Israel ready to attack Iran?

[Spoke]

Right, right, because Israel’s nukes have some kind of…deterrent effect.

That makes sense.

[XT]

Seriously? First off, since no one knows for sure that they DO have them, and since they have never even mentioned them, it’s pure speculation that they even exist. Secondly, ever our keen eyed Martian would note that Israel HAS been invaded…numerous times since it’s inception by several of it’s neighbors.

So, we have a combination here of purported nuclear weapons that no one is really sure of (contrast that with the evidence that Iran merely has a nuclear weapons PROGRAM), the fact that Israel has certainly been threatened multiple times by multiple neighbors throughout most of it’s history, and the fact you still haven’t addressed that Israel NEVER SIGNED THE NNPT WHILE IRAN DID!

What point do you think you are making here??

-XT

[FinnAgain]

@Spoke

Right, right, because Israel’s nukes have some kind of…deterrent effect.

And yet Iran would have no need of any deterrent effect if it instituted the Additional Protocols and stopped its relationship with international terrorism.
You have yet to answer the outstanding questions which show that your position is untenable. Do you concede?

@FinnAgain

There are still numerous unanswered problems with the Iran nuclear apologists.

To begin with, they haven’t demonstrated that Iran actually needs nukes for self defense. The closest they’ve come is vague accusations that Iran is in danger and/or Spoke’s map. Oddly enough Spoke does not use his map to claim that Qatar is in danger, so obviously mere proximity to the US’ military forces is not a cause for alarm. Likewise, the fact that Iran would have nothing to worry about from the US or Israel if it simply stopped funding Hezbollah and Hamas and instituted the Additional Protocols has not been sufficiently answered. No credible reason has been offered for why either Israel or the US would want to attack an Iran whose nuclear program was certified 100% peaceful by the IAEA and which wasn’t using international terrorists as proxy forces. What’s more, the fact that Iran has already attacked the US several times, with no US military response, has been handwaved when it’s even been addressed. We are only left to conclude that even given clear justification the US has chosen not to strike back on multiple occasions. But we are assured that, absent any justification, the US might still attack. This passes neither the smell test nor common sense.

[…]

Faced with the facts and the lack of any cogent, let alone compelling counter argument, the only clear conclusion is that Iran has no actual need of a nuclear weapon and their continued defiance of their obligations under the NPT as well as their continued support of Hamas and Hezbollah leave them vulnerable to distinctly negative consequences.

Further, if we are to add provocations which Iran has committed but the US has not retaliated for, shall we add its support of Al Quaeda?

[

Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan
between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993,another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.The relation-
ship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7,al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued 52 in ensuing years.

](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf)

[

Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran,on their way to and from Afghanistan.For example,Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle”operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf)

Does Jordan also need a nuclear deterrent against Israel and the US? Why or why not?
How does your argument deal with so many massive logical and factual gaps? Do you concede that your position is untenable through admission, or will your silence speak for you?

[Spoke]

Any county with oil can use a deterrent.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Spoke]
Any county with oil can use a deterrent.
[/QUOTE]

And yet none of the other ones are out there trying to develop nukes. Hell, Canada is right next door to the Evil USAUSAUSA, and they have more oil there than in the ME…and we also GET most of our oil from them and Mexico (another country that’s literally right next door to the devil), yet they don’t seem to be feeling the need to either develop nukes or fortify their borders in anticipation of a massive tiger invasion.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

Let the record show that you have chosen to admit that your position is untenable by remaining silent on all outstanding questions and choosing to change the subject with a one-liner.

On the subject of the one-liner, please identify how many times Israel has attacked another nation for its oil. Additionally, identify how many times in the modern era the United States has attacked Canada, Mexico, China, the UAE, Norway, and the UK. Further, give a detailed analysis of why Canada is in dire need of a nuclear deterrent.

Or, as per usual, allow your silence or shifting the topic to indicate that you concede your claim is baseless and should be discarded.

[Spoke]

@xtisme

And yet none of the other ones are out there trying to develop nukes.

You mean the ones where we have already planted our military bases?

[XT]

Oh, you brought out The Map again. I guess you win this round, Spoke.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

The Map seems to prove that having US troops around you makes you unsafe.
Unless you have US troops in your country, in which case they keep you safe.
Unless you are a nation that does not support terrorism and is not illegally building nuclear weapons, and then having US troops near you does not make you unsafe.
There’s glory for you.

However Spoke still has not answered how many times Israel has attacked another nation for its oil. Nor has he identified how many times in the modern era the United States has attacked Canada, Mexico, China, the UAE, Norway, and the UK. Nor has he given a detailed analysis of why Canada is in dire need of a nuclear deterrent.

