'Iran will blow up the heart of Israel'

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: ericlp
The only reason why Iran wants nukes is because we gave them to Israel so is it are fault for this problem?

The difference is that Iran directly funds and arms terrorist organizations. They want nukes so that they can either a) nuke Israel or b) continue to send unlimited funds to terrorists with impunity.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For one of the biggest delusions, its hard to beat the Common Courtesy one of " The US does not need a tank battle or a land invasion. We are not interested in controlling land; just ensure a sterile strip that forces the Iranian forces to keep their heads down.

Even if we only assume that sterile strip is only 200 miles wide times 500 miles of Iranian coastline, that is 100,000 square miles to patrol 24/7/365. That is a huge area and the US simply does not have that much thermal imaging equipment for that big of an area. And you think small Iranian detachments can't reach caches of pre buried missiles or decoy down US planes into the teeth of shoulder fired ground to air missiles. The Israelis tried that air support thing against Hezbollah fighters with little success, and in far fewer number of square miles in 2005. And Hezbollah did not even have ground to air missiles. And if Iranians were willing to march into the machine gun fire of Iraqi tanks armed with only rifles, they will be willing to risk their lives to take out 1000 ft oil tankers armed with much better missiles.

You are confusing a fixed target vs a moving target and the weapon systems needed

Ground to Air:

A SAM requires radar tracking and has a range of 30000 at the most. It also takes time to setup and tear down. It is not shoulder launched.

A Stinger is good against an altitude up to 15000 at the most. Helo and Forward Observer marker planes are their target.

Recon planes and UAV can loaf along at 30-50K unharmed except by other aircraft.

So your ground to air weapons can be counted out as a defensive measure when there is no need for close air attack.

Ground to air to not have the range or payload for surface targets.


Ground to ground:

The distance the weapon needs to travel and the payload carried is critical.

A shoulder fired weapon will not have the range to travel more than a couple of km accurately to deliver any type of payload.

Your RPG falls into this category. It has enough payload to punch a hole in an armored vehicle or concrete wall, but only a km range.

Beyond that range, it is luck that it will hit a stationary target, let alone something that is not moving dead on toward the shooter

You need a missile battery.
...Those that are fixed will be crippled/taken out either in airstrikes or special forces attacks.
...Those that are mobile will need time to setup and prepare (as explained in previous posts). That time window will make then vulnerable to UAV and airstrikes. The launch system has to be setup; the rocket fueled and armed; tracking radar/connections have to be setup. This all requires time and proper area (roads/parking area the size of a Wal Mart parking lot) to be able to operate from. These types of rockets are the size of telephone poles and the transports w/ support vehicles are not off road vehicles. They are similar to those trucks you see carrying construction equipment along the highway at 30mph.

Rolands mounted on a halftrack will not work - there is no shoot/scoot with a missile that needs to be launched accurately from a distance of 25-250km.



This scenario is based on the fact that Iran declares war against the world be attempting to close the Straights.

Examples are based on real world experience with all of the described weapon systems

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Freshgeardude
But the point I am making is that the US is NOT israel. if the US were to attack Iran, wtf would Iran attack Israel.

the only logical answer to this is that they want to always attack Israel but dont want to look like the bad guys to the world

Same reason Iraq attacked Israel -- to make it an us v. them war.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For one of the biggest delusions, its hard to beat the Common Courtesy one of " The US does not need a tank battle or a land invasion. We are not interested in controlling land; just ensure a sterile strip that forces the Iranian forces to keep their heads down.

Even if we only assume that sterile strip is only 200 miles wide times 500 miles of Iranian coastline, that is 100,000 square miles to patrol 24/7/365. That is a huge area and the US simply does not have that much thermal imaging equipment for that big of an area. And you think small Iranian detachments can't reach caches of pre buried missiles or decoy down US planes into the teeth of shoulder fired ground to air missiles. The Israelis tried that air support thing against Hezbollah fighters with little success, and in far fewer number of square miles in 2005. And Hezbollah did not even have ground to air missiles. And if Iranians were willing to march into the machine gun fire of Iraqi tanks armed with only rifles, they will be willing to risk their lives to take out 1000 ft oil tankers armed with much better missiles.

You are confusing a fixed target vs a moving target and the weapon systems needed

Ground to Air:

A SAM requires radar tracking and has a range of 30000 at the most. It also takes time to setup and tear down. It is not shoulder launched.

A Stinger is good against an altitude up to 15000 at the most. Helo and Forward Observer marker planes are their target.

Recon planes and UAV can loaf along at 30-50K unharmed except by other aircraft.

