Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » This Means War (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: This Means War
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I make it a habit to scan international news papers and saw this article on a new cyber attack on Iran and other Middle Eastern targets. I looked for a US feed on this but didn't see one yet.

Cyber Attack

Does the thought of an outright cyber war scare anyone else? Think about retaliatory attacks on banking systems, transportation, the power grid, etc.

A well planned attack could literally shutdown a city in minutes. Let your imagination run and you will probably find this as scary as I do.

There is no mention about whether the malware destroys itself but lets hope that a creative terrorist organization does not get their hands on the code.

Posts: 856 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Does the thought of an outright cyber war scare anyone else? Think about retaliatory attacks on banking systems, transportation, the power grid, etc.

I find it less frightening then a conventional or nuclear war with Iran.
Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note to Lisa if you read this- In addition to Haaretz I also read Ynet and the JPost. Neither is carrying this story yet. I try to give a fair reading to all sides. If there is another conservative English language site I should be reviewing please pass it on.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant-
quote:
I find it less frightening then a conventional or nuclear war with Iran.
Do you believe that Iran would be stupid enough to launch an attack on Israel? First Israel would destroy them. Secondly they would completely isolate themselves from the rest of the world which they can't afford.

Selectively launched cyber bombs however allow them to hit the US as well as Israel.

Posts: 856 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe Israel and the United States might be "stupid enough" to launch a conventional attack on Iran.

Second, I think it's hubris to say that "Israel will destroy them"! HULK SMASH!!

Third, I think they're nearly isolated from the world as it is, except for China.

Fourth, I don't think that such attacks by nations, especially nations like Iran, are governed by reason.

Fifth, I would rather Iran launch cyber bombs at the US then planes at buildings.

Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If true, it's not as if Iran has not already been the target of cyber attacks by Israel.
Posts: 9952 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant
quote:
I believe Israel and the United States might be "stupid enough" to launch a conventional attack on Iran.

Second, I think it's hubris to say that "Israel will destroy them"! HULK SMASH!!

Third, I think they're nearly isolated from the world as it is, except for China.

Fourth, I don't think that such attacks by nations, especially nations like Iran, are governed by reason.

Fifth, I would rather Iran launch cyber bombs at the US then planes at buildings.

While it is possible I think it is unlikely that the voting public would support any kind of military action against Iran.

It is not Hubris. If Iran actually launched a nuclear attack on Israel I have little doubt you would see a nuclear response and Israel has far more nukes than Iran is likely to develop and a much better capacity for launching them.

I agree that Iran is isolated but a nuclear attack would likely end any hope of renewing oil sales. It would also likely cause an end of the current leadership.

You are correct that reason has little to do with the decision processes but self interest does. Unless there is some obvious gain to be had I think it is unlikely they will act.

Flying an airplane into a building would be far more difficult now than it was at 911 while there are certainly Iranian individuals as well as non-Iranian terrorists who are intelligent enough to reverse engineer the virus and decimate the financial system, destroy air traffic control and disrupt the power grid potentially causing many more deaths than 911. The potential is as limitless as the imagination.

Posts: 856 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:

It is not Hubris. If Iran actually launched a nuclear attack on Israel I have little doubt you would see a nuclear response and Israel has far more nukes than Iran is likely to develop and a much better capacity for launching them.

Most western intelligence agencies no longer believe that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. The prevailing theory is that they are following the North Korea model, inadvertently pioneered by Bill Clinton. Namely have a deliberately ambiguous nuclear ambition so as to require diplomacy and concessions, whilst taking care not to get close enough to developing a real nuclear capability as to trigger a response. And like NK, deliberately play up to the perception of irrationality whilst actually pursuing a rational strategy, thus making the (eternally) potential threat of having nuclear weapons all the more alarming.

NK has leveraged this with remakable effect to get a lot of aid and to be taken far more seriously internationallty than they would otherwise warrant. The perception is that Iran is simply copying a succesful strategy.

Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that President Obama might be the ONLY one who could maintain the support of the voting public during a military action against Iran. Conservatives would rally due to national loyalty, and some (not all) liberals would ralley due to party loyalty. Hmmmmm, President Obama just keeps giving me more and more reasons to vote for him.

