Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

What Will Bibi Do Now?

35 posts in this topic

So Obama has now (or will in a couple of hours) made it clear that he will accept Russian leadership on an issue concerning WMD. Netanyahu has been holding his coalition together on the hope that Obama has been believable when he says he won't allow Iran to have a nuke.

It's obvious now that his promises and declarations are void. Does this move by Oby to get out of one fix place us squarely in another, WORSE one? Does the IAF now go it alone?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Israel has nothing in particular to gain with a change of regime in Syria. They are far more concerned with Iran's nuclear weapons.

Of course anyone who thinks Syria is really going to give up chemical weapons is naive, but maybe some of them will be destroyed. I would have liked to see a stronger reaction against chemical weapons, but at least the attack got a good denunciation and was not swept under the rug. The American public is mainly to blame here -- Congress just responding to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he'll shut up now and stop telling Americans what they either "must" or "cannot" do.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he'll shut up now and stop telling Americans what they either "must" or "cannot" do.

I hope so as well. He needs to finally face the fact that his nation is alone on Iran. IF they can act against Iran they should. If they are unable then I wish them the best because the mullahs have NO FEAR of the US at all any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Israel has nothing in particular to gain with a change of regime in Syria. They are far more concerned with Iran's nuclear weapons.

Of course anyone who thinks Syria is really going to give up chemical weapons is naive, but maybe some of them will be destroyed. I would have liked to see a stronger reaction against chemical weapons, but at least the attack got a good denunciation and was not swept under the rug. The American public is mainly to blame here -- Congress just responding to them.

Syria is an afterthought with Israel, I agree. But Iran will rightly judge Obama's actions and proceed accordingly - Bibi needs to take note, and I believe he is - so I wonder if his reaction will be to quietly let the dogs loose some dark night soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Israel has the resources to act on its own. I might be wrong, but it would be a huge risk for them. They may opt to wait and see who is the next US president. They may also want to wait to see if Iran evolves into a more reasonable place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Israel has the resources to act on its own. I might be wrong, but it would be a huge risk for them. They may opt to wait and see who is the next US president. They may also want to wait to see if Iran evolves into a more reasonable place.

Israel's leaders are a rational lot. They will not risk such a war if there is ANY other way to achieve their goals. But I believe that Bibi actually believes his own words about this threat and I believe he views Iran as an existential threat to Israel. There have been several reports in the Israeli press about missions that were scrubbed due to US pressure. That pressure will have to be outright threats from this point on because only a fool would believe Obama now. I don't really worry about Israel - what will be will be but I hope we can be prepared here in the US for the fallout when it occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Israel has nothing in particular to gain with a change of regime in Syria. They are far more concerned with Iran's nuclear weapons.

Of course anyone who thinks Syria is really going to give up chemical weapons is naive, but maybe some of them will be destroyed. I would have liked to see a stronger reaction against chemical weapons, but at least the attack got a good denunciation and was not swept under the rug. The American public is mainly to blame here -- Congress just responding to them.

Ahahahaha.

Aghum.

Yeah, thats real funny Biff.

Edit: I mean, Frank, ofcourse.

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahahahaha.

Aghum.

Yeah, thats real funny Biff.

Edit: I mean, Frank, ofcourse.

Ya know, P, one of these days pretty soon Israel is going to actually ACT. They are going to DO some of the things they are constantly being accused of and when they do of course they'll be condemned by the world ( as opposed to?) but their enemies will be too busy trying to survive and rebuild to mess with them for a while and that will be WORTH the puny condemnations of a bunch of hypocrites in the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy can't say

Ya know, P, one of these days pretty soon Israel is going to actually ACT. They are going to DO some of the things they are constantly being accused of and when they do of course they'll be condemned by the world ( as opposed to?) but their enemies will be too busy trying to survive and rebuild to mess with them for a while and that will be WORTH the puny condemnations of a bunch of hypocrites in the UN.

Thie "Ectoplasmic Residue" obviously has nothing to say so he resorts to name calling and being rude. What a farce. I do worry about what the Israelis may do, as they are a small country and Obama does not seem to have enough backbone to protect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Israel has nothing in particular to gain with a change of regime in Syria. They are far more concerned with Iran's nuclear weapons.

Of course anyone who thinks Syria is really going to give up chemical weapons is naive, but maybe some of them will be destroyed. I would have liked to see a stronger reaction against chemical weapons, but at least the attack got a good denunciation and was not swept under the rug. The American public is mainly to blame here -- Congress just responding to them.

To blame for no longer believing that Military intervention would help in any way?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, P, one of these days pretty soon Israel is going to actually ACT. They are going to DO some of the things they are constantly being accused of and when they do of course they'll be condemned by the world ( as opposed to?) but their enemies will be too busy trying to survive and rebuild to mess with them for a while and that will be WORTH the puny condemnations of a bunch of hypocrites in the UN.

