 |
| Dumbledore |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 11 2009
Posts: 5568
Location: Israel
FS Record: FPL 09/10 - 1824th
|
el_pappje wrote: I have to come to the conclusion that Ironfist is of the same ilk as many investment bankers - so narrow-minded as to be unable to comprehend any querying of his/Israel's position, and therefore why people get angry/annoyed/upset. It's really quite ridiculous how people who should have a majority on their side seem intent on destroying their own support base. OK… here’s the deal matey… One, we don’t need to have people on our side. It would be nice, if people would care to either check their ‘facts’, try to get a first-hand experience by visiting or even approach these debates from a neutral POV before making their mind up, but in all fairness, we don’t need it. Just like New-Zealand doesn’t need people on its side to justify its existence or the English for their actions in Scotland, nowadays. Both New-Zealanders and English couldn’t care less whether the UN or Germany support their actions in those internal-national matters. Israel has been doing absolutely fine since the day it was born, despite unbelievable odds against it, and all its woes and calamities have increased since people outside started taking sides. BTW, it has become worse for Israelis and Palestinians alike! Two, we are no longer the push-around Jews of Europe who needed approval for survival or every day life, persecuted and blackmailed every day and butchered every time some Christian, Muslim or miscellaneous idol worshiper needed to vent his frustration or scapegoat his misfortunes. We are a free, independent nation in our own homeland, which has been ours before many of those participating here ancestors’, came down from the trees. Go tell the Chinese they need to justify their existence in China. They are a younger nation than us in their homeland. Three, I have seen your posts on these subjects before, so don’t go preaching about an investment bankers narrow-mindedness. Hypocrite. Four None of the posts here above were of the “querying“ type. There’s a great difference between asking a question and making a statement, let alone a self-assured, arrogant statements which have little hold in reality. Even more so when they are directed as insults or defamations of one’s nation/country.The idea of an attack on Iran's facilities has been around for a while now, so I'm not sure why the current time should be any more relevant to a possible attack. I looked up the nuclear plants on google maps about 3 years ago, about the time a pre-emptive strike was due - probably shortly after Israeli jets took out some Syrian anti-aircraft positions to demonstrate their capability to get into Iran. As for the power struggle in Iran, that's been rumbling for ages too. It's maybe quite legitimate to think that Ahmedinejad could be toppled; doesn't mean there'll be friendlier, less anti-Israeli replacement, but he is under major pressure. Israel has been warning everyone, especially its European friends/allies/counterparts of the danger in nuclear Iran. Everybody understands the threat in itself, everyone understands the threat of the Iranian regime regardless of the nuclear weapons and in fact, everyone acts on it. The UK, Germany, France, Italy and like many others all fear and loath the Iranian regime and fear it obtaining these weapons. In fact they have all even acted on this in ostracising Iran and employing sanctions against it, but in the usual lethargic way which results in very little action beyond words and then facing an awful problem when it’s too late. See the numerous security (Yugoslavia), financial (Greece, etc.) and other international issues the European governments united and alone failed to handle and that’s just in-house, lest we mention further away.
Why now? Because Iran is at the cusp of obtaining its own nuclear warheads and the varying estimates range between a few months to a couple of years at best. This is as to why at the current time…
Here’s another piece of feigned ignorance or plain lying when you mention Israel’s strike on some “Syrian anti-aircraft positions”. Beloved, benevolent President Assad - no different than Gadhafi, Ahmadinejad or most other Arab rulers – was also on his, though more modest way, to making his own nuclear weapons. Syria has a border with Israel – not so Iran which is over two countries away – thus we could not allow it to go further and that nuclear reactor was taken out. The same happened with Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor in 1981. So, saying that Israel needs to “demonstrate their capability to get into Iran” is also misguided at best as the Syrian reactor was across the border from Israel, a few hundreds of kilometres, while Iran is some 3000 kilometres away, across the air space of at least 3 hostile nations. You need to get your facts right before issuing an opinion! BTW… ! Last month, Israeli jetfighters have participated in a joint exercise in Sicily alongside the Italian and Dutch air forces, practicing a thousands of kilometres long strike… if you do need proof of our malicious intentions. 
