world

Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked

57 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

Uhm... ok. Wait, if Iran blows up the heart of Isreal (where the heck is that anyways?)if the -> US <- attacks, then what happens next? The US won't be hurting. Kind of a really stupid statement that shows Iran is thinking they can hold another country hostage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel maintains a doctrine of “nuclear ambiguity” and has never confirmed nor denied having its own nuclear weapons program.

"Nuclear ambiguity"! That certainly sounds innocent enough. They have long had a secret nuclear weapons program, which is extremely worrying considering their record of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity (e.g., Goldstone Report).

Iran, on the other hand, joined the NPT and has a nuclear program that is open to inspections. Iran has not started a war in a very long time (centuries?) and they have made it clear they will not do so in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran’s missile program and its nuclear work—much of it carried out in secrecy

Its not secret, they are following all the requirements of the NPT, and more; they allow inspections.

In September, the revelation of a secret uranium enrichment facility near the Iranian holy city of Qom, represented a coup for Western intelligence and put Iran on defense.

More BS. The "facility" was still far from completed and Iran informed the IAEA long before it was required to do so.

Why is the Associated Press writing in such a deceptive way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about the collateral damage, you know, in nearby Palestine? Sometimes I think Pres. Ahmadhihejhad cant be trusted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Iran has not started a war in a very long time (centuries?) and they have made it clear they will not do so in the future.”

I could quote you a large number of speeches made by Hitler where he says that he has no intention of starting a war. It is never wise to trust the word of a lunatic.

Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time and has never even threatened to use them. Ahmadinejad (the Jewish convert to Islam) however cannot stop himself from making threats.

I wonder if his extreme dislike of Israel might be because deep down he feels he needs to prove something? Not a good idea having a senior politician with such emotional problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabre rattlings from Iranian defense just like, in North Korea via North korea defense.

The Iranian nuclear issues/Middle East Nuclear issues, should be focused on,for more peaceful ways.

World peace makers for Middle east,should focus on bringing more peaceful ways in rich Iran via many ways/incentives.

There should be,step by step by progress on peace building atmosphere for Middle East via building up communications.

Communications by all parties ,need to break ice,for better future.

The struggle for peace and progress via a more well off Middle East,should go up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

corrections- There should be step by step progress, on peace building atmosphere,for Middle East via building up communications.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As Seiji says above, collateral damage.

Israel is a pretty narrow strip and difficult to hit accurately. Iran could end up inadvertently damaging the Gaza Strip, or worse still, hitting Israel's nuclear facilities and polluting that whole area with radiation.

To tell the truth, Iran has been arming Hamas and Hesbollah with missiles for some years now and hitting Israel by proxy pretty regularly, so this is not terribly new.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My question still hasn't been answered, when talking about nukes, do you wait to be hit and then hit back, or do you do a pre-emptive strike?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world has collectively said that it will not tolerate Iran getting the bomb; so what the hell is the world going to do about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My question still hasn't been answered, when talking about nukes, do you wait to be hit and then hit back, or do you do a pre-emptive strike?

Good point skip. So you are suggesting Iran should blow up the heart of Israel BEFORE it is attacked? Good point, but it goes against Iran's policy of not striking first.

As for Israel attacking pre-emptively, the problem is that they have an intelligence (no, not IQ) that is known to be deceptive; i.e., they'll make up any intelligence that will provide a reason to attack and the west will gobble it up. The truth is that there is no valid reason to attack Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

diggerdog- There will never be peace in Middle East/Isreal.

Middle East/Israel will have to cope with all peace,they have,all that they have.

What they have,will be better,if they cope better with conditions there. Many people who want total peace,just migrate. Rest of world is booming,with China/USA/Japan/India. USA and Japan were deadly enemies,now they are united.

Middle East and Israel has gone to war many times.

The conflicts are getting smaller and smaller with few casulaties. Israel/Middle East are survivors,they know how to get rich.

Middle east/Israel are richer and more well off,that many other poorer parts of world. Even conflicts have helped to improve people and nations in Middle East/Israel.

2009/2010s Israel/Middle East is not 1940s Israel/Middle East.

Middle East and Green Israel can get greener.

If there is a will,there is a way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi: Iran, on the other hand, joined the NPT and has a nuclear program that is open to inspections.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that the IAEA says Iran isn't cooperating, then I guess one could say that Iran is fulfilling their obligations under the NPT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds like a job for international peace-maker / charisma man: Barack Obama!