Israel's strike back capacity may be damaged by a first strike, then you have to figure that a massive retaliatory strike on Iranian civillians will isolate Israel even more then Iran. And I have no idea how you plan to deliver the warheads, but all those countries between you and Iran are not going to let you waltz right over there with bombers. Hope you have ballistic missles. And I don't know how many nukes the Israelis have, but it would take a good amount to turn all of Iran into a glass parking lot. "Destroyed" is a tough standard to meet.

Given good enough PR, I think Iranian leadership could get away with it. And when they make the decision they won't care how isolated they are. Quite honestly, I think China will just clap gleefully behind closed doors. Keeping America weak for the next 100 years by encouraging people to toss grenades into the middle east that the United States will continuously throw itself onto, will only strengthen China.

The gain should be obvious. "Dead Jews" always goes into the ledger in black ink for these guys.

As to the difficulty in flying planes into buildings, I fear you lack imagination, sir.

I stand by the judgement that cyber attacks by Iran are preferable to conventional or nuclear attacks.

Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Note to Lisa if you read this- In addition to Haaretz I also read Ynet and the JPost. Neither is carrying this story yet. I try to give a fair reading to all sides. If there is another conservative English language site I should be reviewing please pass it on.

Personally, I think this is great. My only objection is that they aren't doing it enough. They should bring Iran to its knees completely. Wipe out their finances. Step on their heads until they stop threatening us.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Grant-
quote:
I find it less frightening then a conventional or nuclear war with Iran.
Do you believe that Iran would be stupid enough to launch an attack on Israel? First Israel would destroy them. Secondly they would completely isolate themselves from the rest of the world which they can't afford.
They've made their intent clear. They haven't even hinted. They've been explicit in their statements of intent. Do I need to cite all the imbeciles who claimed Hitler was just engaging in hyperbole? Real threats have real consequences.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The DoD named cyberwarfare as the #3 threat to the US
Posts: 3015 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And I have no idea how you plan to deliver the warheads, but all those countries between you and Iran are not going to let you waltz right over there with bombers.
Perhaps, but I doubt they will be very adamant if Israel simply says they will get rid of their payload right then and there. [Wink]
Posts: 7432 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
I think that President Obama might be the ONLY one who could maintain the support of the voting public during a military action against Iran.

I'll be surprised if he doesn't step up the saber-rattling before the 2012 election. War is perhaps the only way to distract from his ssm gaffe.

I agree with Lisa that Israel has every right to defend itself here. At the same time I admire those within Israel who have made overtures to the Iranian people. This is Israel's decision and we should stay out of it.

Posts: 36600 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
This is Israel's decision and we should stay out of it.

Does that extend only to foreign policy, or does it include domestic policy like immigration? [Smile]
Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It applies to any policy that plausibly involves decisions that could mean life or death to the whole nation of Israel.

But for reasons distinct from the policy that I expressed, I don't think that the US should use its influence to force Israel to keep Eritreans, or even to avoid re-electing politicians whose staggering ignorance of medical terms offends the ears of educated persons.

[ May 29, 2012, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 36600 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
War is perhaps the only way to distract from his ssm gaffe.
I don't think Obama needs to worry about distracting from his SSM support in any way. As FiveThirtyEight.com points out, those who would be most offended by his comments would normally not vote for him anyway. Obama will probably get more support and energy from his base from his stance than he will lose from independents.
Posts: 7432 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Obama will probably get more support and energy from his base from his stance than he will lose from independents.

If only energy and support counted as votes. His base can't vote for him twice. Well, maybe in some states. As the article points out, the people who support gay marriage were going to vote for him anyways. He gained no votes, and probably only lost very few.
Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Energy and support also counts as campaigning and "getting out the vote." An apathetic base can be deadly in an election, too. Just ask Romney. [Wink]
Posts: 7432 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL. Well, not everybody gets to have Captain Dynamic as their candidate. Dems, count your lucky stars.
Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney's got Trump tailing along with him. That will surely stir things up, as he's now demanding Obama's college transcripts. Not sure what he's looking for, maybe a teacher comment that Barack was a stoner.
Posts: 5588 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Obama will probably get more support and energy from his base from his stance than he will lose from independents.