Last but not least, The Iranian regime is one of the worst in the world, yet we accept it as a daily fact of life just like the one of North Korea. Most in-house alternatives will be as bad if not worse, as a natural result of a power struggle where the more extreme gets to stand out more. The Iranian people can be different, they have (see more in my reply to AkNotSpur below) quite a few years ago. When they have finally revolted against a western oriented regime, they have allowed the most religiously fanatic replacement to take over, and there’s almost no way out against a religious motivated regime, except with external help. The Iranian exiled opposition residing in Paris or the underground student movements have the same chance of toppling that regime as Suarez scoring a hattrick against Chelsea this coming GW.But it is a legitimate debate to bring up Vanunu and his appalling treatment. And please don't patronise people by suggesting Israel does not own nuclear weapons. It really doesn't help the argument. And it isn't true that the rest of Israel's neighbours are waiting to drop bio-bombs - there are plenty who want Iran suppressed and for whom Israel is therefore a covert ally. Wiping out your own dissidents is different to balancing regional power. Again you are complicating and confusing matters, thinking perhaps that shooting in every possible direction will eventually yield some result. Combining five issues in every sentence without any underlying idea.
Vaanunu was a little troubled technician working at one of Israel’s nuclear facilities. He needed money, so went ahead and sold his country out in the most despicable manner. As befitting a traitor of the worst kind, he was jailed. What is so appalling about his treatment? Anybody in the UK doing the same thing would be ostracised and punished in the same way, let alone when in such a close-knit community so dependent on its security such as Israel. Besides… Vaanunu was always a bit of a lost soul, on and off refusing to speak Hebrew, siding and objecting with the Israel’s enemies according to the seasons of the year and unsuccessfully trying to write books about his “nuclear days”. An attention seeking, sad, little miscreant of no consequence other than to Israel’s PR enemies.
Whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons, we can all make the same speculations and the knowledge is as ambiguous here as it is for you. However, we here (in Israel) all understand the value of military security and no discussing our knowhow in public, since we have all served in uniform – some of us still do, and considering our very precarious hold on existence, we will not admit this openly, even those who know anything about it.
Many of our enemies have chemical and biological weapons which they have openly used numerous times against their other Arab enemies or their own sections of hostile population. They have not used them against us only because of fear of a nuclear reprisal! This has nothing to do with Saudi-Arabia viewing Israel as a covert ally, but everything to do with Syria developing and deploying such weapons, in tandem with Iran. Saudi Arabia (inc. Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Jordan) do not own these types of weapons, have never threatened Israel with such weapons and all of them fear and hate Iran. The culprits are the same countries openly targeting their own civilians – which none here seem to care about [see the numerous threads about the daily massacres in Syria ]– and are the ones going down the road of further militaristic and/or fundamentalist regimes.
This neighbourhood is far crazier and more complicated than you can fathom, and you need to grow up and live here to grasp even the basics. I have more chances of analysing your local pub social makeup from viewing its publican’s photo than you making judgement calls about our area based on what you read in the newspapers.Israel's trump card is that it is the only nation that can attack Iranian facilities and basically get away with it. So it beggars belief why it continues to wind people up with its behaviour, be it its settlements or belligerence or whatever. A bit of perspective is sorely lacking. This last paragraph is perhaps the epitome of your post’s reasoning structure, combining two unrelated issues into one point. Let me understand… if Israel wants to attack Iran and get away with it, it needs to give up to all Palestinian demands, be them settlements or its “belligerence”? ie, everyone will back up Israel after it destroys Iran’s nuclear facilities if we give the Palestinians everything they want? Or… did you mean that the Palestinians wouldn’t mind Israel attacking Iran if we give up the “settlements”? {This is a very poor and usual thing when discussing any matter relating to Israel or the Middle-East, to throw in the word ‘settlements’ regardless of the topic discussed}.
