mentioned is that in 1994 the bin Laden family disowned Osama and took control of his share.)

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did."

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built "training camps", some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, "The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism  car bombing and so on  so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate."

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company  albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with "legitimate" business operations.

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s  fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a "terrorist" in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

When thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden's anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes  such as Egypt  in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union.

He called for the overthrow of these client regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf states. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced to leave the country. His assets there were frozen.

After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services  and thousands of his mercenaries  to the Taliban, which took power that September.

Today, bin Laden's private army of non-Afghan religious fanatics is a key prop of the Taliban regime.

Prior to the devastating September 11 attack on the twin towers of World Trade Center, US ruling-class figures remained unrepentant about the consequences of their dirty deals with the likes of bin Laden, Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Since the awful attack, they have been downright hypocritical.

In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make "the same call again", even knowing what bin Laden would become.

"It was worth it. Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union."

Hatch today is one of the most gung-ho voices demanding military retaliation.

Another face that has appeared repeatedly on television screens since the attack has been Vincent Cannistrano, described as a former CIA chief of "counter-terrorism operations".

Cannistrano is certainly an expert on terrorists like bin Laden, because he directed their "work". He was in charge of the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras during the early 1980s. In 1984, he became the supervisor of covert aid to the Afghan mujaheddin for the US National Security Council.

The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> You said Iran’s nuclear weapons were for “liberating Palestinians” if you believe this is going to be done with “conventional weapons” why did you before say it was going to be done with nukes. How then does having nukes change anything to do with Palestinians.



Having nukes means that Iran can invade Israel without the fear of getting nuked. 





> Israel never said that they were not developing nuclear weapons; they were always mute and never confirm or denied that they intended to make nuclear weapons.



Israel wasn't being hounded by the international community about nukes, before they made them. 



> I am glad that you are an admitted liar.



Ever heard of doing the wrong things for the right reasons. That's what Iran is doing now. 



Mintaka said:


> That's weird, jizz gets banned all the time.



How many times am I going to have to repeat myself: *I AM NOT A FUCKING DUPE!*


----------



## Keile (Nov 8, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Iran is crazy. Israel is not.
> 
> Pakistan, despite being a conservative Muslim country not unlike Iran, was able to develop nuclear weapons under the disapproval but not outright rejection of the international community, because Pakistan, despite being an immense dick, is not crazy.



I'm sorry but the subjective nature of crazy in this context really renders your classification of Iran as meaningless. Pakistan is just as much a thugocracy and theocracy as Iran, with one of the few notable differences being that it enjoys US support and doesn't care a whit about Israel. 

In a sane world, the US and Israel wouldn't get to unilaterally decide which nations or regimes can have nuclear weapons and which cannot. But considering imperialist fuckhole we live in, the US, and by proxy Israel, have all the threat power in the world to force countries they think are "crazy" to capitulate to their demands of "sanity".


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 8, 2011)

Keile said:


> I'm sorry but the subjective nature of crazy in this context really renders your classification of Iran as meaningless. Pakistan is just as much a thugocracy and theocracy as Iran, with one of the few notable differences being that it enjoys US support and doesn't care a whit about Israel.
> 
> In a sane world, the US and Israel wouldn't get to unilaterally decide which nations or regimes can have nuclear weapons and which cannot. But considering imperialist fuckhole we live in, the US, and by proxy Israel, have all the threat power in the world to force countries they think are "crazy" to capitulate to their demands of "sanity".



Lol, the "cry imperialism" card never gets old.

In any regard I've already been over in the thread why Israel has every right to oppose Iran's nuclear program, violently if necessary. See my earlier post. 

Iran is the real imperialist in the region anyway. See their policies in Lebanon/Iraq/Kurdistan/Syria/Yemen/Gaza


----------



## Blue (Nov 8, 2011)

Keile said:


> I'm sorry but the subjective nature of crazy in this context really renders your classification of Iran as meaningless. Pakistan is just as much a thugocracy and theocracy as Iran


Negative. It is not.
To make an especially striking example, homosexuals enjoy similar legal rights in Pakistan as they do in western countries, whereas in Iran they are executed. Pakistan also is probably the first country in the world to legally recognize transsexuals as a third gender. This shows not just balance with, but outright rejection or redefinition of religion in their government.
That is one of the hallmarks of a socially responsible (read: not crazy) government.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Lol, the "cry imperialism" card never gets old.
> 
> In any regard I've already been over in the thread why Israel has every right to oppose Iran's nuclear program, violently if necessary. See my earlier post.



I just find Israelis a strange bunch of people. How do you sleep at night knowing that your living on stolen property, while homeless Palestinian women and children are living out on the streets in poverty. 

I wouldn't be able to live with myself let alone serve such a fascist regime.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> I just find Israelis a strange bunch of people. How do you sleep at night knowing that your living on stolen property, while homeless Palestinian women and children are living out on the streets in poverty.
> 
> I wouldn't be able to live with myself let alone serve such a fascist regime.



I sleep like a baby and wank to the Goldstone retraction 

In any regard Palestinians are  when compared to neighboring Arab states like Egypt, so lose the sob story. 

And if we apply your bizarre standards nobody in just about any country would be able to sleep, we'd be a world of insomniacs. Name a country, I'll probably tell you why they shouldn't sleep at night. 

It's also rather bizarre you make these proclamations yet praise Iran/Turkey, the former of which oppresses its own people viciously, denies Kurds the right to self-determination, persecutes religious minorities, and sponsors Syria to massacre thousands of his own people while Turkey occupies Cyprus and Kurdistan and helps the Arabs facilitate the Darfur genocide.