Bout time he started earning some Nobel dollar-dollar bills.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for Israel attacking pre-emptively, the problem is that they have an intelligence (no, not IQ) that is known to be deceptive; i.e., they'll make up any intelligence that will provide a reason to attack and the west will gobble it up. The truth is that there is no valid reason to attack Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moonbeams, I don't get your point. Your link clearly states that the soviets fed Syria false reports that Israel was going to attack... which it wasn't even prepared to do.

Again, we are not talking about a conventional war, we are talking about something much bigger.. how is anyone, as tense as the situation is, supposed to take chances. This is no longer about who is right or wrong. That is now for kids. You got two sides here. Why should either one wait to be attacked with such force?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran will “blow up the heart of Israel” if the United States or the Jewish state attacked it first

Whatever. This is exactly the same rhetoric every Islamic nation uses before they get their asses kicked. Iran is not a threat right now. However, if they obtain nuclear weapons, which sabi and neo-Nazis hope for, then Iran will become a serious threat. The last thing the world needs is an Islamic nation, which supports terrorism through the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas, having nukes. Their nuclear facilities need to be taken out now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton: "I could quote you a large number of speeches made by Hitler where he says that he has no intention of starting a war. It is never wise to trust the word of a lunatic." says grafton.

You can just as easily akin the recent actions of the Israeli government/military to the Nazis and the Holocaust, etc., but people like yourself would say it's wrong simply because Israelis are Jews. My point is that your comparison is equally ludicrous. Saying that just because Hitler promised there would be no war means Iran is going to start one (or imply they might) is utterly bogus.

Helter: "This is exactly the same rhetoric every Islamic nation uses before they get their asses kicked."

Hahaha... yeah. All those Islamic nations that have had their 'asses kicked' of late.... for example? And I like how you attempt to use wit (and fail) in calling people who don't agree with Israel 'neo-Nazis'. Dude, your extremes, and calls in the past for Muslims to die, make you WORSE than you claim the people you so vehemently hate. You chime in day and in and day out with simple and utter, unjustified hatred, proving yourself to be every bit an extremist and incapable of compassion as the people you protest about.

"The last thing the world needs is an Islamic nation, which supports terrorism through the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas, having nukes."

Again, the one-sided blindness. No one 'needs' nukes, bottom line, and regardless of religious/ethnic background. The Israelis, with their bombast, have shown they are potentially as incapable of being responsible as any Islamic nation that has yet to be proven to have nuclear weapons (in development).

This is merely sabre-rattling, and need I remind you the man said 'if attacked FIRST', which means Iran would be retaliating. But go ahead and back up your 'arguments' by saying I'm therefore a neo-Nazi for disagreeing with Israel and/or how the US unconditionally supports them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "My question still hasn't been answered, when talking about nukes, do you wait to be hit and then hit back, or do you do a pre-emptive strike?"

We all know very well your stance on Muslims, skip, and we also know you are asking this question from the standpoint of Israel. But let's flip it around and watch you squirm... Does Iran wait for the US/Israel to decide to attack it pre-emptively and then strike back, or does it attack first? I mean, my way of phrasing it actually makes more sense on this thread, since Iran claims it would only strike if hit first. You are just throwing out straw-man arguments to take away from that fact. But I would like to see you try and answer the question from the opposite stand point.

"how is anyone, as tense as the situation is, supposed to take chances."

This of course goes both ways, as you may have been trying to point out in your latter comment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They say Israel has no heart. I'm so confused.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "My question still hasn't been answered, when talking about nukes, do you wait to be hit and then hit back, or do you do a pre-emptive strike?"

One more thing... why on earth would this ever be considered a valid question? It's limited to one option: war. Why doesn't your question leave room for, "Or should both countries wait, let cooler heads prevail, and work harder for peace?" Why must it simply be 'be hit first or hit first'? To me, that's one sign of very, very narrow-minded thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We all know very well your stance on Muslims, skip, and we also know you are asking this question from the standpoint of Israel. But let's flip it around and watch you squirm" What a disgusting statement. I may biased, I don't like right wingers, which is what I consider Iran to be, but guess what smith, so are you. You cheer for the underdog. You want to play fair. You face off on your oppent with a "put up your dukes, but try to shake a hand first" you need to stop the grade school diplomacy. And,no I am not throwing a straw man. I'm asking a question, literally, on an A vs B scenario. Besides, if Israel attacked Iran right now, could you really and honsetly consider it unprovoked when you have an idiot taunting the heck out of you? People all over have been killed for less. Wake up! So either answer it or lay off.