Don't mess with (uncle Sam has now retired, so now it's israel)?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy can't say

Thie "Ectoplasmic Residue" obviously has nothing to say so he resorts to name calling and being rude. What a farce. I do worry about what the Israelis may do, as they are a small country and Obama does not seem to have enough backbone to protect them.

Well yes, 'Blue fish'.

Obviously.

Just as obvious as Israel not having anything to gain from the destabilization and eventual fragmentation of an[other] opposing force.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/preparing-the-chessboard-for-the-clash-of-civilizations-divide-conquer-and-rule-the-new-middle-east/27786

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Syrian regime had always been hypocritical: denouncing Israel. Israel therefor has nothing to gain from regime change and a lot to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Syrian regime had always been hypocritical: denouncing Israel. Israel therefor has nothing to gain from regime change and a lot to lose.

Although your well- versed, explanatory and extremely coherant comment is very inticing.. (?!)

I would, in all modesty, beg to differ.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although your well- versed, explanatory and extremely coherant comment is very inticing.. (?!)

I would, in all modesty, beg to differ.

You may be right, but in general Israel is better off with neighbors as stable and prosperous as possible, not those constantly setting themselves backward. Stable regimes and prosperous people don't risk it all in symbolic terrorist stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but in general Israel is better off with neighbors as stable and prosperous as possible, not those constantly setting themselves backward. Stable regimes and prosperous people don't risk it all in symbolic terrorist stuff.

I agree about the issue of stability but when it comes at the price of oppression of the true nature of a group of people then I think it can only be provided in a transient way. These folks are taught from earliest childhood to hate the Jew as a sacred duty to their god. There is no "forward" with a mindset like this - never will be.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mess with (uncle Sam has now retired, so now it's israel)?

The difference is found in the WILL to do what is necessary. America is not Barack Obama. He will eventually be gone but now it will require sending messages, so to speak, to regain any respect. You seem unwilling to admit that realpolitik includes brute force. Disagree with the target all you like but you must admit that in a real world force is the only thing that gains respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the issue of stability but when it comes at the price of oppression of the true nature of a group of people then I think it can only be provided in a transient way. These folks are taught from earliest childhood to hate the Jew as a sacred duty to their god. There is no "forward" with a mindset like this - never will be.

Simply not true. And you should be ashamed to state such a thing. This is such a simplification of reality, it isnt even funny anymore.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply not true. And you should be ashamed to state such a thing. This is such a simplification of reality, it isnt even funny anymore.

I think it is a little naive to say that Muslims are not anti-Semitic, if that is what you mean, and where would they pick up such garbage if it weren't in childhood?

It is very true that Islamic society is more diverse than we are sometimes led to believe, but there is no doubt that hate forms a large part of the motivation of large numbers of them. Hate is a useful political tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is found in the WILL to do what is necessary. America is not Barack Obama. He will eventually be gone but now it will require sending messages, so to speak, to regain any respect. You seem unwilling to admit that realpolitik includes brute force. Disagree with the target all you like but you must admit that in a real world force is the only thing that gains respect.

if it needs brute force, then it's already failed. Successful realpolitik is much more subtle. That may not mean that non-brute force realpolitik may be very nice, but that's any effective method of politics won't be nice for someone. There's a big difference between having the Big Stick to hand and automatically reaching for the Big Stick as a first resort, which is what America tends to have done ever since the 1960s at least.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things continue as Obama is doing an the big stick will become a twig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a little naive to say that Muslims are not anti-Semitic, if that is what you mean, and where would they pick up such garbage if it weren't in childhood?

It is very true that Islamic society is more diverse than we are sometimes led to believe, but there is no doubt that hate forms a large part of the motivation of large numbers of them. Hate is a useful political tool.

First of all, the term 'Muslims' is a religious one, and that religion encompasses all sorts of ethnic denominations. To suppose 'a Muslim' is per definition 'an Arab' or ME inhabitant, is grossly inapt.

Secondly, a lot of the people you judge as 'anti Semitic', are 'Semites' themselves. Direct decendants of Shem [Arphaxad].

Third, there has been and is indeed an anti Israeli sentiment within the ME nations, in reaction to the behaviour of the Israeli state. But to imply 'these people' [syrians] as a whole are braught up to hate Jews [for being Jews]

to please their G*d is just plain nonsensical, deceitful poppycock.

Fourth, opposing the political zionist entity known as the state of Israel does in no shape or form constitute 'anti- semitism'.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Semite" as you use it is a language family; in the term "anti-Semitic" it means hate of Jews. You are conflating words for your own use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats your reaction to my post I think were done here, Frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.