Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Earl.Of.Trumps

ISIS Threatens Nuke Attack of Israel

148 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps

Highly unlikely give that they've spent years and billions trying to stabilize a united country and are still trying to keep Iraq united. If the plan was to divide the nation up they would have done so years ago. They of course knew a civil war might happen but they hoped that Iraq would be able to form a united government without outside hand holding. I don't think anyone expected ISIS to advance so quickly or for the Iraq army to do so poorly.

Since we know - or should know, that the invasion had nothing at ll to do with WoMD, than it is not too far fetched for me to believe that the invasion was about destabilizing the country

just a possibility, just an opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

WTF is your problem?

[/color]

Ok, you're pulling this off topic and inserting your asinine opinion about what was an "unjust" war. Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the ISIS threatening Israel. But, according you to, are you saying that accidental casualties are a fine and happy thing as long as the war is "just"?

Casualties in war, whether unjust or not, happen. That's war. They are unavoidable.

Geez. :td:

I never claimed it was original, just that I stumbled upon it and decided to use it.

Can we move on now?

I really have no problem, why do you ask?

And yes, we can move back into the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Since we know - or should know, that the invasion had nothing at ll to do with WoMD, than it is not too far fetched for me to believe that the invasion was about destabilizing the country

just a possibility, just an opinion

Again highly unlikely, boarding on paranoia frankly. The US has plenty of chances to break up the country along cultural lines for no other reason than that they wanted to be evil. There were several cases of civil unrest with Sunni and Shia militia killing each other. Heck they could have just pulled out completely after they got Saddam leaving a broken and deeply divided country to fend for itself. Instead they pour money and lives into try to stop the violence and get the various groups working within a united nation. They only left when the violence had died down and the central government seemed ready to stand on its own. These are not the actions of a nation that wants to bring chaos to a region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

IMO, the US/allies should not be doing things where "accidents" imperil people's lives.

So we shouldn't be building great buildings or universities, or discovering great cures, or exploring space? All of these events harbor accidents that imperil people's lives. Great goals have great costs.

just don't wage unjust wars. Simple.

And in whose judgment is one war just and another is unjust? Every war in someone's eyes is just.

"I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's minds: methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king's company; his cause being just and his quarrel honourable."

And the war waged clearly did not have the justification for war that makes it worth the lives lost, property destroyed, chaos created.

I assume you mean the Iraq war. What war could have been more necessary? We pulled out long before we should have. It's easy for us to sit here and see that if the English and French had attacked Germany during the Phony War that WWII would have never occurred. If what we see now comes to fruition then 10 or 20 years down the road, you'll be lamenting that we should have stayed in Iraq. And it wasn't really about Iraq. Iraq was just the cornerstone. If by design or if by luck, we had hit the right place at the right time and at the moment we could have really made worthwhile gains, however, we retreat creating such a vacuum that wasted the sacrifice in blood and treasure. The chaos was already there, we were beginning to make some sense of it.

But getting back to Israel. I'm sure that a nuclear attack on Israel is every Muslim's wet dream but I don't think the threat is substantial at this time. I'm sure Israel has detectors in place that will alert them to a ManPac. Israel has constant air sorties looking over the horizon.

Edited by RavenHawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Again highly unlikely, boarding on paranoia frankly. The US has plenty of chances to break up the country along cultural lines for no other reason than that they wanted to be evil. There were several cases of civil unrest with Sunni and Shia militia killing each other. Heck they could have just pulled out completely after they got Saddam leaving a broken and deeply divided country to fend for itself. Instead they pour money and lives into try to stop the violence and get the various groups working within a united nation. They only left when the violence had died down and the central government seemed ready to stand on its own. These are not the actions of a nation that wants to bring chaos to a region.

I surely won't claim to know the reason why the West invaded but I have not seen any reason that is compelling enough to embrace and believe. And no, I am not paranoid, just sinister :--)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

So we shouldn't be building great buildings or universities, or discovering great cures, or exploring space? All of these events harbor accidents that imperil people's lives. Great goals have great costs.

The people who build big buildings and go to the moon have a choice, they can "go for gusto" if they wish, at their own risk, of course.

Do you think US/UK asked the Iraqi people if they wanted to be bombed to shrit??

And in whose judgment is one war just and another is unjust? Every war in someone's eyes is just.

Thank you! So Jihardists are really onto something, then huh?

"I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's minds: methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king's company; his cause being just and his quarrel honourable."

I assume you mean the Iraq war. What war could have been more necessary?

The West invading Israel the way we did Iraq *until* Israel got out of the occupied lands, as they were ordered to. Fair enough? At least that had a cause - to go after a law breaker.

We pulled out long before we should have. It's easy for us to sit here and see that if the English and French had attacked Germany during the Phony War that WWII would have never occurred. If what we see not comes to fruition then 10 or 20 years down the road, you'll be lamenting that we should have stayed in Iraq.

LOL surely you jest, the irrevokable harm has already been committed

And it wasn't really about Iraq. Iraq was just the cornerstone. If by design or if by luck, we had hit the right place at the right time and at the moment we could have really made worthwhile gains, however, we retreat creating such a vacuum that wasted the sacrifice in blood and treasure. The chaos was already there, we were beginning to make some sense of it.

You mean *you* were beginning to make some sense of it. And there was no chaos before UK/US intervention. They stir up the hornets nest and then screw. nice!

But getting back to Israel. I'm sure that a nuclear attack on Israel is every Muslim's wet dream

As it was every American's wet dream to nuke Japan. Your point?

but I don't think the threat is substantial at this time. I'm sure Israel has detectors in place that will alert them to a ManPac. Israel has constant air sorties looking over the horizon.

Good for Israel <yawn>

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Sigh.

Hida?

Just because we may disagree does not mean we must lose patience with one another. Ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Turkey will never allow an independent Kurdistan on its border. So then there'll be another war over that. And so the stupid continues. Nobody here is even qualified to make predictions on what's best for Iraq, but oh the opinions we'll have!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Hida?

Just because we may disagree does not mean we must lose patience with one another. Ya know?

No, it's just the completely off-topic material being thrown out just because certain members want to prove their point and shove their opinion down everyone else's throat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The people who build big buildings and go to the moon have a choice, they can "go for gusto" if they wish, at their own risk, of course.

There are great leaders that go for the gusto in conflict to better their nation. There is always someone that gets in the way either by accident or on purpose. Oh so people that lose their land for a building had a choice in the matter? Those that lose their lives in a war had a choice? I don’t think choice matters. Choice usually involves someone else getting the short end of the stick. Every choice you make has consequences. Even if it’s to go take a crap, if you grab the last stall might force the next person to make a bad choice or get into an accident. *Stuff* happens because of choice and as what has been said, $-hit happens. But it’s how we deal with it. War is no less or no more a noble endeavor than building a great city. In fact in this case, both are tied together.

Do you think US/UK asked the Iraqi people if they wanted to be bombed to shrit??

Did Saddam ask the Kurds if they were ok at being gassed? Did Bin Laden ask the 3000 in the WTC if it was ok to fly planes into it? Did the Native American say it was ok for Europeans to take their lands? If that didn’t happen then America wouldn’t have become the greatest nation in history to date.

Thank you! So Jihardists are really onto something, then huh?

Absolutely! To them, their quest is very just and to some degree I can’t blame them for it. But that doesn’t change as to which side they and I are on.

The West invading Israel the way we did Iraq *until* Israel got out of the occupied lands, as they were ordered to. Fair enough? At least that had a cause - to go after a law breaker.

That makes no sense what so ever. There is no need to invade Israel. It would make more sense to invade Gaza and the West Bank to chase the Palestinian off of land that really isn’t theirs. They are just occupiers or squatters.

LOL surely you jest, the irrevokable harm has already been committed

I don’t know if I would call the retreat as irrevocable, but it is close. What would have been irrevocable would have been to let Saddam continue in power. We’d probably be talking about a nuclear Iraq and Iran today if we had. Either that or ISIS or whatever it would have been would be on the move years earlier.

You mean *you* were beginning to make some sense of it. And there was no chaos before UK/US intervention. They stir up the hornets nest and then screw. nice!

People that are aware were making sense of it. No Chaos? So this Shi’ite animosity of the Sunni rulers didn’t exist. The schism between the two from long ago didn’t exist? We can’t look back to ’79 and see how Carter enabled new life in that schism? How ‘bout Muslim intervention in American interests in the 18th and 19th Centuries?

As it was every American's wet dream to nuke Japan. Your point?

And the point was just that. I don’t think that attacking Israel is immediate on ISIS’ to do list.

Good for Israel <yawn>

In other words, they have their gamma detectors actively going. It’s probably a lot easier to detect something coming into Israel than into one of our ports.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

There are great leaders that go for the gusto in conflict to better their nation. There is always someone that gets in the way either by accident or on purpose. Oh so people that lose their land for a building had a choice in the matter? Those that lose their lives in a war had a choice? I don't think choice matters. Choice usually involves someone else getting the short end of the stick. Every choice you make has consequences. Even if it's to go take a crap, if you grab the last stall might force the next person to make a bad choice or get into an accident. *Stuff* happens because of choice and as what has been said, $-hit happens. But it's how we deal with it. War is no less or no more a noble endeavor than building a great city. In fact in this case, both are tied together.

Original post, EoT: Do you think US/UK asked the Iraqi people if they wanted to be bombed to shrit??

Did Saddam ask the Kurds if they were ok at being gassed? Did Bin Laden ask the 3000 in the WTC if it was ok to fly planes into it? Did the Native American say it was ok for Europeans to take their lands? If that didn't happen then America wouldn't have become the greatest nation in history to date.

Interesting! so you put The US/UK bombing of Iraq on par with Saddam, Bin Laden, and genocidal settlers in America? cool, man

Absolutely! To them, their quest is very just and to some degree I can't blame them for it. But that doesn't change as to which side they and I are on.

That makes no sense what so ever. There is no need to invade Israel. It would make more sense to invade Gaza and the West Bank to chase the Palestinian off of land that really isn't theirs. They are just occupiers or squatters.

Well, according to the titles that they hold to their property, it is "theirs", and according to the UN< it is still called "Mandated Palestine".

Whoever is your source for saying the "land is not really theirs" is categorically full of SPIT.

I don't know if I would call the retreat as irrevocable, but it is close. What would have been irrevocable would have been to let Saddam continue in power. We'd probably be talking about a nuclear Iraq and Iran today if we had. Either that or ISIS or whatever it would have been would be on the move years earlier.

I see! yet it does not bother you at all to know that mad dog Israel has the bomb. Nice! :tu:

People that are aware were making sense of it. No Chaos? So this Shi'ite animosity of the Sunni rulers didn't exist. The schism between the two from long ago didn't exist? We can't look back to '79 and see how Carter enabled new life in that schism? How 'bout Muslim intervention in American interests in the 18th and 19th Centuries?

NO idea what you are talking about. What Muslim interference with "American Interests" would that be? (this will be rich!?)

And the point was just that. I don't think that attacking Israel is immediate on ISIS' to do list.

In other words, they have their gamma detectors actively going. It's probably a lot easier to detect something coming into Israel than into one of our ports.

I suppose you feel comfortable, but I bet a lot of Israelis do not. Living under the threat of nuclear armagedon is not what I would call a fun way to live life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Original post, EoT: Do you think US/UK asked the Iraqi people if they wanted to be bombed to shrit??

Interesting! so you put The US/UK bombing of Iraq on par with Saddam, Bin Laden, and genocidal settlers in America? cool, man

Well, according to the titles that they hold to their property, it is "theirs", and according to the UN< it is still called "Mandated Palestine".

Whoever is your source for saying the "land is not really theirs" is categorically full of SPIT.

I see! yet it does not bother you at all to know that mad dog Israel has the bomb. Nice! :tu:

NO idea what you are talking about. What Muslim interference with "American Interests" would that be? (this will be rich!?)

I suppose you feel comfortable, but I bet a lot of Israelis do not. Living under the threat of nuclear armagedon is not what I would call a fun way to live life.

That mad dog that has been leaving everyone alone with their bomb for about 40 years? :w00t: And the Israelis do not live under any threat of nuclear armageddon ... yet. When they do it's going to be the bad old days of the cold war on a much more hair trigger scale in the M.E. I think it takes less than 10 minutes for a missile to fly the distance from Tehran to Tel Aviv. Factor in the time for x-band radar to figure the direction and point of impact and the leaders have about half that time to come to a decision. Nice, huh? Yeah, Iran has every right to be a nuclear power but that doesn't mean it'll be a positive thing for the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

'and then', you noticed when it was suggested that the entire ME be a nuclear free zone, the first and only ojector to this idea was Israel.

what am I supposed to say? If they played the game on equal footing, that would be a good gesture but... well, you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

'and then', you noticed when it was suggested that the entire ME be a nuclear free zone, the first and only ojector to this idea was Israel.

what am I supposed to say? If they played the game on equal footing, that would be a good gesture but... well, you know

They threaten no one with their nukes Earl. Unless others are angry because Israel cannot be destroyed with impunity. You can't really expect them to lay down the only true chip they have that provides them safety do you? Sure, today they have a mighty military. Tomorrow, who knows? If Obama had his way and it could be done without destroying the dem party he would walk away from Israel and pull all aid in a heartbeat - at least that's the impression he gives. What's to stop some other US president from doing exactly that in future? And if we stopped protecting Israel with the veto in the UN I could see the world body eventually trying to revoke their legitimacy to statehood - but not because they hate Jews.. heavens no! No, Earl, I think Israel will choose to live and survive rather than be foolish enough to disarm to make nice with people who hate them eternally. As an aside - have you heard of the Gary Oldman controversy? Poor guy is being crucified (no pun intended) for anti Jewish remarks and I support what he said 100%. It was brash, crude and probably entirely true. Not every person who says something against Jews is anti semitic. He was just b****ing about life in hollywood and BOOM! His agent is probably dying because of the bad press just before release of his new movie... I hadn't planned to watch Planet of the Apes latest version but now I think I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

'and then', you noticed when it was suggested that the entire ME be a nuclear free zone, the first and only ojector to this idea was Israel.

what am I supposed to say? If they played the game on equal footing, that would be a good gesture but... well, you know

<script Language="Javascript">
WHILE (EoT.post.content == "idiotic") {
ROFL();
}
</endscript>

And on the basis of the above post, that algorithm will give a whole HEAP of ROFL's.

Oh come ON EoT... surely you are just trolling with that post ?

Ask yourself this: which nations where sponsoring the idea of a nuclear-free middle east, and what where their motives for doing so ?

I would suggest that the sponsoring nations where all part of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. A nuclear-free middle east was a cynical tool to further their actual agenda, which is- of course - a Judenfrie middle east.

Israel has proven to be a very responsible - if not exemplary - custodian of nuclear weapons over.. what... 50 years ? More ?

As for "equal footing" .. the purpose of the IDF - like any national military force - is to protect the nation, NOT to indulge in some sort of "equality pact" with aggressive neighbours. The object of the exercise is to STOP an enemy invasion or attack with MINIMAL losses to their own troops, and MAXIMUM damage/injury to the aggressor, using all means necessary (within limits of international law, where relevant).

Sea Lord, Admiral John Fisher'][/font]

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheGreatBeliever

A nuclear war is extremely devastating. It can plummet a nations population to zero in no time

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

A nuclear war is extremely devastating. It can plummet a nations population to zero in no time

Being overrun by one's enemies can plummet a POPULATION to zero in not much more time :) But your point is taken and yes it would be a tragedy - just not as bad as being annihilated by their enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Original post, EoT: Do you think US/UK asked the Iraqi people if they wanted to be bombed to shrit??

Sigh! Ok, if the Iraqi people didn’t want to be bombed, then they should have taken out Saddam themselves. The fact is that they didn’t and therefore forfeited their right to say.

Interesting! so you put The US/UK bombing of Iraq on par with Saddam, Bin Laden, and genocidal settlers in America? cool, man

Sigh! And Sigh!! Saddam did what he did because he felt he needed to do that. Bin Laden felt he needed to do what he did. America had to do what she did. And there are countless other examples. History occurs. Of these three events, the gassing of the Kurds really didn’t amount to anything. Bin Laden made people aware of the threat Islam plays against the non-believer. The ethnic cleaning and later absorption of the American Indian made a nation stronger. But no one was asked if it could be done. We can only try to live with it and make the best of it.

Well, according to the titles that they hold to their property, it is "theirs", and according to the UN< it is still called "Mandated Palestine".

And the British refused to accept the majority of the deeds because they were bogus. The Ottomans owned the land, not the tribes that make up “The Palestinians”. They squatted on the land that was not theirs. That’s the reason it was never called Palestine. There were not enough individuals that actually owned land in order to organize into a political group or culture. The majority were transient residents.

Whoever is your source for saying the "land is not really theirs" is categorically full of SPIT.

It’s a matter of history. There was a time before the internet that people had to go to libraries for reference material. Way back in school, the teacher brought in a book that covered this history. It heavily referenced British reports from the time. I wish I had paid attention to what book it was. But the custodianship of the land went from Ottoman – British – Israel. There was no Palestinian in there. I saw another book advertised on line, I think I can find it again but the excerpt looked like it referenced those British reports. However, I think the book was pro-Palestinian. I would guess that the author was trying to conclude that British authority was invalid. And if it was invalid, then those deeds from the ‘20s must be valid. I don’t know, I’d have to read the book, if I can find it. But barring that, I did run across this link (http://www.beki.org/landlaw.html) which also refers to those British reports. The issue definitely needs a lot more research, more than I can afford. But the gist of it is that the majority of Palestinians are not land owners with legitimate deeds. But I do think that if Palestine had declared statehood side-by-side with Israel in ’48, those deeds would have been honored provided they were unique.

I see! yet it does not bother you at all to know that mad dog Israel has the bomb. Nice! :tu:

No you don’t and no it doesn’t. And how can you describe Israel as mad dog? Wait; yes, I know how you can. Has Israel used her nukes to attack anyone or are they there to prevent someone from attacking her? So who are the mad dogs now? Israel has probably been the most responsible nation with nukes, more so than even the US and Russia. Pakistan is enough to worry about but their focus is on India. Can you imagine the headaches if Iraq/Iran had nukes? “Responsible” is not in the vocabulary here. Let’s understand here that we are not talking about the triple digit Kt monsters in our arsenal. We are talking about ones less than 50Kt. Tehran could drop a 25Kt bomb on Tel Aviv with minimal damage to the terrain around it. Much of the fallout will land on the Palestinian, a worthwhile trade in the eyes of the Persians.

NO idea what you are talking about. What Muslim interference with "American Interests" would that be? (this will be rich!?)

Of course you don’t. You don’t ask why things are and research them. You have your prejudices and that’s all that matters. As long as the hatred matches your own, it must be true. Well, I’ve discussed this many times. It’s time for you to do some research and learn. It’s all keyed on what a high ranking Muslim official stated to a future US President which gave him the insight in how to deal with that Muslim threat when he became President. But that same mindset from this official could still be seen in the content of a letter Bin laden wrote to America. The threat hasn’t died, it has always been there.

I suppose you feel comfortable, but I bet a lot of Israelis do not. Living under the threat of nuclear armagedon is not what I would call a fun way to live life.

I grew up as a main target of a Soviet nuke, I’m used to it. I don’t think Israelis like that idea but they live their lives. At least they probably feel more secure than we do in the US because their border is secure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shiloh17

ISIS Threatens Nuke Attack of Israel

focus “exclusively on destroying the Zionist regime occupying Palestine.”

Yet, in the meantime they are killing their own brothers. Hypocritical.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

Is it just me or anybody else who thinks if Saddam was left alone this day would have never come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Is it just me or anybody else who thinks if Saddam was left alone this day would have never come.

Nah... it or someday very like it would have come - just later. The one constant in the world is change and when you have such latent hostilities between groups over centuries they find an outlet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Yet, in the meantime they are killing their own brothers. Hypocritical.

Not at all. They are culling the Chaff from the Wheat. The Chaff is Western influence. The Wheat is pure Islamic dogma. This is just another step toward establishing the Caliphate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Is it just me or anybody else who thinks if Saddam was left alone this day would have never come.

This is not a matter of “IF” but of “WHEN”. What happened in Syria was emerging in Iraq years before. Our invasion just put it on hold and perhaps shoved it into Syria. No dictator can indefinitely prevent such an uprising. You see that happening with Assad. Saddam or his son Qusay would have eventually been overthrown.

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.