Oh, and "We all know very well your stance on Muslims, skip" And we, at least those with an open mind, know very well what Muslims' stance on me is too!

"Or should both countries wait, let cooler heads prevail, and work harder for peace?" " hmmm, haven't you noticed that that hasn't worked since I was born. Why must it simply be 'be hit first or hit first'? To me, that's one sign of very, very narrow-minded thinking." And there is the answer to your question as to why I would mostly side with Israel. I would like to think of it as intelligent open minded people (Israel) who are for the most part quite liberal, going against fascist, right-wing religious zealots, who don't even consider evolution (Iran). You really should re-consider you position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Working harder for peace only makes sense if there is an obvious determination (no matter what kind of mess they are in) on both sides to find the peaceful way. If there is not that shared determination, its just like a sad, bad marriage where one partner offers themselves as a sacrificial lamb, in the 'hope' that things may change. They very rarely do, & may only get worse. If one side is committed to total control, and to any subterfuge necessary to bring that about - then ALL 'working harder' amounts to rattling peas in a tin can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SmithinJapan

Your stance is just as well known and seems to be designed to ridicule anybody that disagrees with you rather than try and see an alternative view than your own. When writing an answer to Sabiwabi I used what I knew (and I’m sure you would agree) would rub him up the wrong way. The man is an extremist that hides behind quotes from inane web sites most of us wouldn’t waste electricity going to.

I don’t hide who I support, I do support Israel, I believe they are sometimes over the top in their reactions and wish they could give more thought to how the world perceives their actions. But I can also understand that they have been defending themselves against extremist for a long time without ever making any headway. That might well have become a little frustrating for them. They are also up against a world media that seems to promote a history of Israel that is based on twisted Arab propaganda not truth. Ask yourself what would happen to Israel if they were to lay down their arms and give up their nuclear weapons? How long do you seriously imagine that country would last? Israel is not and has never tried to wipe out any country, it has no intentions of doing any such thing. Could the same be said of the Arab countries? Disarm Israel and Iran would move against it in days, disarm Iran and Israel would do nothing, and is the real difference that you refuse to see. Israel’s defence may well get brutal but what they are up against would be infinitely more brutal if it was ever given the chance. You can hide behind your good guy wanting to talk rather than fight, but then you are not an Israeli living in Israel. How much laughter people like you must give to the Muslim crazies as they watch you defend them. Your gullibility is amazing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: This is merely sabre-rattling, and need I remind you the man said 'if attacked FIRST', which means Iran would be retaliating.

Iran's behind thousands of rockets launched into Israel over the last decade. That would be like Israel setting up a proxy in Iraq, launching nearly 10,000 rockets in Iran, then claiming they'll retaliate if someone "strikes them first."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: you need to stop the grade school diplomacy.

Triple spot bang on, amigo. What smith does is find the most outrageous right-wing statement he can find, then debate the situation from that point of view, thereby sidestepping anything moderate in the process. There's an obvious case against letting Iran get nukes but since he only focuses on people who speak in absolutes about Iran he ignores those arguments entirely, which is a big benefit since those arguments usually counter his.

What has Israel done to Iran? Nothing. Iran, on the other hand, has helped launch nearly 10,000 rockets into Israel over the last decade. They've said they want them wiped off the map. They've told the IAEA to take a flying leap. They deny the holocaust. But hang on, says Smith, Iran is just saying what would happen if they were attacked, so obviously they must be reasonable people.

Guess what, Smith. Iran is the one doing all the attacking. If you want to see a cool head prevail, I think Israel sitting on their asses while Iran arms people to attack Israel proper is a pretty strong statement about a cool head regarding Iran. Israel has shown incredible restraint regarding Iran while Iran has done nothing but conduct military tests, fund terrorists to attack Israel, and seek nuclear weapons to back them up.

You should take a stand against Iran regardless of how you feel about Israel. Iran and nukes isn't just about Israel, and people putting forth arguments against Iran aren't all ring-wing nutjobs who hate Arabs/Persians. But since you only talk to right-wing nutjobs who hate Iran, you ignore what everyone else is saying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superfib,

Iran, on the other hand, has helped launch nearly 10,000 rockets into Israel over the last decade. They've said they want them wiped off the map. They've told the IAEA to take a flying leap. They deny the holocaust.