I posit that he has not because he can not, and his claim that Iran needs a deterrent since it’s an oil rich nation is a spurious rationalization designed to buttress his argument as it is lacking in support and cannot stand on its own.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Spoke,

Since I humored you, would you please explain to me why you see no difference between a Zionist and a non-Zionist and someone who believes the Balfour Declaration was a good idea and someone who thinks it was a horrible one.

If you’re unfamiliar with what a Zionist is and what the Balfour Declaration is I’ll be happy to explain what they are, but unless you need them explained please explain your reasoning.

Thanks

[Spoke]

@Ibn_Warraq

Since I humored you, would you please explain to me why you see no difference between a Zionist and a non-Zionist

You claim that distinction and yet you fly to the ramparts to defend Israel right alongside Finn every time someone questions Israeli actions (with, as I’ve already noted, an similarly abrasive and insulting debating style). So no, I am not seeing the distinction.

[FinnAgain]

@FinnAgain

Let the record show that you have chosen to admit that your position is untenable by remaining silent on all outstanding questions and choosing to change the subject with a one-liner.

On the subject of the one-liner, please identify how many times Israel has attacked another nation for its oil. Additionally, identify how many times in the modern era the United States has attacked Canada, Mexico, China, the UAE, Norway, and the UK. Further, give a detailed analysis of why Canada is in dire need of a nuclear deterrent.

Or, as per usual, allow your silence or shifting the topic to indicate that you concede your claim is baseless and should be discarded.

So noted, you have conceded that you have no answer and your claims on that topic should be discarded.

One may also note that there is a distinct difference between pointing out your errors in fact, logic and historical context and defending Israel. One may be a staunch critic of a nation but believe that such criticism should be based in reality and not fiction.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Spoke

You claim that distinction and yet you fly to the ramparts to defend Israel right alongside Finn every time someone questions Israeli actions (with, as I’ve already noted, an similarly abrasive and insulting debating style). So no, I am not seeing the distinction.

So then to be clear, you have extremely strong opinions about Israel but you don’t seem any difference between someone who is a Zionist and so
someone who isn’t.

With all due respect, that is one of the most moronic things I’ve read. Please explain your reasoning.

Thanks

[Dissonance]

@xtisme

What nukes? Do you have conclusive proof they have them? Regardless, it’s a moot point, since you still seem to gloss over the fact that Israel never signed the NNPT, so they could develop nukes if they want too.

@xtisme

Seriously? First off, since no one knows for sure that they DO have them, and since they have never even mentioned them, it’s pure speculation that they even exist.

Respectfully, you should probably drop this line of reasoning since it only serves to undermine your valid point of Israel not being a signatory to the NNPT. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, with the most common estimate being ~200 warheads. Every major source of defense info from Jane’s to FAS is in agreement that Israel has the bomb. Israel has never denied possession of nuclear weapons, and open admission of them would cause more problems than it would be worth. The refusal to confirm or deny is more akin to the US Navy’s policy to never confirm or deny if any vessel is carrying nuclear weapons.

[FinnAgain]

…
…
…
… nuclear wessels!

[Spoke]

@Ibn_Warraq

So then to be clear, you have extremely strong opinions about Israel but you don’t seem any difference between someone who is a Zionist and someone who isn’t.

I only know what I see from your posts, and I see no indication from your posts that you are anything like an anti-Zionist. You can say you are not a Zionist, but if you defend Israel at every pass, you sure start to look like a Zionist. (“Zionist” being your choice of words, not mine.)

With all due respect, that is one of the most moronic things I’ve read.

Gee, thanks for the due respect. You’re a true gentleman.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Spoke

I only know what I see from your posts, and I see no indication from your posts that you are anything like an anti-Zionist.

When did I say I was an “anti-Zionist”?:dubious:

if you defend Israel at every pass, you sure start to look like a Zionist. (“Zionist” being your choice of words, not mine.)

Er… I don’t “defend Israel at every pass”.

Moreover, since you say “Zionist being your choice of words not mine” please explain what you think the term means.

Thanks

[Spoke]

@Ibn_Warraq

Moreover, since you say “Zionist being your choice of words not mine” please explain what you think the term means.

Cut the condescension.

Thanks.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Spoke

Cut the condescension.

Thanks.

I’m not being condescending, I’m merely responding to your posts.

You’ve just stated that you think there’s no difference between someone who is a Zionist and someone who isn’t unless I dramatically misunderstand your reasoning.

So, please explain what you think Zionists believe and why there’s no difference between those who are Zionists and those who aren’t.

Apologies if I come across as condescending.

Thanks

[Spoke]

(I am well aware the definition of “Zionist”. But I tend to avoid the word as it is often used as a sort of perjotative by some. Your insinuations, and Finn’s, notwithstanding, I really don’t think in those terms.)