Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JHBowden

Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 02:09 PM)
No matter what happens...I think MAD still applies.  Israel probably has something in the range of 100+ nuclear weapons and the capabilities to deliver them to all corners of Iran.

 

If one goes off in Israel, there's no reason to think that Iran won't turn into a smoking hole in the ground.

 

First thing is Israel would have to have enough time to pick up the launch and fire back. Second thing is that dying in defense of Islam is the ultimate sacrifice. People have been committing suicide in Israel to kill Jews for how long? Think of this as the same idea, only on a bigger scale. Half a dozen nukes tops would destroy Israel, and then it won't matter what happens to Iran, the Zionist state would be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 01:14 PM)
First thing is Israel would have to have enough time to pick up the launch and fire back.  Second thing is that dying in defense of Islam is the ultimate sacrifice.  People have been committing suicide in Israel to kill Jews for how long?  Think of this as the same idea, only on a bigger scale.  Half a dozen nukes tops would destroy Israel, and then it won't matter what happens to Iran, the Zionist state would be dead.

I doubt they'd nuke it cuz of some of their holy sites being similar (Islam, Judaism and Christianity that is) As much as they want to kill the Jews, they want to get their meathooks on that territory. Irradiated terrority would be difficult to have for worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, just put some gieger counters in, and let the loudspeakers go as they all bow toward Mecca. Pretty soon, they'll be in paradise from all the radiation.

 

I'm going to hell for that.

:bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 12:44 PM)
Eh, just put some gieger counters in, and let the loudspeakers go as they all bow toward Mecca.  Pretty soon, they'll be in paradise from all the radiation.

 

I'm going to hell for that.

:bang

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with MAD is that Israel is the size of New Jersey. It only takes a nuke or two to destroy them in a first strike, and Ahmadinejad knows this.

Edited by JHBowden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except they would be destroyed as well. By Israel and the U.S. Even Russia might retaliate not willing to allow a nuclear detonation in its sphere of influence to go unpunished.

 

Size doesn't matter. This is International Relations, not porn.

 

Oh yeah, and Iran backed down on its statements too. People in power through totalitarian regimes will - as a rule - use force to safeguard or expand power. Destroying Israel serves neither goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroying Israel doesn't serve any rational goal. It serves irrational goals, such as the extermination of Jews for Allah. Martyrdom, in these people's minds, in only an added bonus.

 

Is suiciding yourself into a skyscraper while flying an airplane rational? No, but rationality didn't stop faithful Muslims from doing it. Keep in context what we're dealing with.

Edited by JHBowden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Oct 30, 2005 -> 02:40 AM)
Except they would be destroyed as well. By Israel and the U.S. Even Russia might retaliate not willing to allow a nuclear detonation in its sphere of influence to go unpunished.

 

Size doesn't matter. This is International Relations, not porn.

 

Oh yeah, and Iran backed down on its statements too. People in power through totalitarian regimes will - as a rule - use force to safeguard or expand power. Destroying Israel serves neither goal.

 

There were also stories out there about the Irani leader restating the same comments about destroying Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JHBowden @ Oct 30, 2005 -> 11:03 AM)
Destroying Israel doesn't serve any rational goal. It serves irrational goals, such as the extermination of Jews for Allah. Martyrdom, in these people's minds, in only an added bonus.

 

Is suiciding yourself into a skyscraper while flying an airplane rational? No, but rationality didn't stop faithful Muslims from doing it. Keep in context what we're dealing with.

 

And what nation-state did they represent?

 

Oh yeah, none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Oct 30, 2005 -> 11:55 AM)
And what nation-state did they represent?

 

Oh yeah, none.

 

 

They represent something far more dangerous than a nation-state. Radical Islam knows no boundaries and will use any host it can to achieve its aims. Thats why a country like Iran is so dangerous. You think for one minute that if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon that they wont transfer the technology to Al Queada or some other wacko extremist group? If you do then you are naive.

 

That would have the effect of getting the US to pull out of the region though because as soon as a nuke goes off on American or Isreali soil the both of us will plaster the region ( especially the perpetrator ) with nukes and turn it into glass for many hundreds of years to come and then many millions of muslims well get their wish of dying for Allah.

Edited by NUKE_CLEVELAND

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Oct 30, 2005 -> 01:40 PM)
But there's a big difference between a radical non-state actor and a nation-state actor. They act completely differently.

 

 

When one enables the other there is no difference between the 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between enabling and acting. Iran will not attack Israel in any serious, WMD manner in the near future.

 

Calling Iran "crazy, capable of doing anything" is the same thing as calling the dude from North Korea "bats*** crazy." It's just undermining your enemy and letting them closer to being in a position to do the things you fear in the first place.

 

The reality is that a nuclear Iran is more likely to use that bomb on Iraq rather than Israel - or worse yet, use that to increase its clout and influence in the middle east. It's also most likely being created as a defense mechanism against any possible US attack in the medium to long term. It's why North Korea got the bomb. Not because they plan on using it offensively - but rather to ensure that no offensive measures would be taken against it by a greater power (like the US, or China for example).

 

Creating nuclear weaponry for a state enables it a seat at the barganing table whether or not it deserves one. It's part of the reason why nuclear proliferation doesn't seem to concern conservative political scientists like John Mearsheimer much. As long as a state's government remains stable and nuclear arsenal secure, the threat for a rogue strike remains low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 26, 2005 -> 07:09 PM)
You might be the RESULT of a few hippies, but you are not a hippie.

 

lol that was good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Oct 30, 2005 -> 03:36 PM)
There's a big difference between enabling and acting. Iran will not attack Israel in any serious, WMD manner in the near future.

 

Calling Iran "crazy, capable of doing anything" is the same thing as calling the dude from North Korea "bats*** crazy." It's just undermining your enemy and letting them closer to being in a position to do the things you fear in the first place.

 

The reality is that a nuclear Iran is more likely to use that bomb on Iraq rather than Israel - or worse yet, use that to increase its clout and influence in the middle east. It's also most likely being created as a defense mechanism against any possible US attack in the medium to long term. It's why North Korea got the bomb. Not because they plan on using it offensively - but rather to ensure that no offensive measures would be taken against it by a greater power (like the US, or China for example).

 

Creating nuclear weaponry for a state enables it a seat at the barganing table whether or not it deserves one. It's part of the reason why nuclear proliferation doesn't seem to concern conservative political scientists like John Mearsheimer much. As long as a state's government remains stable and nuclear arsenal secure, the threat for a rogue strike remains low.

 

 

Riddle me this Rex. If Iran hands Al Quada the bomb and it ends up going off in, say, NYC, wouldn't Iran be equally guilty in the attack?

 

Its no different that if I handed someone a baseball bat and they used it to beat you to death. Id be charged as an accessory (sp) to murder wouldn't I?

 

Comparing North Korea with Iran is like comparing apples and oranges. Iran is run by a warped fundamentalist theocracy which places value on wiping out Jews and dying for Allah. They really don't care what happens to them afterward because in their minds they have done Allah's will and that's all that matters. I can totally see them committing national suicide in order to achieve those aims.

 

Additionally, for you to say that Iran would use the bomb on Iraq instead of Isreal is ludicrous. A nuclear strike on Iraq would kill several hundred thousand of their brother shiite muslims. A nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would wipe out several hundred thousand Jews.

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×