Other than the fact that Israel attacking Iran is almost impossible – physically and technically, in what scenario is it exactly our trump card? Why do you think Israel has any more capability of attacking Iran than a combined Allied force from the waters of the Persian Gulf? I’m really trying to understand - unlike you it seems – where exactly am I (or Israel for that matter, is) lacking in perspective, compared to your lack of plain knowledge about this region’s geography or politics and inability to reason without confusing different matters?====================== ====================== Billy Whiz wrote: If Israel launches a pre-emptive strike on Iran, Iran will immediately bomb Tel Aviv in retaliation, faster than you can say Mad Dog Ahmadinejad. Do not forget that Israel develops/ed the most advanced line of anti-missile missiles in the world Arrow Project] so we’re less worried about Ahmadinejad’s capabilities than Iranian supplied, Syrian controlled missiles held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Iran launches a nuclear strike against Israel and their missile(s) are intercepted by Israel’s defences, Jordan is most likely to suffer based on interception probabilities, prevailing winds and scatter patterns. Then the US will attack Iran in support of its ally, and, even though NATO has already said it wants no part in this particular theatre of war, Britain will feel obliged to support the US, just as it always does (there are a lot of powerful and influential Friends of Israel on both sides of the political divide) If the US will join the party, prior or after a clash between Iran and Israel, it will not be because of “powerful and influential Friends of Israel” – you make it sound like a. it’s a bad thing that Israel has friends and b. it’s part of the universal Jewish plot as prescribed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The US will join because it is in itself a friend of Israel, has its own interests in the region and clearly sees the danger of Iran running amok. The UK will join the US because it values its friendship with Israel and the US, has interests in the region and at the end of the day, once all lip service to the Arab world is paid, British citizens, like most Europeans, know exactly where the next big threat to the world lies (following the demise of the USSR). So we bail out the eurozone economically and we fuel the US war machine militarily, even though we can't afford either. Actually, wars usually boost (the winning mostly) economies, which might be a good thing for the UK economy. Not that it is a new thing in UK history…====================== ====================== AkNotSpur wrote: trampie wrote: Iran supports a Palestinian state. I have would have had no idea what trampie said as he is on my “ignore” list, but you have quoted him and I must say that in this, he is right. Very much so. Iran not only supports a Palestinian state, it is also the major, most important patron of the Hamas. It is the biggest weapons supplier to the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a few smaller terrorist organisations in the Gaza strip. Iran the biggest supplier of weapons to the Hezbollah in Lebanon, most important coordinator, controller, operator of terrorist schools and other such charitable organisations in the region. The Gaza strip is fast approaching an Iranian like religious fundamentalist status and it is clearly visible when you compare a regular street view in the West Bank cities of Ramallah, Schem (Nablus) or Bethlehem to the Gaza cities of Gaza, Khan-Yunes or Rafah. One looks like a semi-western city, such as the ones you’ll find in Turkey and the other will look like Iran, including women covered in Burkas, public executions of criminals, etc.I find it hard to believe that any country that supports a Palestinian State would launch a nuclear, or chemical weapons, attack against Israel - potentially killing thousands of Palestinians and laying waste to the territory that they seek - or that any Islamic nation would bomb Jerusalem. Actually, the geography of Israel and the demography of its population make this a very simple thing to do. Many Israelis (appx 50%) live on the Mediterranean beach, in, around and between the cities of Tel-Aviv and Haifa Geo map Israel. The Palestinians and Jerusalem, are located some 20-50kms East in the West Bank, aka Judea & Samaria which is a (low) mountainous region (400-800m above sea level). You could easily drop any non-conventional weapon on the major populated areas of Israel, with absolutely no effect on the Palestinian population. The holy places would not come in harm’s way. Biological and chemical weapons have a fairly quick expiration date after release, ie if used, I should take more than a couple of months to declare an area safe and nuclear weapons at low grade are quite manageable too after a few short years – that is certainly a shorter period of time than waiting another 63 years (Israel’s age).On the other hand, the USA, UK and Israel are hardly likely to kill too many of their friends - or destroy sacred Jewish and Christian sites - by bombing Iran. I think that religious friendships play a very minor role in this. Neither the US, the UK or Israel for that matter target civilians and in iran’s case, most nuclear sites are isolated in countryside locations. Unlike Iran and its brethren Arab –as much as both hate this reference – we do not set to wipe a nation out, blow away its civilians, buses, restaurants and such like. This statement is probably going to attract some moronic attention, so I’m not going to comment on this further.--------------------------------- AkNotSpur wrote: Ironic that Iran was actually the second country (after the USA) to give de facto recognition to the State Of Israel back in 1948 - even though Iran, along with the UK, had voted against the UN plan to partition Palestine. Iran was a very different country at those days, with a different regime, different mind-set and later in years a friend to Israel. Only after the Shah was deposed and the Shiite Muslim extreme fundamentalists took over all ties with the West, including Israel were cut off. Iran has greatly benefitted from its ties with Israel in those days and there’s no doubt it is a poorer country nowadays for the course it has taken since the Ayatollah Khomeini took power.For the record, the UK refused to implement the UN plan, arguing that it was unacceptable to both sides (an interesting stance, given what happened in Ireland and India, to name a couple of other post-colonial/mandate splits); The UK argued the UN plan as it was different than its own plan formulated and presented since 1921 on numerous occasions, and because ultimately, the British were practically thrown out of Palestine by the Jews & Arabs here. The aftermath of WWII, the crumbling of the commonwealth hold of colonies and the Jewish fight, ie terror against the British, drove the British out. These reasons prompted the British absence from almost all UN votes on the matter. I don’t know what source you cite when saying it was due to the unacceptability of the solution proposed, but it is certainly not the case. BTW, the Jews have always agreed to any and all UN resolutions regarding division of the land, until the Arabs rejected it and started a war to eradicate the state of Israel a day after it was born and after rejecting all UN solutions. it certainly was against the wishes of the Arabs and a minority of the Jewish population. Now, if this statement is honest then it is plain wrong, though I will hazard a guess that it comes from a misguided or intentionally misleading source. The first part of the sentence is certainly true, in as much as the Arabs have rejected all UN involvement (or decisions) in the region, let alone an establishment of a Jewish state. In those days, they still fancied themselves capable of destroying Israel. This to remind you that the Arabs in Palestine were led by one Haj Amin al-Husseini who was Hitler’s close ally and objecting to the British in any issue, let alone destroying the Jews, was paramount.
During World War II he actively collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, meeting Adolf Hitler personally and asking him to back Arab independence. He requested, as part of the Pan-Arab struggle, Hitler's support to oppose the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. He was promised the leadership of the Arabs after German troops had driven out the British. He helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS. At war's end, he came under French protection, and managed to slip away to Cairo to avoid eventual prosecution. So that is part of the story about Arab wishes and the UN.
The second part of your sentence is total bollox because the UN division plan was based on current demographics at those days and the area assigned for the Jewish state was only that where Jews were a clear majority. In fact, it was so strict, that the area proposed for the Jewish state was divided into three different sections, linked by a single point of contact, so that by all means necessary, the Jews would not control areas where Arabs were a majority. So, maybe it is wise to check the facts before making these usual mistaken and misleading statements, meant for nothing more than to bolster an illegal, morally corrupt and historically inaccurate self-serving campaign to legitimise the Arab campaign against Israel. ====================== ====================== BTW, just as a parting shot, relevant to the topic of this discussion… Iranian missile architect dies in blast. But was explosion a Mossad mission?Perhaps it will not be necessary to attack Iran with nuclear weapons or with an Allied strike force, in order to bring a stop to their nuclear programme. ====================== ====================== Note; an apology to blahblah as I have misunderstood his reference to a British issue in previous posts hereabove.
|
|
crap finacial management?
}