If only energy and support counted as votes. His base can't vote for him twice. Well, maybe in some states. As the article points out, the people who support gay marriage were going to vote for him anyways. He gained no votes, and probably only lost very few.
He'll gain votes, from his base who otherwise might have stayed home. Or voted Green party. Energizing the base definitely ups your vote tally; turnout was how he won the first time. Not sure how much his ssm confession will effect things, but its most likely a net positive, and definitely not a gaffe.
Posts: 4416 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The other side of the coin is whether it will energize the religious right to support Romney - an open question, since I think he could use some help in that department.
Posts: 9952 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It will only help if it makes Obama more demonic in the eyes of the Religious Right--another open question, since he seems about as demonized as possible even before his "gaffe." [Smile]
Posts: 7432 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
It will only help if it makes Obama more demonic in the eyes of the Religious Right--another open question, since he seems about as demonized as possible even before his "gaffe." [Smile]

Hmm. And here I thought that when I said "gaffe," that it was freaking obvious that I was talking about something that affects the election outcome, not just something that make extremists go whirr.

The "Religious right" isn't going to vote for Romney anyway. Obama could play a role in gay porn, and the Religious Right would still not go for Romney.

I know folks that I'd characterize as hardcore Obama supporters that have told me they will probably not vote for Obama because of the SSM thing ... having never previously criticized him about anything.

Want to guess their skin color?

[ May 29, 2012, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 36600 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"They've made their intent clear. They haven't even hinted. They've been explicit in their statements of intent. Do I need to cite all the imbeciles who claimed Hitler was just engaging in hyperbole? Real threats have real consequences."

Was Hitler facing MAD? Not "If we lose we'll all die and our ideology be vanquished" but "the minute we attack in this manner at least onr and possibly many more of our cities are wiped out"?

No, he didn't.

Enough already you insane people. Germany was far mightier than Iran.

Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


The "Religious right" isn't going to vote for Romney anyway. Obama could play a role in gay porn, and the Religious Right would still not go for Romney.

I don't know about that. Has Pat Robertson or Farrel or whatever their names are; have they asked for their followers to not vote? I think you are overestimating the feelings that some in the religious right have towards Mormons.
Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Grant-
quote:
I find it less frightening then a conventional or nuclear war with Iran.
Do you believe that Iran would be stupid enough to launch an attack on Israel? First Israel would destroy them. Secondly they would completely isolate themselves from the rest of the world which they can't afford.
They've made their intent clear. They haven't even hinted. They've been explicit in their statements of intent. Do I need to cite all the imbeciles who claimed Hitler was just engaging in hyperbole? Real threats have real consequences.
No but you do need to cite where they've made it clear that they intend to attack Israel.
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
No but you do need to cite where they've made it clear that they intend to attack Israel.

Hmmmmm. At what exact point did Hitler make it clear that he intended to invade Poland? At what point did Saddam Hussein make it clear he was going to invade Kuwait? At what point did Japan make it clear they were going to attack Pearl Harbor? I WISH they all made it that easy.
Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
No but you do need to cite where they've made it clear that they intend to attack Israel.

Hmmmmm. At what exact point did Hitler make it clear that he intended to invade Poland? At what point did Saddam Hussein make it clear he was going to invade Kuwait? At what point did Japan make it clear they were going to attack Pearl Harbor? I WISH they all made it that easy.
Well Lisa said (didn't you bother to read the quoted part was replying to?) that Iran had made their intentions explicitly clear and hadn't even hinted, I am curious when and where she claims this was.

[ May 29, 2012, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Enough already you insane people. Germany was far mightier than Iran"

yes... but so were the countries Germany fought against

And... the willingness for nations to do (and commit) war 70 years ago was far higher than today.

Viking, do you really need sources of Iranian representatives mentioning the destruction of Israel?

Posts: 3433 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


The "Religious right" isn't going to vote for Romney anyway. Obama could play a role in gay porn, and the Religious Right would still not go for Romney.

I don't know about that. Has Pat Robertson or Farrel or whatever their names are; have they asked for their followers to not vote?
No. How exactly do you reckon that contradicts what I said, given what the religious right do say re elections?
Posts: 36600 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They've made their intent clear. They haven't even hinted. They've been explicit in their statements of intent. Do I need to cite all the imbeciles who claimed Hitler was just engaging in hyperbole? Real threats have real consequences.
Every other week North Korea makes similar threats against South Korea. Yet for 50 years the peace has held.