You do realize that nothing in that list is true, don't you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

props to smithinjapan. We have our diffs, but he is consistent. He isnt very often right or even very convincing, but he always makes the effort to be politically correct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You might also want to have a listen to Scott Ritter talking about Iran.

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19851&hilit=ritter

The "international community" should have listened to him about Iraq, I hope they'll listen to him about Iran and that cool head will prevail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder what is it that makes the Iranians and the Israelis so hostile toward each other...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee, sabiwabi. Let's let Scott Ritter talk for himself without using any propaganda racist websites, shall we?

Scott Ritter on Iran and Israel:

And I will say this: if I were Israeli, I’d be doing exactly what they’re doing. Alright? They have a legitimate concern here. Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s a small little country. And if a nuclear device goes off inside that small little country, Israel ceases to exist as a viable nation-state. They can’t afford any room for error. There is no margin of error here.

That’s why Israel has taken the position that not only will they not tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapons program, they will not tolerate nuclear technology that is usable in a nuclear weapons program, in this case, enrichment technology that Iran is permitted to have under Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel says no. If Iran can enrich to levels that are usable in a nuclear reactor, that same technology can be used to enrich to levels usable in a nuclear device. Therefore, the Israeli position is “not one spinning rotor,” meaning not one centrifuge allowed to operate inside Iran. That’s a zero-tolerance policy.

Now, Iran’s a big country that carried out a covert program. You know, let’s mention this, too. When the MEK gave the briefing in August of 2002 using what many people have said is Israeli information, guess what? They were right. Let’s not forget that. They didn’t come out and spew garbage. This was not Ahmed Chalabi making stuff up. This is the MEK representative saying there is a facility in Natans involved in the enrichment of uranium, that is being kept secret from the world. And they were right. So let’s give a little tip of the hat to the Israeli intelligence community for getting it right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't the European Union also concerned about Iran's Nuke Program???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it is time the UN start calling for sanctions against Israel for its many breeches of UN resolutions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everton2,

Perhaps you could help me? I don't see any particular specific connection to UN resolutions against Israel in regard to this. Could you explain what you think the connection is? Its kind of like suddenly saying, 'Iran doesn't treat its homosexuals fairly.' While it may or may not be true, it really has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku it is simple. The point is that Israel and Iran are both guilty of ignoring the call of the UN to stop pursuing certain policies at home and abroad. This involves enriching Uranium to weapons grade, building homes in the occupied territories or covertly built a nuclear weapon which you have refused to confirm or deny. The connection is that both countries have displayed unmitigated thuggery in their behavior and should be regarded as equally a threat to world peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everton2 at 09:24 AM JST - 11th October

So what you are in fact saying is here is my straw man with which I want to change the subject from Iran to Israel. Fine, so long as we all understand that for you it is easier to attack Israel than it is to say anything about Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi: You do realize that nothing in that list is true, don't you?

Hearing Sabi tell you something isn't true is the best way to confirm that something is indeed true. I can only thank you for your cooperation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sharky1: Isn't the European Union also concerned about Iran's Nuke Program???

Nah, it's just "right wingers" and people who believed there were WMDs in Iraq. At least that's what people tell me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everton2: I think it is time the UN start calling for sanctions against Israel for its many breeches of UN resolutions.

That would never happen. Israeli nukes were build by the French and they have veto power on the UNSC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everton2,

Thanks for the response. However, I am still confused. Which of the UN resolutions you were referring to has something to do with Israel actions against Iran. I missed that part.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee, sabiwabi. Let's let Scott Ritter talk for himself without using any propaganda racist websites, shall we?

Well, that site has an audio of Ritter talking bout Iran; the words are his. In your post however, I can't tell what are Ritter's words and what are yours. The last bit about Iran's covert program is completely opposite of what Ritter says in the audio. I'd rather trust the audio than your post.

As for the criticism of the site as a "propaganda racist website", it is much less so than this forum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

Please. Everything from 'And I will say this:' is all Scott Ritter and none of me. It came from the Democracy Now website and he said what I quoted him saying. I have read what Ritter says and you misrepresent it. The man is simply saying we should absolutely not jump right on the 'attack Iran' wagon. I agree with that. He also says he understands Israel's fears about Iran. I agree with that, too.

As for the criticism of the site as a "propaganda racist website", it is much less so than this forum.

