KeyStone Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Please cite where Israel mentions that using nukes is on the table. Instead of proving the topic is too difficult for you, don't post and leave us guessing. Israel does not mention that nukes are on the table. Given that Israel has never owned up to the fact that they have nuclear weapons, (you may remember Vanunu being abducted and imprisoned for 19 years for daring to tell the truth about Israel's lies, it is unlikely that they will come and say that explicitly. Grown-ups however, have an ability to read between the lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Israel does not mention that nukes are on the table. Exactly....then this... Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes? Was merely a brain fart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I can make the following statements: Ahmadinejad will be assasinated Ahmadinejad should be assasinated Neither of these statements suggest that I intend to kill him. The second suggests you want him killed. When suggestions come from world leaders, they tend to take the form of orders... "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", Amd lo, the Knights ride to satistfy their liege's desire... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Iran has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Arguably, Ahmadinejad has predicted, and stated what should be, but at no time has he 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map. This lie has been repeated 'ad infinitum' through the mainstream media, and through our Western politicians, but it simply is not true, and is an egregious distortion of the truth.Would any sane Israeli leader take a chance? Generally, when leaders with lots of people and money speak in a bellicose manner they and their people should be prepared to accept the possibility that some of the utterances may be believed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Please cite where Israel mentions that using nukes is on the table. Instead of proving the topic is too difficult for you, don't post and leave us guessing. When they say 'all options', nuking Iran would be included in the 'all options'. It doesn't get any more simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 When they say 'all options', nuking Iran would be included in the 'all options'. It doesn't get any more simple. To be clear, what sort of nuclear weapons does Isreal have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 When they say 'all options', nuking Iran would be included in the 'all options'. It doesn't get any more simple. Maybe Iran should cut the aggressive rhetoric and actions? Maybe the government can concentrate on bettering their own people than creating killing fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 When they say 'all options', nuking Iran would be included in the 'all options'. It doesn't get any more simple. You have a bizarre form of logic, one that cannot be easily countered. Given they did not mention nukes, you say that nuking is an option. I cannot but assume that since they did not say bombimg Iran with pillows, pillow bombing woud also be an option. Israel is know to possess pillow parity with Iran. As well, since they did not say that Unleashing zombie hordes of mutant yentles, that unleashing zombie yentles would be alos on the table. I am sure that in your panteon of things not mentioned, we should alos prepare for Israel attacking with mustard gas, falafels, bubonic plague, hummous and nerve gas...since clearly all of these things were not mentioned. Now of the things mentioned, clearly those things are not on the table, as the table is only so large and cannpt possibly hold what was indeed discussed and what was imagined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 When the Canadian government does not give them the same rights and freedoms as other Canadians. Given that many others before this hypothetical event have not had the same rights and freedoms as other Canadians, but have used the courts and the government to gain those rights, any terrorist activity performed by any groups or individuals regardless of their motive, should look forward to the magistrate ordering the immediate destruction of those engaged in that activity. There is no excuse for terrorism in a civil democratic society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) Would any sane Israeli leader take a chance? Generally, when leaders with lots of people and money speak in a bellicose manner they and their people should be prepared to accept the possibility that some of the utterances may be believed. JBG, it really depends on what they are willing to do, to avoid 'taking a chance'. Do they nuke Iran? Do they invade? Do they kill all the people in Iran? Are these options on the table, to eliminate a perceived threat? Is a nation justified in destroying another nation in order to protect itself from a perceived threat? If Israel believes this to be true, then there can be no doubt that Israel is a threat to Iran, and so by extension and by the same logic, Iran would be fully justified in destroying Iran. Regardless of what Ahmadinejad said and intended, Israel does not want Iran having nuclear weapons, nuclear technology or long range missiles. This would be a reasonable position if it weren't for the fact that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Edited December 22, 2009 by KeyStone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Maybe Iran should cut the aggressive rhetoric and actions? Maybe the government can concentrate on bettering their own people than creating killing fields. The same can easily be said of the US (although not so much under the current President). Israel certainly likes to ramp up the rhetoric too. Perhaps when they submit to IAEA inspections and abandon their nuclear weapon program, they can have some credibility when it comes to lecturing others about nuclear technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Perhaps when they submit to IAEA inspections ..... They already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 This would be a reasonable position if it weren't for the fact that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. There is no real evidence Israel has working nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Given that many others before this hypothetical event have not had the same rights and freedoms as other Canadians, but have used the courts and the government to gain those rights, any terrorist activity performed by any groups or individuals regardless of their motive, should look forward to the magistrate ordering the immediate destruction of those engaged in that activity. There is no excuse for terrorism in a civil democratic society. Really? Did blacks obtain equal rights through the courts and government alone? Did women obtain equal rights through the use of courts and government alone? What about those terrorists at the Boston Tea Party? As much as we laud our democracy, the fact is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The Nazi party was elected when they started appropriating Jewish homes. Should the Jews have simply acquiesced? As for 'ordering the immediate destruction', I think such a mandate might be more applicable to the nation of Latveria, than a nation such as Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Really? Did blacks obtain equal rights through the courts and government alone? In Canada, yes. In the US, yes Did women obtain equal rights through the use of courts and government alone? YesWhat about those terrorists at the Boston Tea Party? Tell me, you think the Boston tea party was about civil rights? As much as we laud our democracy, the fact is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The Nazi party was elected when they started appropriating Jewish homes. Should the Jews have simply acquiesced? That's what happens under Proportional Representation... As for 'ordering the immediate destruction', I think such a mandate might be more applicable to the nation of Latveria, than a nation such as Canada. Happens all the time. You get a clean head shot, you take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 The Nazi party was elected when they started appropriating Jewish homes. Should the Jews have simply acquiesced? Eh? The Nuremburg Laws didn't come into effect until after the Nazis came to power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 You have a bizarre form of logic, one that cannot be easily countered. Given they did not mention nukes, you say that nuking is an option. I cannot but assume that since they did not say bombimg Iran with pillows, pillow bombing woud also be an option. Israel is know to possess pillow parity with Iran. As well, since they did not say that Unleashing zombie hordes of mutant yentles, that unleashing zombie yentles would be alos on the table. I am sure that in your panteon of things not mentioned, we should alos prepare for Israel attacking with mustard gas, falafels, bubonic plague, hummous and nerve gas...since clearly all of these things were not mentioned. Now of the things mentioned, clearly those things are not on the table, as the table is only so large and cannpt possibly hold what was indeed discussed and what was imagined. Stop babbling nonsense. Israel has nukes as weapons and when they repeatedly say all options are on the table, this would mean that nuking is also on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Stop babbling nonsense. Israel has nukes as weapons and when they repeatedly say all options are on the table, this would mean that nuking is also on the table. Of course they do. You have an Israeli government annoucement stating this I assume? What kind are they? How many?> How are they delivered? Here, this sums up your argument,in a form suited especially for you. the salient point starts at 2:00 in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Stop babbling nonsense. Israel has nukes as weapons and when they repeatedly say all options are on the table, this would mean that nuking is also on the table. If Israel secretly has working nukes, which apparently is your belief, do you think they would be stupid enough to say 'all options are on the table --- except nukes?' Wouldn't that be admitting something that you say they don't want to admit? So by saying "all options," they are obviously only referring to what's 'out in the open.' They're not going to make an exception for something they either don't have or aren't disclosing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 If Israel secretly has working nukes, which apparently is your belief, do you think they would be stupid enough to say 'all options are on the table --- except nukes?' Wouldn't that be admitting something that you say they don't want to admit? So by saying "all options," they are obviously only referring to what's 'out in the open.' They're not going to make an exception for something they either don't have or aren't disclosing. Oh yeah. Obviously. Because American Woman says so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Oh yeah. Obviously. Because American Woman says so. OK...show the board some real information on the types numbers and test blast results (yields, etc) for Israel's independently made atomic weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Oh...that's right. There isn't any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Oh yeah. Obviously. Because American Woman says so. No, because logic, common sense, and intellect say so. How can Israel deny they have nukes and then threaten someone with them? As I said, it would be pretty stupid to say "all options except nukes" while denying that they have nukes (it would be a 'got'cha moment' that Israel is too smart to get caught in) -- and if they don't have (working) nukes, it would make no sense, either. Therefore, when they say "all options," they obviously mean 'what's in the open;' ie: what they claim they have at their disposal. And your complete inability to even attempt to refute what I said basically 'says so,' too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Israel has had Nuclear weapons for years.....and well they should! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 No, because logic, common sense, and intellect say so. Not it does not. Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel does not deny that they have it either. This makes the nuclear weapons as one of the options to use as a weapon. Not sure why you want to debate something so simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.