----------



## WT (Nov 8, 2011)

Iran should be able to defend itself.


----------



## Blue (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> I just find Israelis a strange bunch of people. How do you sleep at night knowing that your living on stolen property, while homeless Palestinian women and children are living out on the streets in poverty.
> 
> I wouldn't be able to live with myself let alone serve such a fascist regime.



The Arab world has tried to wipe Israel utterly off the map three times this past century. They're lucky Israel didn't return the favor.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Your going to have to read this very slowly, make sure it sinks in. This might take a while since you've been growing up on zionist BS shown on Fox news and CNN.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...


You do know that's a load of crap. You fail history. And thanks for continually proving you are SagemodePrinz.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2011)

So, IAEA report is out. Says Iran has been, and might still be, developing nukes.

The United States say this might lead to new sanctions against Iran. 

Russia says: 

"Russia looks with great disappointment and surprise at the fact that the [IAEA] report has been turned into a source of tension over the problems regarding Iran's nuclear energy program".

Israel has so far not commented, saying they want time to properly review the report.

The Iranian government itself continues to deny developing military nuclear technology, saying it doesn't need any nuclear bombs to fight off Israel and the USA.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You do know that's a load of crap. You fail history. And thanks for continually proving you are SagemodePrinz.



A load of crap?? LOL, is that the best you could come up with!?

Please explain to how this is all crap using hard evidence. By the way if I were whoever you say I am, I would have been banned by now don't you think?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> A load of crap?? LOL, is that the best you could come up with!?
> 
> Please explain to how this is all crap using hard evidence.


Since that isn't 'hard evidence'. There were no sources there, while all the credible sources point to Bin Laden NOT working with the CIA during the Soviet Invasion. Of course, you hate the US, Israel, etc. and only go for sources that condemn us despite them making zero sense. 

SagemodePrinz, come on man. And probably you haven't been banned by now since you're on a different computer, probably in a school or something. Hence your hours are different compared to your usual hours. Real nice way to get around an IP ban.


----------



## Blue (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> A load of crap?? LOL, is that the best you could come up with!?
> 
> Please explain to how this is all crap using hard evidence. By the way if I were whoever you say I am, I would have been banned by now don't you think?



It's more or less true. Ali Mohammed was in the US military, and did eventually pass that training on to Al Qaeda, although it's debatable how much "traning" Mohammed actually needed, as he was a serious warrior (and an Al-Qaeda operative) even before enlisting.

Where you fail is that the US did not directly train bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. Mohammed is the link between them. And the CIA never trained shit. Mohammed tried to infiltrate them and got the boot.


----------



## Oil Can (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> A load of crap?? LOL, is that the best you could come up with!?
> 
> Please explain to how this is all crap using hard evidence. By the way if I were whoever you say I am, I would have been banned by now don't you think?



Please explain why fools fall in love. I am so heart broken.


----------



## pikachuwei (Nov 8, 2011)

Why doesn't SageMode just go and join the Iranian army units protecting the nuclear facilities? that way you can show dem J00z the power of your Batshit missile 300s

ofc when you get assploded by Israeli planes, we'll just say "we told you so"


----------



## Son of Goku (Nov 8, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Where you fail is that the US did not directly train bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. Mohammed is the link between them. And the CIA never trained shit. Mohammed tried to infiltrate them and got the boot.



Oh please! You're talking about Al-CIAida here. 
_
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."_

Robin Cook - former Foreign Secretary, UK


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Since that isn't 'hard evidence'. There were no sources there, while all the credible sources point to Bin Laden NOT working with the CIA during the Soviet Invasion. Of course, you hate the US, Israel, etc. and only go for sources that condemn us despite them making zero sense.
> 
> SagemodePrinz, come on man. And probably you haven't been banned by now since you're on a different computer, probably in a school or something. Hence your hours compared to your usual hours. Real nice way to get around an IP ban.



You've got the testimony of soldiers, members of the mujahideen, CIA operatives etc. It's common knowledge that the US helped Bin laden fight the soviets through through military aid and training which he ended up using against them. Bin laden's family still runs major companies in Saudia Arabia and I myself have visited KSA 2 years ago and seen some of the guys that work for these oil companies, in uniform with the Bin laden logo on it.

Here are some sourced showing Bin laden's work with the CIA:






If your story was true and I was in fact a dupe, how would you know that my hours have changed without changing yours. Unless your the dupe sagemode prince!


----------



## Keile (Nov 8, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Negative. It is not.
> To make an especially striking example, homosexuals enjoy similar legal rights in Pakistan as they do in western countries, whereas in Iran they are executed. Pakistan also is probably the first country in the world to legally recognize transsexuals as a third gender. This shows not just balance with, but outright rejection or redefinition of religion in their government.
> That is one of the hallmarks of a socially responsible (read: not crazy) government.



Please, make a fool of yourself some more, :


*" According to ILGA, Pakistan is one of only eight countries today still retaining capital punishment for homosexuality. Others include Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, the Chechen Republic, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The situation with regard to the United Arab Emirates is unclear."*

*"Under the Pakistan Penal Code (PCC), homosexuality is deemed a crime that is punishable by a prison sentence"*

*In April 2003, a UN vote on homosexual human rights was derailed at the last minute by an alliance of disapproving Muslim countries, including Pakistan, which introduced amendments designed to kill the measure. *

*"People here are not ready to talk about homosexuality so they are certainly not ready to talk about gay rights," he said in a matter of fact manner. "They tell me it's a sin to be gay. But the real sin is not being allowed to be who I am."*

sources: 

23/05/2005

----


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The Arab world has tried to wipe Israel utterly off the map three times this past century. They're lucky Israel didn't return the favor.



Israel should try, so they can see where that gets them. We're talking about a contry that couldn't invade Lebanon 5 years ago, what chance do they have against an entire region!?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Israel should try, so they can see where that gets them. We're talking about a contry that couldn't invade Lebanon 5 years ago, what chance do they have against an entire region!?


They defeated it three times already. And the actual invasion of Lebanon was pretty successful, though you take arab supremacy to absurd amounts.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> They defeated it three times already. And the actual invasion of Lebanon was pretty successful, though you take arab supremacy to absurd amounts.



Yeah I wasn't born back then I'm talking about this decade not the last 5 decades. The invasion of Lebanon was sccesfull in the sense of killing a larger number of civilians, but Hezbollah chased the IDF out of their borders and still fire rockets at the regime until this day. 

Anyone who thinks that Israel could defeat Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and possibly the rest of the region (maybe even Pakistan) should seriously seek medical attention.


----------



## Keile (Nov 8, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> They defeated it three times already. And the actual invasion of Lebanon was pretty successful, though you take arab supremacy to absurd amounts.



They "defeated" Arab armies?

They defended themselves from total destruction. They didn't wholly decimate Arab armies and domestic defenses. Ask MH if he thinks Israel has the projection power to reach into mainland Egypt and Turkey and annihilate them, and he'll say it doesn't. 

The Yom Kippur War had the Israelis winning, but mostly through avoidable mistakes the Arabs made, such as stopping advances too early thereby allowing the Israelis to stock, strategize and regroup. 

It also had to do with Arab commanders being oblivious to the advantages of ground height and tank range.


----------



## Blue (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Anyone who thinks that Israel could defeat Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and possibly the rest of the region (maybe even Pakistan) should seriously seek medical attention.


They pretty much could. Israel would rapidly achieve air dominance - as they have in past wars - and from that point on Arabs would stop losing when the IAF ran out of bombs.

Which they wouldn't. America has a lot of bombs, and they're on sale. Dollar down and a dollar a week.



Keile said:


> Please, make a fool of yourself some more, :



Oh, I missed your loud stupidity. I don't really know how considering how big that font was.

Pakistan's laws re: homosexuality are colonial-era holdovers. I can be arrested in my American state here for having oral sex (with the opposite sex) but it doesn't actually happen.

There is no death penalty. That's Sharia law you're talking about, which is only in effect in tribal areas.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 8, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> They pretty much could. Israel would rapidly achieve air dominance - as they have in past wars - and from that point on Arabs would stop losing when the IAF ran out of bombs.
> 
> Which they wouldn't. America has a lot of bombs, and they're on sale. Dollar down and a dollar a week.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3DngdT2uSQ[/YOUTUBE]

*Now add Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon(including Hezbollah), the rest of the Arab world!*


----------



## Keile (Nov 8, 2011)

> Oh, I missed your loud stupidity. I don't really know how considering how big that font was.
> 
> Pakistan's laws re: homosexuality are colonial-era holdovers. I can be arrested in my American state here for having oral sex (with the opposite sex) but it doesn't actually happen.
> 
> There is no death penalty. That's Sharia law you're talking about, which is only in effect in tribal areas.



Post some sources on how homosexuality is or is not punished in punishment. Go.


----------



## Blue (Nov 8, 2011)

Keile said:


> Post some sources on how homosexuality is or is not punished in punishment. Go.



I didn't say it wasn't punished, I said there is no death penalty. But in general, it's not punished, no. Here you go. A credible source, unlike yours.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Yeah I wasn't born back then I'm talking about this decade not the last 5 decades. The invasion of Lebanon was sccesfull in the sense of killing a larger number of civilians, but Hezbollah chased the IDF out of their borders and still fire rockets at the regime until this day.


The invasion of Lebanon was successful because they achieved their goals. Hezbollah didn't expel them, they chose to go out from international pressure. You act like they deliberately began killing civilians-sorry, that is the Arab's stick, not the civilized Israels. Oh, and you're praising Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli Civilians, way to show you're a hypocrite.

You forget that Israel has an overwhelming technological advantage, a superior air force, army, and navy, and most importantly, superior training. 


> Anyone who thinks that Israel could defeat Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and possibly the rest of the region (maybe even Pakistan) should seriously seek medical attention.


You do know how inferior the Iranians, Turks, Egyptians, Syrians, and Lebanon are in terms of technology and training right? Israel would wipe out their airforces and armies within the first days. 

And Pakistan is having its own problems, it'd never get involved. And seriously man, you like Iran and all the other barbaric regimes there.


----------



## Keile (Nov 8, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I didn't say it wasn't punished, I said there is no death penalty. But in general, it's not punished, no. Here you go. A credible source, unlike yours.



It is true that there is a growing tolerance for gays in Pakistan, but that isn't to say it is legal and people aren't persecuted. These are the hard-on facts surrounding the official position on homosexuality:

1) The Pakistani government denies homosexuality even exists in the country, just like Iran does.

1) The Pakistani government doesn't support or enforce gay rights. Neither does Iran. 

2) Transexuals were only just recently elevated to human status by the Supreme Court. This hasn't happened in Iran.

3) Gays are still being prosecuted in some of Pakistan's most populated provinces and areas by authority figures:



This happens in occasionally in Iran too.

---

When it comes to religious issues, the government also acts like Iran:



"(CNSNews.com) - Pakistan, which has issued a death sentence to a Christian mother of five for allegedly blaspheming the prophet Mohammed, and which regularly prosecutes Christians for allegedly blaspheming Islam, has passed the religious freedom test imposed by the Obama administration."

September 16, 2011

This is what the State Department says of Pakistan's respect for religious minorities:

"The [Pakistani] constitution and other laws and policies restricted religious freedom and, in practice, the government enforces these restrictions,” says the State Department report."

---

Oh yeah and the Pakistani government probably props up terrorist proxies in the area too, just like Iran.


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 8, 2011)

Keile said:


> They "defeated" Arab armies?
> 
> They defended themselves from total destruction. They didn't wholly decimate Arab armies and domestic defenses. Ask MH if he thinks Israel has the projection power to reach into mainland Egypt and Turkey and annihilate them, and he'll say it doesn't.
> 
> ...



Are you talking about the fight over the Gholan Heights. In which case *they made the mistake of advancing*, underestimating Israel's response time, and didn't make it to the Jordan River and secure 3 main bridges.

And they was far better equipped then the Israelis. The Arabs had better tanks, not the T55 but T62. Whereas the T55 has plenty of advantages they lacked range, and they also have night vision. The T62 is slower than the T55 but had longer range. And the Israeli tanks didn't calibrate the barrel w/ the sights and had to do it on the battlefield, which puts them at a huge disadvantage. 

LoL at you fools thinking that these pisspoor excuse of nations that can't even control their own shit will try and defeat Israel AGAIN. 

And you keep talking about Egypt this Egypt that, we own(USA) the Egyptian army. We can and have stopped people from going to war by stopping the flow of cash or making their money worth nothing(U.K.)

Turkey won't get involved, and Pakistan won't get involved, they can't stand against the Europeans and USA, of which will side w/ Israel if its getting attacked by 10 different countries. Although not saying Israel won't whoop the living hell out of you all AGAIN and run you back to your country and take even more land. 

And the USA can send 1 count it, 1 B2spirit bomber and no one would be able to do anything to it. The Israeli's have superior airforce, technology, and training, and superior allies, which is what counts in war.

The Israelis would destroy the Arabs again. 

Wow notice how I keep saying that Arabs will lose to Israel AGAIN. Seriously you people have been trying to beat Israel since 1950 and still haven't succeeded, and now you say that it will lose to the Arabs in the next 4-5 years, or maybe another 50-60 years. Maybe Israel should take the initiative and return the remarks of wiping Israel off the map and wipe the map of you ignorant beligerant fools and do the world a favor so we will stop discussing the shit hole of a place called the ME. 


And to DragonFist5

I don't see where in the post and links you provided that even suggest that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA as you supposed. Maybe Ali Muhammed did recieve some training, but to my knowledge he was a Green Beret, Ranger, Seal, Marine Recon. Wow he recieved probably boot camp(basic shit) and probably advanced training depending on his MOS. You know absolutely nothing of politics, history, or war and shut your mouth and stop spewing the ignorant bullshit that you whole-heartly believe. As I've said Israel>ME due to superior Airforce, training, and Allies so stop saying that Israel is going to be wiped of the map when all you people do is rant and rave anti-sematic bullshit.


----------



## Oil Can (Nov 8, 2011)

This is how reading this topic makes me feel.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-EtOt1iMqE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2011)

Think Saudi Arabia will be wantin' some nukes too, now that Iran has 'em?

(we should revive the Swedish nuclear program too, just for kicks)


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 8, 2011)

Chelydra said:


> On topic it seems things are heating up and Iran is not the innocent little country that some people believe it to be.


I don't think anyone believes iran is a nice country, unless they've been living under a rock for the last decade.

What I find ridiculous is that Iran is going out of their way (even more so than irak) to kill as much americans as possible and the US isn't fighting back.

I wish those fuckers had oil


----------



## Blue (Nov 8, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3DngdT2uSQ[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> *Now add Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon(including Hezbollah), the rest of the Arab world!*



Oh yes, about this.

Notice in the ONLY relevant category (air power) Israel has more assets than Turkey.
Note also that Israeli air power assets are wildly superior to Turkish ones. They both fly the F-16, of which Israel has superior numbers, and Israel also flys the generally superior F-15. Turkey flys the F-4 in great numbers, which is laughable.
While I can't speak to the training of Turkish pilots, Israeli pilots are among the best trained in the world.

Turkey planning on purchasing more than double the F-35s that Israel is planning to would do much to redress the balance, except Turkey is making noise about cancelling their order because the US won't share the source code for the craft's avionics. 
Failure to acquire the F-35 would obsolete Turkey's air force and, by extension, its entire military.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 9, 2011)

Can we leave Israel vs Turkey? We just learned yesterday that Iran *probably is developing nukes*, so I'd rather talk about how other countries will react to this.

Israel vs Iran is ok, but "Israel vs Muslims" is off-topic.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 9, 2011)

Iran is still denying that they're making nukes, it's still allegedly for energy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15659311

Even if you think Ahmejinedad is lying, this is still a pretty classy response.



> "We will not build two bombs in the face of your 20,000. We will develop something that you cannot respond to, which is ethics, humanity, solidarity and justice.





NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> wait, i thought pakistan got their nuke relatively recently, like the 90s



I should have said they started pursuing nukes in the 70's.
& They were in self defence

Israel has nukes and a better army. Iran won't attack.

Iran's neighbours are US Allies (Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan) so they won't attack them either.

The only one in danger in danger is Iran.
While Iran has been all talk, Israel has actually been practising military manoeuvres.

Iran does fund terrorists but I don't see why that'd escalate further once Iran has nukes.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 9, 2011)

> We will not build two bombs in the face of your 20,000. We will develop something that you cannot respond to, which is ethics, humanity, solidarity and justice.



 Successful troll is successful.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 9, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> Having nukes means that Iran can invade Israel without the fear of getting nuked.


If Iran invades Israel and it looks like they will be defeated, Israel will launch it's nukes at Iran and many other countries in the middle east. 

Nothing changed this with Iran getting nukes. 



DragonFist5 said:


> Israel wasn't being hounded by the international community about nukes, before they made them.



When asked the question about their nukes they never lied to the world 


DragonFist5 said:


> Ever heard of doing the wrong things for the right reasons. That's what Iran is doing now.


You a blatantly dishonest person, and champion in this dishonesty. Iran's lies to the international community are indicative of a culture of untrustworthy and despicable leadership.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 9, 2011)

Hoping they go the way of North Korea. Develop something like 2 nuclear missiles so they will count as a "nuclear power" in paper, and then proceed to...do nothing different from before.

Kim Jong-Il's nukes have only served as decoration so far.


----------



## Mael (Nov 9, 2011)

Is Sagefist posting more wankfest videos?

Jesus, buddy, give it a rest.  Is this how you get off?  Ironic genocide?


----------



## Zaru (Nov 9, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Successful troll is successful.



Seriously, considering Iran's track record in terms of human rights, that statement invalidates everything else that comes out of his mouth. Nukes confirmed.


----------



## Keile (Nov 9, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> You a blatantly dishonest person, and champion in this dishonesty. Iran's lies to the international community are indicative of a culture of untrustworthy and despicable leadership.



What a ridiculous post.

Israel employs a policy of nuclear ambiguity, which is to say the country spitefully prevaricates and refuses to answer questions about its nuclear weapon capabilities. This is a dishonest mandate, as it means Israel is just as unwilling to tell the truth about its nuclear program as Iran or any other power.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 9, 2011)

A remember a Saudi prince said about 6 months ago that if Iran got nukes, Saudi Arabia would get nukes as well to preserve the balance of power in the Middle East. I wonder if they will keep that promise.

Balance of terror worked for the United States and the Soviet Union, and for India and Pakistan. So maybe not a bad idea?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 9, 2011)

Keile said:


> What a ridiculous post.
> 
> Israel employs a policy of nuclear ambiguity, which is to say the country spitefully prevaricates and refuses to answer questions about its nuclear weapon capabilities. This is a dishonest mandate, as it means Israel is just as unwilling to tell the truth about its nuclear program as Iran or any other power.


In no way, is refusing to answer a question about your countries military, the same as directly lying about it. 

If Iran wanted to refuse to discuss it they are more than capable to do so, they don't do this, instead they lie to the world.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 9, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The invasion of Lebanon was successful because they achieved their goals. Hezbollah didn't expel them, they chose to go out from international pressure. You act like they deliberately began killing civilians-sorry, that is the Arab's stick, not the civilized Israels. Oh, and you're praising Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli Civilians, way to show you're a hypocrite.
> 
> You forget that Israel has an overwhelming technological advantage, a superior air force, army, and navy, and most importantly, superior training



Since when does Israel care about internaltional pressure, we're talking about a country that's occupying and still continues to occupy east Jerusalem. As for killing civilians:

Israeli civilians:
43 dead
33 seriously wounded
68 moderately wounded
1,388 lightly wounded

Lebanese civilians:
1,191 dead
4,409 wounded

the main reason for Hezbollah' claiming victory is because they were able to stop Israel from reaching their goals.
1-Israel was not able to reach the litani river
2-Israel lost its war on land and at sea
3-Israel failed to stop the Hezbollah' channel (almanar) from streaming
4-Israel committed war crimes including: bombing hospitals an a UN base.(this made them lose worldwide support)

Winning a war means that you reached your primary and secondary objectives, Israel reached none, oh yeah they murdered a lot of innocent Lebanese civilians, because they were targeting them, but nevertheless they didn't even reach one of their prime objective, they lost 137 tanks and most of their crew, and two of their companies go humiliated, as a matter of fact Hezbollah survived and gave the invaders a good shellacking so they reached their objectives, you tell me who won.

Israel isn't used to fighting trained military units which led to their defeat in the Lebonan war, they're even worse when it comes to guerilla war/tactics. Like they say arming a group of pansies isn't going to do you any good. 




> You do know how inferior the Iranians, Turks, Egyptians, Syrians, and Lebanon are in terms of technology and training right? Israel would wipe out their airforces and armies within the first days.
> 
> And Pakistan is having its own problems, it'd never get involved. And seriously man, you like Iran and all the other barbaric regimes there.



I disagree, Turkey has the second largest Navy and army in NATO after the US and the third largest airforce after the US and UK, not to mention that their war ships are all state of the art and their airforce has quite a lot of F-16's(240 and soon F35 fighter jets. Iran is one of the biggest threats to Israel with a huge Navy (261 ships), and 1030 fighter fighter planes. Egypt has a navy of 221 ships and a 884 fighter planes(220 F16's). They also have 3 times the number of military personnel in their army. Syria has again a much larger army and an airforce of 830 planes.

Pakistan is a country that was willing to help someone like Bin laden who carelessly murdered civilians, in his war against the west. Why wouldn't they support a peaceful invasion like the one I'm suggesting in fact the Pakistani airforce aided the Arabs in multiple conflicts against Israel and there is no reason to think that they wouldn't do so again. 

Now we have the rest of the Arab world which would also aid such an invasion: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, gulf states, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Yemen etc Israel would also have to deal with Lebanon and Hezbollah. Also lets not leave out the Saudi Airforce!

watch this:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3DngdT2uSQ[/YOUTUBE]
*RIP Israel!* 





IchLiebe said:


> And to DragonFist5
> 
> I don't see where in the post and links you provided that even suggest that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA as you supposed. Maybe Ali Muhammed did recieve some training, but to my knowledge he was a Green Beret, Ranger, Seal, Marine Recon. Wow he recieved probably boot camp(basic shit) and probably advanced training depending on his MOS. You know absolutely nothing of politics, history, or war and shut your mouth and stop spewing the ignorant bullshit that you whole-heartly believe. As I've said Israel>ME due to superior Airforce, training, and Allies so stop saying that Israel is going to be wiped of the map when all you people do is rant and rave anti-sematic bullshit.



If you read thoroughly through the sources which both I and  Son Of Goku posted you would have learned a thing or two about Bin Laden. The first source I posted has direct links to BBC, ABC, Forbes etc. The tirs source I believe has everything that was in my post and son of goku posted a a referenced guardian article. The middle east together has a better airforce than Israel, the only country that would b willing to start a war against a coalition that includes Turkey (NATO member) is the US. The US on its own won't do shit against such an army (being completely broke) accept get their asses handed to them like in Vietnam with the middle eastern forces still reaching Jerusalem and Tel-aviv which would ultimately force the US to surrender. 



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Oh yes, about this.
> 
> Notice in the ONLY relevant category (air power) Israel has more assets than Turkey.
> Note also that Israeli air power assets are wildly superior to Turkish ones. They both fly the F-16, of which Israel has superior numbers, and Israel also flys the generally superior F-15. Turkey flys the F-4 in great numbers, which is laughable.
> ...



Its laughable how you fail to see how over powered and out numbered the Israelis are but what's even more laughable is that you believe an air force is all a country needs to win a war. Israel might have a slightly superior air force than Turkey, about 24 more aircraft but they're extrely lacking in the in the Navy department. This is extremely dangerous when both states border the Mediterranean.

The Turkish military is formidable, they have a real air force of 400 combat aircraft, and a very large navy of 14 submarines and 26 frigates.

In combat, Israel's navy is outsized by at least five to one. It will have no choice but to run for harbor in a major confrontation, leaving defense of Israel's sea approaches mostly to the Israeli air force--which will also have the serious but doable task of also coping with the Turkish air force, should it come to that. But make no mistake--Israel will lose aircraft in an air war with Turkey. And the Israeli air force will be tied up with minimal capability left over to handle Hezbollah or especially Syria or Iran, should they choose to join the hostilities.


Israel has around 400 F15's/F16 war planes, Turkey has 240 F16's in addition to F35's on order. Egypt has 220 F16's in addition to 40 F16's on order.  

When it comes to Naval capacity Turkey wins hands down, no questions asked. If Turkey is able to properly position its naval vessels in the Mediterranean and capture the sea early enough from Israel's Navy, Turkey could actually inflict massive blows to Israel's Air Force employing its Laser Directed Kinetic Energy Weapons. Turkeys Naval superiority could actually be the decisive factor in this war, if this war was to happen tomorrow.

Due to the sheer NATO training Turkey has endured and actual size of Turkeys Army,Turkey wins on that front as well.


----------



## Keile (Nov 9, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> In no way, is refusing to answer a question about your countries military, the same as directly lying about it.
> 
> If Iran wanted to refuse to discuss it they are more than capable to do so, they don't do this, instead they lie to the world.



Insofar as it means Israel is unwilling to tell the truth, which is that it does have nuclear weapons, there is no difference except in semantics between Iran's lying and Israel's prevarications. 

In the end, the INTENT is to MISLEAD.

If I ask, "Do you know where the apples are", and you, knowing very well where they are choose not to answer because you do not want me to know where they are, how is that any less misleading than simply lying to me - either by affirmatively saying you do not know where they are or pointing me in the wrong direct?
*
ANY ACTION that is MEANT to MISLEAD or DECEIVE is DISHONEST.*


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 9, 2011)

Keile said:


> Insofar as it means Israel is unwilling to tell the truth, which is that it does have nuclear weapons, there is no difference except in semantics between Iran's lying and Israel's prevarications.
> 
> In the end, the INTENT is to MISLEAD.
> 
> If I ask you, "Where are the apples?", and you know where they are but refuse to answer, how is that any less misleading in intent than stating a lie like "I do not know where the apples are."


Sorry, refusing to answer a question about your national security and lying about it are two completely different things. 

There isn't a equivalence between them. Unwilling to answer a question, is not the same thing as lying. 

Israel is NOT purposefully misleading the world with it's intentions.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 9, 2011)

iran faces an existential crisis as well.  any false flag operation by isreal on isreal could result in a nuking of iran. that's real talk, but don't respond , i'm on strike


----------



## Keile (Nov 9, 2011)

> There isn't a equivalence between them. Unwilling to answer a question, is not the same thing as lying



Technically, you're correct. 

Refusing to tell the truth about something isn't the same as lying about it but neither is it the same as actually being honest and telling the truth. 

When one refuses to be truthful, they are being dishonest, and when one purposefully tries to steer away from the truth with fallacies, they are being misleading.

(Dishonest meaning "a lack freedom from deceit and fraud"  and Misleading meaning "giving the wrong idea or impression".)



> Israel is NOT purposefully misleading the world with it's intentions.



Of course it is, not just to due with settlements and peace agreements and the blockade, but nuclear policy as well. Insofar as we know Israel has a plan for its weapons, and refuses to tell us, it is dishonest and misleading, as the truth is sacrificed for fraud and deceit.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 9, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> If Iran invades Israel and it looks like they will be defeated, Israel will launch it's nukes at Iran and many other countries in the middle east.
> 
> Nothing changed this with Iran getting nukes.



If Israel launches a nuke, Iran would launch one back. The middle eastern alliance would give the Israelis 3 options.

1) surrender
2) fight back using conventional weapons only
3) use nukes and cause the end of humanity 

I'm assuming that Israelis aren't suicidal so they would either pick option 1 or 2. 





> When asked the question about their nukes they never lied to the world



They were asked after they obtained the nukes plus no one was threatining their nucleur facilities/ scientists. 



> You a blatantly dishonest person, and champion in this dishonesty. Iran's lies to the international community are indicative of a culture of untrustworthy and despicable leadership.



Every country lies when it comes to protecting their national security!


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 9, 2011)

Keile said:


> Technically, you're correct.
> 
> Refusing to tell the truth about something isn't the same as lying about it but neither is it the same as actually being honest and telling the truth.
> 
> ...


If I asked your mother hold old she was when she first had sex, and she refuses to tell me. Does that make your mother a dishonest person?

Is this the same thing as someone lying about when they first had sex?



Keile said:


> Of course it is, not just to due with settlements and peace agreements and the blockade, but nuclear policy as well. Insofar as we know Israel has a plan for its weapons, and refuses to tell us, it is dishonest and misleading, as the truth is sacrificed for fraud and deceit.



It is not, the idea that refusal to speak about something is an attempt to be misleading is blatantly false. There is no attempt to mislead, there is simply the refusal to divulge information. 



DragonFist5 said:


> If Israel launches a nuke, Iran would launch one back. The middle eastern alliance would give the Israelis 3 options.
> 
> 1) surrender
> 2) fight back using conventional weapons only
> ...


Did you bother to read what I wrote?
"If Iran invades Israel and it looks like they will be *defeated*"

The fact that Iran would nuke them back would mean nothing considering they are on the verge of being defeated. 

-
Next, Iran firing it's missiles at Israel wouldn't be the end of humanity. (at worst it would be end to the middle east, it not going to effect the world.)


DragonFist5 said:


> They were asked after they obtained the nukes plus no one was threatining their nucleur facilities/ scientists.


They were asked, and they never lied about it. 



DragonFist5 said:


> Every country lies when it comes to protecting their national security!


No, it doesn't. 
Most countries refuse to answer about the national security, they don't purposefully lie about it.


----------



## DragonFist5 (Nov 9, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Did you bother to read what I wrote?
> "If Iran invades Israel and it looks like they will be *defeated*"
> 
> The fact that Iran would nuke them back would mean nothing considering they are on the verge of being defeated.
> ...



At that stage it won't be about winning it would be all about surviving. Israel would have to make a choice either surrendering or using nukes which would end up with their whole population being wiped out.  



> They were asked, and they never lied about it.



They didn'e have to lie. They did however lie about the flotilla, illegal settlements and a Palestinian state. *PS There's a reason why Sarkozy called Natenyahu a liar.*




> No, it doesn't.
> Most countries refuse to answer about the national security, they don't purposefully lie about it.




The US surely does, WMD's anybody??


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 9, 2011)

DragonFist5 said:


> At that stage it won't be about winning it would be all about surviving. Israel would have to make a choice either surrendering or using nukes which would end up with their whole population being wiped out.


Yea, that is what the nuclear deterrent is. Though more than likely Iran doesn't have enough nukes to wipe out the whole population, just a large portion. 

It doesn't change Israels ability to fire nukes, it doesn't change the situation at all. Iran having nukes vs not having nukes means very little in terms of IT invading Israel, Israel doesn't change because it. 



DragonFist5 said:


> They didn'e have to lie. They did however lie about the flotilla, illegal settlements and a Palestinian state. *PS There's a reason why Sarkozy called Natenyahu a liar.*


 What the fuck? They didn't lie about nuclear having nuclear weapons. Are you willing to argue this point or not?



DragonFist5 said:


> The US surely does, WMD's anybody??


U.S. didn't lie, the U.S. was wrong. 
The U.S. thought there were weapons, but they were wrong, and therefore their reasons for the war were also based on a incorrect belief.


----------



## Keile (Nov 9, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> If I asked your mother hold old she was when she first had sex, and she refuses to tell me. Does that make your mother a dishonest person?
> 
> Is this the same thing as someone lying about when they first had sex?




As regards her answer she is being dishonest, but not maliciously, because she is merely embarrassed by the question. 

Now, whether this makes her a dishonest person is up for debate, as that would depend on the quality of her character in general.

And of course it is not the same as lying - though it does hold similar characteristics in that she is being dishonest and attempting to mislead.




> It is not, the idea that refusal to speak about something is an attempt to be misleading is blatantly false. There is no attempt to mislead, there is simply the refusal to divulge information.



The idea a refusal to divulge information is never an attempt to mislead is blatantly false. Similarly, the idea a refusal to divulge information is always an attempt to mislead is false. The dividing to me seems to be intent.

If I refuse to answer an embarrass question, I am doing so because it is embarrassing, not because of any malicious intent.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Keile said:


> As regards her answer she is being dishonest, but not maliciously, because she is merely embarrassed by the question.
> 
> Now, whether this makes her a dishonest person is up for debate, as that would depend on the quality of her character in general.
> 
> And of course it is not the same as lying - though it does hold similar characteristics in that she is being dishonest and attempting to mislead.


I am astounded at this, I can only think this is an answer specifically made to not admit that you are wrong. 

Not answering a question you don't want to, doesn't make the answer dishonest. You have the RIGHT to privacy, the fact that someone can ask you a question in no way means that your refusal to answer means that you are being dishonest. 



Keile said:


> The idea a refusal to divulge information is never an attempt to mislead is blatantly false. Similarly, the idea a refusal to divulge information is always an attempt to mislead is false. The dividing to me seems to be intent.
> 
> If I refuse to answer an embarrass question, I am doing so because it is embarrassing, not because of any malicious intent.


I feel you are not grasping the concept of being misleading. A refusal to answer a question, cannot lead a person any conclusion. It results in the person having to assume something, in which case you are not responsible for their assumptions.


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 10, 2011)

I have a question.

Who do you people believe Saudi Arabia would side with? And what difference would it make... say Israel or Iran got them as an ally.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 10, 2011)

IchLiebe said:


> I have a question.
> 
> Who do you people believe Saudi Arabia would side with? And what difference would it make... say Israel or Iran got them as an ally.



Since they dislike both, I think they'd just make popcorn and watch the show.


----------



## Keile (Nov 10, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> I am astounded at this, I can only think this is an answer specifically made to not admit that you are wrong.



What? I don't care what you think of me.

Wikipedia's definition:
"Economical with the truth is popularly used as a euphemism for deceitful, whether by volunteering false information (i.e., lying) or by deliberately holding back relevant facts. More literally, it describes a careful use of facts so as not to reveal too much information."

So in essence, it's not saying anything false, but not speaking the truth either. It isn't bald-faced lying, but it's deceitful nevertheless. This is what Israel does when it doesn't answer the question: it is being economical with the truth, and thus transparently deceitful.






> Not answering a question you don't want to, doesn't make the answer dishonest. You have the RIGHT to privacy, the fact that someone can ask you a question in no way means that your refusal to answer means that you are being dishonest.



As a person, you do have the right to be dishonest and misleading, and in effect not answer questions, but that right has its limits.

If you don't fill out inform the government of your income so as to be taxed, implicitly asserting or explicitly exhorting a right to privacy, the government eventually opens an investigation, finds out just how much money you make anyway and takes you to court for * tax fraud*.

In essence they trample all over your right to privacy, and jail you afterwards for deceit. The only time they don't do this is when they suspect what you're doing is unintentional.

This applies to people, but not countries. Israel has no right to privacy under UN law.





> I feel you are not grasping the concept of being misleading. A refusal to answer a question, cannot lead a person any conclusion. It results in the person having to assume something, in which case you are not responsible for their assumptions.



A refusal to answer a question can very well be misleading. If you're trying to hide something from someone, a good way not to get that person to suspect you is to say nothing particular about it to that person, or to change the subject to Arabs posing the greatest threat or Johnny having a nice car, etc.  

You are never responsible for someone else's intentions (there may be some contradiction here...), but you are indeed responsible for your own - which can be dishonest or dishonest, trustworthy or deceitful - this is enough for Israel's policy to be demonized.


----------



## Watchman (Nov 10, 2011)

IchLiebe said:


> I have a question.
> 
> Who do you people believe Saudi Arabia would side with? And what difference would it make... say Israel or Iran got them as an ally.



I doubt Saudi Arabia would overtly side with one or the other, but I actually think they may covertly support Israel, as it isn't as imperialistic as Iran, and isn't as meddlesome in areas Saudi Arabia cares about.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 11, 2011)

IchLiebe said:


> I have a question.
> 
> Who do you people believe Saudi Arabia would side with? And what difference would it make... say Israel or Iran got them as an ally.



The Saudis would do what every Arab country would do. They'd be glad that Israel did it while condemning them as harshly as possible to keep up appearances.


----------



## Antlion6 (Nov 11, 2011)

Dishonesty - 

1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

Honest

1. honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair: an honest person.
2. showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings.
3. gained or obtained fairly: honest wealth.
4. sincere; frank: an honest face.
5. genuine or unadulterated: honest commodities.

You cant possibly say that not answering a question is dishonest. I have never heard anyone say that a person who does not answer a question is dishonest, and can think of no legal system in the world that equates dishonesty with a lack of answering. They might equate some level of fraud or estoppel with not answering, but not dishonesty.

In the situation you mentioned, you are legally obligated to provide all details of your financial earnings. When you leave something off the tax sheet, you are not 'not answering the question.' You are making a positive statement that 'This is what I earned, and all I earned,' thus the court will hold you fraudulent for intentionally deceiving the authority.

When someone says to Israel, 'Do you have Nuclear Weapons,' and Israel does not respond. They are not stating that they do, or do not. They do not mislead the question asker in any way shape or form. The asker is free to come to whatever conclusion they want. Using your logic, Iran could ask Israel who all their secret service members are, and Israel would be obligated to tell them by this irrational sense of honesty.


----------