By this logic the USA should also have attacked the Soviet Union directly.

Real threats have real consequences, true. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The hawks have been wrong, historically, as often as they have been right. For every Nazi Germany situation where going to war was right, there have been counter-examples such as the Soviet Union and to a lesser extend North Korea, where doing so would have been disastrously apocalyptically wrong.

We should not be so quick to roll out the red carpet and invite in armageddon. As the Soviet Union showed, nothing is certain. Better the possibility of annihilation tomorrow than the certainty of it today.

Posts: 7123 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By this logic the USA should also have attacked the Soviet Union directly."

First of all jasnor, we did not say "invade" we said take their threats seriously

Secondly Iran is actively fighting against Israel already, for years

Thirdly Arab leaders tend to act on their word when it comes to kill jews

I am no expert about north korea, but I am pretty sure it cannot destroy south korea (unless it uses nukes of course)

Posts: 3433 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No. How exactly do you reckon that contradicts what I said, given what the religious right do say re elections?

I don't need to contradict the statement. You gave nothing to back the statement up. I grasped what I believed would be the strongest form of evidence to support your case, that the leaders of the religious right have called for their followers to not vote for Romney, or not vote at all. I guess you can't provide that.

So your next obvious piece of evidence is to show statistically through polls that the religious right always vote against Mormon candidates if the opponent is a liberal democrat.

After that, you can present individual statements from members of the religious right who say that they will never vote for Romney, or vote for a Mormon. But that will be too weak to stand.

If you cannot provide #1, then try to provide #2, or at least #3. Because I see nothing to make me believe that the religious right will, en mass, either refuse to vote or not vote for Romney.

Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
viking, here is another one to the collection:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4236380,00.html

Posts: 3433 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jasonr:
Every other week North Korea makes similar threats against South Korea. Yet for 50 years the peace has held.
[quote]

I believe the threat is different. North Korea only wants to conquer South Korea. I believe that Iran might actually just want to kill all Israelis.

The history is different. For the last 50 years, it's muslim neighbors have attempted to destroy Israel several times. The Korean penninsula is balanced by the United States and China. There is no sense of balance in the middle east, and it's probably a good thing. It appears to me that in terms of insanity, while the Koreans talk big, they don't come remotely close to what the Jews and Muslims can and have done.

Some believe that the North Koreans like to make alot of noise just to get some attention. They do this because their economy is in the pooper. Iran's economy really isn't that bad. They have oil and rugs and people to sell it to. So while the North Koreans may act crazy for economic reasons, the reason for the Iranians to act crazy is a little less clear. Unless they really are crazy [Smile]

Iran has been sponsoring terrorist attacks on Israel for lord knows how long. Every couple of years the North Koreans sink a ship, or shoot down a plane, or shell an island, or dig a tunnel. But if I could paraphrase something the Joker once said: "When bunch of soldiers are killed, everything is going to plan; but blow up a marketplace full of civillians, and everybody loses their mind."

There are no rogue North Korean terrorist organizations. The muslims on the other hand have so many, you can build a career on just keeping up.

I think the threat is different. I don't think it is quite fair to compare Iran and Israel to the North and South Korea. But I'm sure it's not entirely accurate to portray them as Germany and Poland either.

Posts: 2607 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:

Viking, do you really need sources of Iranian representatives mentioning the destruction of Israel?

Put up or shut up.
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought I just did

but here are more :
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/03/iran-khamenei-threat-israel-new-york-times/

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-15/middleeast/world_meast_iran-nuclear-scientist-killed_1_nuclear-scientist-iran-s-press-tv-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9096419/Iran-threatens-pre-emptive-action-against-Israel.html

and of course.... the old "wipe of the map"
http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm

Posts: 3433 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
viking, here is another one to the collection:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4236380,00.html

Where is the part where Iran threatens to harm your country? I missed it. I saw the part where they said a war in Iran is going to engulf Israel, but I missed the part where they said they intend to make war on Israel.

As a war between Iran and Israel will pull the USA in (don't give me the martyr "no one loves Israel, you won't come!" crap) Of course I want an ironclad case.

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1