LOL! Maybe you should stop posting so much and it would be that way! LOL! Seriously, you don't seem to know what the words mean! LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry: LOL! Maybe you should stop posting so much and it would not be that way! LOL! Seriously, you don't seem to know what the words mean! LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First of all, neither Israel nor the U.S. is in any position whatsoever to demand anything from Iran. They are both nuclear powers, have a long history of attacking other countries and using violence when they so desire. The list goes on. Let's just look at the title of this article and it's propagandistic implications. Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked . Now, this gives the illusion, a very common illusion in fact, that Iran is the aggressive state, regardless of the fact that they've been on the receiving end the vast majority of the time. (Orwell would have loved this blatant propaganda). Secondly, let's just switch the title a little. Let's say 'Israel to blow up the heart of Tehran if attacked'. Now, I doubt VERY seriously that this would even cause a stir at all to many of the well indoctrinated in the west. "Well of course if Iran attacked Israel they should have a right to blow them off the map". Most any elementary school child would easily observe the hypocrisy. It's just interested that so many supposedly "well-educated" westerners can't make such elementary observations. It's rather pathetic, in fact. That a country may not wish to continue to be so weak as to not leave itself open for Israeli or U.S. aggression, is, well, just appauling. Were the U.S. or Israel even remotely interested in their "security", as if THEY are the ones who need to be worried and not those subject to their aggression, they should probably grow up and start acting like countries which deserve some sort of respect. Unfortunately, they do NOT for the most part. Perhaps they can demonstrate how they are not such rogue states by, perhaps, getting rid of some, or all, of their own WMD instead of telling others they can't have them, too. As I said, most any elementary child would be perplexed at the obvious hypocrisy. That educated westeners don't seem to even understand such obvious facts is an indication of the severity of the indoctrination they are experiencing. However, it does show that both the U.S. and Israel sure are polished in propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and kinniku, you have some sort of evidence that Democracy Now is a propaganda news service? And as compared to what? FOX or something? I've never seen a line from anyone, anyone serious anyway, demonstrating this to be the case, and I've been watching and actively searching for 20+ years. It's quite interesting that when exposed to such basic and uncontroversial truths as that which DN has the audacity to present some can respond so irrationally. But it's to be expected from much of the indoctrinated public. (For a well done study demonstrating how far off some folks perceptions are from what happen in the real world, I direct everyone here to a P.I.P.A. study which had a breakdown of the top news services in the U.S. with regards to their viewers perceptions and the Iraq war (first time around). Basically, it showed that those who watched Public TV had the least misperceptions, which should be of no surprise ((even though they pale in comparison to even better services like DN or Pacifica)). And it went down the list, of course listing FOX viewers as having the most misperceptions. Now, this was of course of no surprise at all to ANYONE who's even semi-informed. But what made the study especially interesting was that it showed that of the FOX viewers, those who watch more hours per week had even worse perceptions i.e., The more FOX News you watch, the less you know.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

featherhead,

Please learn to read better. I provided the Democracy Now Scott Ritter quotes. I Like that site and think it is a good website or I would not have provided it. I was complaining about another site link posted here that is, without a doubt racist propaganda. (BTW, I do not watch the Fox New Channel, it is not available here even if a I chose to wish to watch it.) So, you should consider taking back your last post to me.

As far as earning respect and acting like grown up countries, I would suggest that Israel, the US and Iran could all benefit from your advice.

They are both nuclear powers, have a long history of attacking other countries and using violence when they so desire.

It is ineffective to lump the US and Israel together. Their situations are very different. Israel has never attacked Iran and it is Iran that has started this aggresive tone towards Israel, not the other way around. It does not matter that Israel has nuclear power. That does not prevent them from giving their opinion about a country that has acted aggresively against it.

However, it does show that both the U.S. and Israel sure are polished in propaganda.

EVERY country uses propaganda to further its own agenda. That you cannot see that Iran also does this speaks volumes to your lack of balance on the subject.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

It does not matter that Israel has nuclear power.

Nuclear POWER? Now that is deserving of the "LOL" label you've been using.

That does not prevent them from giving their opinion about a country that has acted aggresively against it.

Acted aggressively against it? What has it done other than to criticize it for the decades of crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinian people.

EVERY country uses propaganda to further its own agenda. That you cannot see that Iran also does this speaks volumes to your lack of balance on the subject.

That's another "LOL" moment! It speaks volumes of your balanced view of things that are nowhere close to balanced.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nuclear POWER? Now that is deserving of the "LOL" label you've been using.

Why? We are discussing nuclear power, aren't we? Or did you forget in the midst of your hopes and dreams for Iran to get nuclear weapons? Anyway, what I wrote still stands whether we say Israel has nuclear power or is a nuclear power.

Acted aggressively against it?

Yup. Iran's proxies in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are certainly acts of aggression. You just like them, so it does not concern you. Apparently, neither does how much more these proxies disstabilize the Middle East even further.

What has it done other than to criticize it for the decades of crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinian people.

See above...plus, they should probably cool it with the suggestions of other countries disappearing. You see, normal people think that kind of talk is aggressive.

It speaks volumes of your balanced view of things that are nowhere close to balanced.

How so? It is a realistic viewpoint of the world. That is probably why it is so foreign and strange for you. If you do not think each country attempts to promote itself in a positive light, you are certainly not livng in reality.

You see, balanced means actually looking at both sides and commenting on both sides equally. I have done that. Unsurprisingly, you have not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as expected, the rhetoric is heated on both sides (between Israel-Iraq AND between JT readers), but think about a (very plausible future) where Iraq's threats to "blow up the heart of Israel" are accomplishable? it's like the case of a bully who has continually threatened to shoot people at school who is able to obtain a gun.. how much can he be trusted? maybe we should do something before he does something serious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jason6, please mind your Ns and Qs. And please note that Iran only threatens to attack Israel IF it is attacked, and they are making this threat because Israel and the west haven't stopped beating their drums. Iran is not a threat to anyone if they leave it alone. And the BS about Iran attacking Israel by proxy is baseless propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi: Quote "And the BS about Iran attacking Israel by proxy is baseless propaganda."

Upon what do you base this statement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, Kinniku, perhaps I owe you an apology. So, rather than dwell on this, I'll just wait for someone to comment on the content rather than whom it may have been accidentally directed at. That now out of the way, Jason6, I have a question or two for you. Why do you assume that the bully is Iraq (though Iran is actually the focus here)? Israel has demonstrated much more aggressive behavior towards Iran, breaking U.N. resolutions time and again, and on and on....They've already demonstrated themselves to be the bully. No need to wait to see who may use power at will. I believe your analogy needs some correction. Also, I'm not really sure if your not so subtle call for "preventive war" is such a good idea. If we accept this as an option, it will pretty much allow anyone to invade anywhere and make the claim that "they thought" or had "good reason to believe" that the other country was going to do something, and so "we", whoever it happens to be, had the right to invade to stop them in advance. Basically, this means that 9-11, nor any other similar attacks could be counted as anything other that "a first strike in self-defense". However, if one of the countries were on their way to attack someone, arguments could be made that the country about to be attacked had the right to defend itself. I doubt anyone would be against this idea. So, I'd be careful about the notion which you considered as an option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran’s arsenal of long-range missiles, which can be fitted with nuclear warheads and are capable of striking the Jewish state.

Tehran is equipped with Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of up to 2,000 kilometers. Israel is about 1,000 kilometers west of Iran.

Shahab 3 is a medium range missle. If they have missle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, it is not the Shahab 3.

So what is this malarky?

If the Iranians nuked Israel, all of Iran's Muslim neighbors would quickly tear it apart. Nuclear blasts around your country are not a joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi: You want Ns and Qs? How about that other quote where he says that Israel should be "wiped off the map", a statement made in 2005 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran). What is remotely defensive about that statement? Looks like you need to look past the Ns and Qs, mind the rest of the alphabet. Bullies like Iran and North Korea might eventually get their nuclear weapons regardless. Then they proceed to threaten the world with chaos if their demands aren't met.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Featherhead:

" First of all, neither Israel nor the U.S. is in any position whatsoever to demand anything from Iran. They are both nuclear powers, have a long history of attacking other countries and using violence when they so desire. "

Maybe it is time to remind you that neither Israel nor the USA violated IAE sanctions by signing the non-proliferation treaty and then lying about their nuclear bomb program.

And last time I looked neither of them declared it a national and religious obligation to obliterate another country, as did Ahmedinajad on Irans "Al Qouds day" (a national Iranian holiday dedicated to the destruction of Israel).

Enjoy your warm and fuzzy feeling about the mullah regime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fair play, I respect Iran for standing up against the underlying zionist agenda. Keep her on a steady course Capt Obama...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel maintains a doctrine of “nuclear ambiguity” and has never confirmed nor denied having its own nuclear weapons program.

This I find unacceptable..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites