What will Iran bomb first?

What place will Iran bomb first as retaliation?

  • Jerusalem

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • Tel Aviv

    Votes: 8 19.5%

  • Haifa

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Beer Sheva

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Eilat

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • All of the above

    Votes: 8 19.5%

  • America

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • On Planet X, there are no Idiots

    Votes: 21 51.2%
  • Total voters
    41
Oliver said:
Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."
Click to expand...
Who is making this argument? Who made this argument? Citation (source) please?

Yes, everyone knows you don't have a source but just pulled it out of your ass but we should make the fact formal.

Iranians shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

Same thing, other race. No?
Click to expand...
Same thing to nothing is nothing.

It's silly nonsense.
 
RandFan said:
If they use a thermonuclear device against Israel they most certainly will.

FTR: The firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...


So were the bombing of china and Iraq. You see that Iran's History till the
revolution is virtually innocent concerning crimes against humanity. And
I'm not talking about their law system here, which you might define as
crime against humanity as well. Yet you are for actions without any evidence
against Iran, virtually opposing your own sense of justice due to the place
you grew up.

I assume that's the result of fears rather than objectivity based on facts
regarding their nuclear goals.

Of course, Israel is a "one bomb state". That surely is a reason to
be concerned about Iran wanting a nuclear bomb.

My point, however, is: Once Israel does attack Iran's nuclear facilities,
the Iranians may reactivate their nuke-program, pull out of the IAEA and
most probably will elect an even more radical leadership.

That's not in Israel's interest. Therefore it's a lose-lose situation in
which the choice to accept that Iran is a sovereign State, solving
the Palestinian Problem and starting a friendly diplomacy, is the wiser
choice for Israel's survival. Because I have no doubt's about Iran's
retaliations - the question is, what would they be.

Is this a radical, irrational view I hold? I don't think so - unless you're
able to point out the flaws in my POV.
 
Oliver said:
I don't know why you think it did improve - but thank you very much, Goury. :)
Click to expand...

Sometimes you can articulate your thoughts, like the above post, an other times you can barely express yourself, and only rely on strawmen and smilies.

Split personality maybe...
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Sometimes you can articulate your thoughts, like the above post, an other times you can barely express yourself, and only rely on strawmen and smilies.
Click to expand...


Well, it depends on the issue if I make a rather short comment thinking
that it will be understood the way I intended - or I explain my position a
little bit more detailed if I think someone doesn't include some important
details to a topic. In the post in question, I'm just explaining what I didn't
want to put into the OP in the first place. First I wanted to point out what
exactly we are talking about when people cheer for attacking Iran, namely:

Retaliation
 
Oliver said:
Well, it depends on the issue if I make a rather short comment thinking that it will be understood the way I intended - or I explain my position a little bit more detailed if I think someone doesn't include some important details to a topic.
Click to expand...

I think you do have two distinct posting styles. Stick to the latter. The former only ends up offending people and make you look stupid.

when people cheer for attacking Iran
Click to expand...
You mistook sarcasm with cheering.

Retaliation
Click to expand...
Yes, every time you feel Iran is being attacked, you retaliate. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
So were the bombing of china and Iraq. You see that Iran's History till the revolution is virtually innocent concerning crimes against humanity. And I'm not talking about their law system here, which you might define as crime against humanity as well. Yet you are for actions without any evidence against Iran, virtually opposing your own sense of justice due to the place you grew up. I assume that's the result of fears rather than objectivity based on facts regarding their nuclear goals.
Click to expand...
You are rambling. What are you talking about? China? Iraq? What is my "sense of justice"?

Of course, Israel is a "one bomb state". That surely is a reason to be concerned about Iran wanting a nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...
I don't know what "one bomb state" means. What does this have to do with the discussion?

My point, however, is: Once Israel does attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the Iranians may reactivate their nuke-program, pull out of the IAEA and most probably will elect an even more radical leadership.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt they could elect a more radical leadership. Ahmadinejad already wants to see the end of Israel.

That's not in Israel's interest. Therefore it's a lose-lose situation in which the choice to accept that Iran is a sovereign State, solving the Palestinian Problem and starting a friendly diplomacy, is the wiser choice for Israel's survival. Because I have no doubt's about Iran's retaliations - the question is, what would they be.
Click to expand...
You mean the Neville Chamberlain route?

Is this a radical, irrational view I hold? I don't think so - unless you're able to point out the flaws in my POV.
Click to expand...
5,000 years of military history and Neville Chamberlain are reason enough to be concerned with yout POV.

FTR: I'm not against diplomacy but anyone that thinks that the choice of options is a no brainer is ignorant of history. Pure and simple.
 
RandFan said:
You are rambling. What are you talking about? China? Iraq? What is my "sense of justice"?

I don't know what "one bomb state" means. What does this have to do with the discussion?

I seriously doubt they could elect a more radical leadership. Ahmadinejad already wants to see the end of Israel.

You mean the Neville Chamberlain route?

5,000 years of military history and Neville Chamberlain are reason enough to be concerned with yout POV.

FTR: I'm not against diplomacy but anyone that thinks that the choice of options is a no brainer is ignorant of history. Pure and simple.
Click to expand...


Why do you bring up this lie over and over again??? [Brainwashed Idiot Syndrome?]

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

See? :confused: [And tell me if you spot the words "Map", "Nuke", "Israel", "Genocide", "Wiping off" or something similar in between nevertheless. :boggled:]

Anyway: Explain to me what Tehran may be able to do after an attack on them. And why an attack is the wiser option for Israel in the first place - despite the "Game Changer" aspect for the US.

 
RandFan said:
?

Who is doing this? Specifically? A quote would be nice.

Your not going to give it are you? I think we both know why.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the agenda-driven mindset that this is a normal
thing to do without thinking about the consequences. And by cheering
I'm also talking about the "Iran is Evil" chorus which is dominant in here
and in the US Media.
 
Oliver said:
Why do you bring up this lie over and over again??? [Brainwashed Idiot Syndrome?]
Click to expand...
What lie?

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
Click to expand...
What?

See? :confused: [And tell me if you spot the words "Map", "Nuke", "Israel",

"Genocide", "Wiping off" or something similar in between nevertheless. :boggled:]
Click to expand...
I've not a clue Oliver. What?


Anyway: Explain to me what Tehran may be able to do after an attack on them.
Click to expand...
What?

And why an attack is the wiser option for Israel in the first place -despite the "Game Changer" aspect for the US.
Click to expand...
 Unlike you I don't claim to be an expert while at the same time talking out my ass. I'm not so presumptious or arrogant as to say that I know what is the wiser move.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
I'm talking about the agenda-driven mindset that this is a normal thing to do without thinking about the consequences. And by cheering I'm also talking about the "
Click to expand...
Oliver said:
Iran is Evil" chorus which is dominant in here and in the US Media.
Click to expand...


So, no quotes? No proof? You just assert that it is true and it is true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom