Israel: Murdering scientists?

[Hooahguy]

techincally. its well known that iran funds hezbollah and such, so i guess they are... in a way....

[Hax]

techincally. its well known that iran funds hezbollah and such, so i guess they are... in a way....

Interesting that you should bring this up. Even though Iran did fund Hizbollah, when Iran sent a delegation to Lebanon to ask that the party hand over some western hostages, Hezbollah responded by throwing a handgrenade into the room of the Iranian diplomat.

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from? Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

It's pretty much sickening how the foreign policy of the United States works. Back in 2001 Iran, under the leadership of Mohammad Khatami, supplied the United States with information on the Taliban. In 2003 Khatami actually sent a letter to president Bush with a list of unresolved problems between Iran and the United States? And what happened?

The US didn't respond. They had bombed Afghanistan and Iraq to hell and they probably expected Iran would be next.

[Hooahguy]

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

[tibilicus]

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

I would put just as much a bet on Israel launching a nuke at some one. Lets make a scenario here. Are you telling me that some how if Israelis neighbours managed to muster up a military force to enter Israels borders that Israel wouldn't use nukes and thus start a world wide nuclear war?

lets look at the two countries here, Israel, a country founded on religion heavily influenced by Religion, home to some religious fanatics although not be it like their suicide bombing neighbours but on top of this a country with a stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion after the Islamic revolution, a country heavily influenced by religion and a country full of religious fanatics but, unlike Israel, it isn't capable of nuclear warfare.

You see some similarities? Now, I'm not saying Iran should have nukes but what I'm saying is killing scientists isn't the right way to stop a nuclear Iran. As mentioned Iran will never get the chance to have nuclear weapons as their facilities will most likely be bombed by then. Killing people trying to make a living although be it a dubious one in their country isn't it.

What I am saying however is how can you be comfortable with a nuclear Israel? I know I'm not. For a country that believes it has the right to a land area because their people are "chosen by God" I find it worrying that so many people support them and their stockpiles.

Now tell me, if I walked up to you and said my country had a stockpile of nukes and that I'm prepared to use them to defend the land God gave me what would you say? Loonie? Fanatic?

Double standards isn't it.

[Hooahguy]

theres a critical difference between iran and israel:
first of all the fanaticsm in israel is nowhere NEAR the amount in iran. while it can be said that israel was founded on religion, most of the founding members werent very religious. the courts in israel are secular, and few of the laws are based on the bible. i mean, you cans still drive and work on the sabbath (though many buisnesses are closed on that day anyhow). its a pretty secular country.
but the most important thing is that israel isnt preaching to wipe iran off the map. iran is.

about your statement

if I walked up to you and said my country had a stockpile of nukes and that I'm prepared to use them to defend the land God gave me what would you say? Loonie? Fanatic?

theres a critical difference in the underlined word. if iran have been saying all they want to do is use them for defense and never mentioned wiping israel off the map, i would be ok with iran having nukes.

i feel very comfortable with israel having nukes, because as of yet israel hasent used them.
now iran, i cant feel comfortable, because they have preached to destroy israel and im not so sure if they will live up to your claims that they wont.

also,

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion of the Islamic revolution

AFAIK, the Islamic revolution was a big fanatiscm movement.

also, while they may not have nukes, they do have a capability of an EMP strike.

[tibilicus]

theres a critical difference between iran and israel:
first of all the fanaticsm in israel is nowhere NEAR the amount in iran. while it can be said that israel was founded on religion, most of the founding members werent very religious. the courts in israel are secular, and few of the laws are based on the bible. i mean, you cans still drive and work on the sabbath (though many buisnesses are closed on that day anyhow). its a pretty secular country.
but the most important thing is that israel isnt preaching to wipe iran off the map. iran is.

about your statement

theres a critical difference in the underlined word. if iran have been saying all they want to do is use them for defense and never mentioned wiping israel off the map, i would be ok with iran having nukes.

i feel very comfortable with israel having nukes, because as of yet israel hasent used them.
now iran, i cant feel comfortable, because they have preached to destroy israel and im not so sure if they will live up to your claims that they wont.

also,

AFAIK, the Islamic revolution was a big fanatiscm movement.

also, while they may not have nukes, they do have a capability of an EMP strike.

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.


That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

[Hooahguy]

well, i think its good that israel has the nukes b/c its a deterrent, obviously.
id imagine that thered me a lot more wars if israel didnt have them.

[Strike For The South]

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.


That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

Israel doesn't have enough nor powerful enough nukes to destroy the world.

[Furunculus]

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.

the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.

not the kind of people i want holding nukes.

for much the same reason i am happy about india's nukes but worried by those held by pakistan.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I wonder if murdering their scientists will fuel a siege mentality, especially among the Iranian middle class that is probably the most likely to be supportive of the US?

/leave them alone and let them coup their insane leaders in a few years.

[Furunculus]

lets look at the two countries here, Israel, a country founded on religion heavily influenced by Religion, home to some religious fanatics although not be it like their suicide bombing neighbours but on top of this a country with a stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion after the Islamic revolution, a country heavily influenced by religion and a country full of religious fanatics but, unlike Israel, it isn't capable of nuclear warfare.

What I am saying however is how can you be comfortable with a nuclear Israel? I know I'm not. For a country that believes it has the right to a land area because their people are "chosen by God" I find it worrying that so many people support them and their stockpiles.

Double standards isn't it.

odd, i see a country that has had to defend itself repeatedly from neighbours that have repeatedly attacked it. a defensive attitude is acceptable to me with nukes.

and that same country is essentially a representative parliamentary democracy, stable and non-repressive to its citizens. again, not an unacceptable state of affairs in a nuke weilding country.

i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.

so no, i see no double standards.

[Scurvy]

i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.

I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?

[LittleGrizzly]

the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.

Maybe they have had a bit of a problem with revolution and uprisings because we couldn't keep our noses out!

The moment Iran is left in peace it will be alot less extreme, part of me just thinks we keep the pressure on them as a few country's find it useful to have Iran as some scary enemy to scare domestic population with and excuse our constant twisted foriegn policy..

Don't see why Israel should be considered a safer bet to own nukes than Iran, Israel is an aggressive country surronded by enemies, Iran is relatively calm despite the best attempts of Israel and the west to rile them up, the furthest they have gone is some mistranslated quote (which is somehow proof israel shouldn't have to give away any palestinian land) and some slogans on missles. Grow up, it is fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Iran is not about to start a missle war and definetly not a nuclear one. Even though people like to talk of the 'fanaticism' of Iran is not that extreme, and TBH the only thing keeping its current level of extremity is us!

Remove our constant goading of Iran and there is no reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, I for one cheer the concept of Iranian nuclear weapons! It should provide an effective deterrent against Israel and the west...

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

The nazis were also very upset, they claimed to not have the facilities to process so many terrorists... but its ok i guess... right ?

[Furunculus]

I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?

MAD is a defensive strategy.

[Meneldil]

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

Like killing scientists?

[Furunculus]

well if you believe the following:

a) the iranian regime has a deep seated hatred of a israel
b) the repressive nature of that regime breeds extremism and instability
c) they cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons
d) you cannot persuade them to renounce a nuclear weapons program
e) you cannot muster the political will for a military strike against the nuclear program

then yes, sadly, israel is left with the one option of killing key figures in irans nuclear program.

seems pretty simple really.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Interesting that you should bring this up. Even though Iran did fund Hizbollah, when Iran sent a delegation to Lebanon to ask that the party hand over some western hostages, Hezbollah responded by throwing a handgrenade into the room of the Iranian diplomat.

According to the CFR, Hamas and Hezbollah both receive extensive support from Iran. It isn't any kind of a secret.

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from?

Who says that it would go in missile form? Perhaps it would be smuggled in with a terrorist organization to be detonated in Israel. Who knows?

Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

I'll let someone else respond rather than evoking the standard anti-American chorus from the left. But in short form, the standard "they have the right to have nukes, leave them alone" argument is absurd. Firstly, why would be allow another nation to have nuclear bombs? Secondly, why would we allow an unfriendly nation to have nuclear bombs? We shouldn't, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

It's pretty much sickening how the foreign policy of the United States works.

[Hax]

Firstly, why would be allow another nation to have nuclear bombs? Secondly, why would we allow an unfriendly nation to have nuclear bombs? We shouldn't, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

An unfriendly nation? As I stated, Iran has supplied the United States from 2001 up to 2003 with information about the Taliban.

[Scurvy]

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

An unfriendly nation? As I stated, Iran has supplied the United States from 2001 up to 2003 with information about the Taliban.

I'm not sure the US is partiularly fussed about other countries rights, and so they should'nt be, the safety of their own country surely takes priority

Having said that, it would be interesting to see how Israel would react if Palestinians or Iranians started killing off their scientists...

The only way to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons is for Israel the US etc. to all relinquish them, but clearly the risk is too great for that to ever happen

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

In foreign policy, Realism and Pragmatism > Idealism.

America has the right because of precisely what Scurvy said.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

EMFM, isn't that the attitude that's got us into nasty situations like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EMFM, isn't that the attitude that's got us into nasty situations like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place?

In my opinion, pragmatism involves proper planning. Realistic and practical goals work.

That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

So you are troubled by a country possessing nuclear bombs in a defensive manner, a country that has been repeatedly attacked by surrounding nations which happen to hate it, and yet you are either not troubled by Iran and/or don't mind if they expand their arsenal?

[CrossLOPER]

In foreign policy, Realism and Pragmatism > Idealism.

America has the right because of precisely what Scurvy said.

Don't confuse realism and pragmatism with convenience. Also, Scurvy's post does not really apply to our two friends.

[Furunculus]

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from? Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

As stated previously, they hold public military parades where ballistic missiles are daubed with phrases like "death to israel", at a time when they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That alone is all i need to know that iran cannot be trusted with nukes and to cheer on anyone who goes about halting that ambition.