So your ground to air weapons can be counted out as a defensive measure when there is no need for close air attack.

Ground to air to not have the range or payload for surface targets.


Ground to ground:

The distance the weapon needs to travel and the payload carried is critical.

A shoulder fired weapon will not have the range to travel more than a couple of km accurately to deliver any type of payload.

Your RPG falls into this category. It has enough payload to punch a hole in an armored vehicle or concrete wall, but only a km range.

Beyond that range, it is luck that it will hit a stationary target, let alone something that is not moving dead on toward the shooter

You need a missile battery.
...Those that are fixed will be crippled/taken out either in airstrikes or special forces attacks.
...Those that are mobile will need time to setup and prepare (as explained in previous posts). That time window will make then vulnerable to UAV and airstrikes. The launch system has to be setup; the rocket fueled and armed; tracking radar/connections have to be setup. This all requires time and proper area (roads/parking area the size of a Wal Mart parking lot) to be able to operate from. These types of rockets are the size of telephone poles and the transports w/ support vehicles are not off road vehicles. They are similar to those trucks you see carrying construction equipment along the highway at 30mph.

Rolands mounted on a halftrack will not work - there is no shoot/scoot with a missile that needs to be launched accurately from a distance of 25-250km.



This scenario is based on the fact that Iran declares war against the world be attempting to close the Straights.

Examples are based on real world experience with all of the described weapon systems

Taken from your book, Tips for Squirrel Hunting?

 

[Lemon law]

The new Common Courtesy delusions is that Iranian ground to air missiles are like 40 year old Sams. Or that all the Iranian missiles
ground to sea missiles are mobile launched and liquid fueled. All you are doing CC is setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
The Iranians may meet your definition if the bad guys, but it still does not mean they are dumb.

The Iranians are not buying these missiles, they are designing and manufacturing them to their own specifications. And after being threatened by the USA for 30 years, after actually being invaded by Iraq, its absurd to think Iran does not have effective counters to all your assumptions. And have not war gamed all these scenarios out.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The new Common Courtesy delusions is that Iranian ground to air missiles are like 40 year old Sams. Or that all the Iranian missiles
ground to sea missiles are mobile launched and liquid fueled. All you are doing CC is setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
The Iranians may meet your definition if the bad guys, but it still does not mean they are dumb.

The Iranians are not buying these missiles, they are designing and manufacturing them to their own specifications. And after being threatened by the USA for 30 years, after actually being invaded by Iraq, its absurd to think Iran does not have effective counters to all your assumptions. And have not war gamed all these scenarios out.

You have already proven your ignorance on this issue, you should just stop.


Iran has purchased S-300 advanced SAMs from Russia, and they are being intentionally slow on the delivery. That is what they are counting on to stop Israeli jets.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The new Common Courtesy delusions is that Iranian ground to air missiles are like 40 year old Sams. Or that all the Iranian missiles
ground to sea missiles are mobile launched and liquid fueled. All you are doing CC is setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
The Iranians may meet your definition if the bad guys, but it still does not mean they are dumb.

The Iranians are not buying these missiles, they are designing and manufacturing them to their own specifications. And after being threatened by the USA for 30 years, after actually being invaded by Iraq, its absurd to think Iran does not have effective counters to all your assumptions. And have not war gamed all these scenarios out.

Mobile launched missles are the only chance that Iran has. Fixed based will not suceed in closing the Straights.

Missles to work, require having their prototypes tested; simulations only go so far.

Iran has done very little testing of ground to sea missiles; most testing has been short range ballistic. And at those times, it has been more PR than results. Look at the time that they could not even determine if they shot 3 or 4 missiles off.

Any mobile offensive missile technology has been based on older Russian designs.

Iran has not demonstrated any ground to air technology. They are like Syria - purchasing from the Russians and unable to utilitze it effectively (or the systems do not work).

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The new Common Courtesy delusions is that Iranian ground to air missiles are like 40 year old Sams. Or that all the Iranian missiles
ground to sea missiles are mobile launched and liquid fueled. All you are doing CC is setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
The Iranians may meet your definition if the bad guys, but it still does not mean they are dumb.

The Iranians are not buying these missiles, they are designing and manufacturing them to their own specifications. And after being threatened by the USA for 30 years, after actually being invaded by Iraq, its absurd to think Iran does not have effective counters to all your assumptions. And have not war gamed all these scenarios out.

If just knowing that a powerful and threatening weapon was out there was all it took to devise a counter weapon that could destroy it the United States wouldn't be so far ahead of all the other nations in the world in weapons technology.

Hell if your crazy post was true nuclear weapons wouldn't be a threat.

 

[OCGuy]

Hey Lemon Law, you probably believe they really arent speeding them up....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091013/D9BA5FR00.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario. That's what Saddam thought when he invaded Iran. Are we prepared to maintain GW levels of military presence indefinitely in the Persian Gulf? Probably not. Would even that be sufficient to prevent Iranian action, which would freeze shipping entirely? Probably not. Would any ship entering the Gulf be able to obtain the usual shipping insurance? Obviously not.

And for those who think the Israelis can singlehandedly maintain action against Iran, think again. They were begging Uncle Sam for ordnance during their last adventure in Lebanon. And anybody who thinks the US can afford to allow Israeli planes to attack Iran across Iraqi or Saudi airspace has shit fer brains. Better off to do the deed ourselves, and not even Dick Cheney could carry that idea forward.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario.

If only we had a mandatory draft for any war, as the politicians and media would be far less eager to rile up such bravado when they'd be putting their own children in the line of fire.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario. That's what Saddam thought when he invaded Iran. Are we prepared to maintain GW levels of military presence indefinitely in the Persian Gulf? Probably not. Would even that be sufficient to prevent Iranian action, which would freeze shipping entirely? Probably not. Would any ship entering the Gulf be able to obtain the usual shipping insurance? Obviously not.

And for those who think the Israelis can singlehandedly maintain action against Iran, think again. They were begging Uncle Sam for ordnance during their last adventure in Lebanon. And anybody who thinks the US can afford to allow Israeli planes to attack Iran across Iraqi or Saudi airspace has shit fer brains. Better off to do the deed ourselves, and not even Dick Cheney could carry that idea forward.

Given that Iran would have it's infrastructure crippled on or before the Straights were initially secure, I would suspect that it will be difficult to maintain the logistical support needed to continual threaten the shipping.

Iran is not that self sufficient; remove some power plants and she will be hurting.
You could end up with a situation in Iraq prior to the invasions wherethe rulers sat pretty and the population went without.

The country may rally aroiund its leadership but they will have nothing.

The big difference hopefully is that Obama would not feel the need to put boots on the ground and just let airpower do the job IF Iranstarts to actaullyattack the US, not just sabre rattle.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario. That's what Saddam thought when he invaded Iran. Are we prepared to maintain GW levels of military presence indefinitely in the Persian Gulf? Probably not. Would even that be sufficient to prevent Iranian action, which would freeze shipping entirely? Probably not. Would any ship entering the Gulf be able to obtain the usual shipping insurance? Obviously not.

And for those who think the Israelis can singlehandedly maintain action against Iran, think again. They were begging Uncle Sam for ordnance during their last adventure in Lebanon. And anybody who thinks the US can afford to allow Israeli planes to attack Iran across Iraqi or Saudi airspace has shit fer brains. Better off to do the deed ourselves, and not even Dick Cheney could carry that idea forward.

IF anything, Israel held back massively in Lebanon and Gaza.

Did you know that Israel put up posters and gave out pamplets days in advance that they were either A. going through the area or B. bomb the place.

while at the same time they saved innocent civilians, they let some terrorists go.

Israel has enough firepower to carpet bomb the entire country (lebanon).


In Gaza they dropped thousands of pamphlets and made thousands of phone calls to everyone in gaza telling them to leave their homes to protect themselves.

Has anyone in history done such a thing?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Freshgeardude

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario. That's what Saddam thought when he invaded Iran. Are we prepared to maintain GW levels of military presence indefinitely in the Persian Gulf? Probably not. Would even that be sufficient to prevent Iranian action, which would freeze shipping entirely? Probably not. Would any ship entering the Gulf be able to obtain the usual shipping insurance? Obviously not.

And for those who think the Israelis can singlehandedly maintain action against Iran, think again. They were begging Uncle Sam for ordnance during their last adventure in Lebanon. And anybody who thinks the US can afford to allow Israeli planes to attack Iran across Iraqi or Saudi airspace has shit fer brains. Better off to do the deed ourselves, and not even Dick Cheney could carry that idea forward.

IF anything, Israel held back massively in Lebanon and Gaza.

Did you know that Israel put up posters and gave out pamplets days in advance that they were either A. going through the area or B. bomb the place.

while at the same time they saved innocent civilians, they let some terrorists go.

Israel has enough firepower to carpet bomb the entire country (lebanon).


In Gaza they dropped thousands of pamphlets and made thousands of phone calls to everyone in gaza telling them to leave their homes to protect themselves.

Has anyone in history done such a thing?

Where did you expect the people in Gaza to go? Don't tell me, they can be conveniently herded into one of the neighbouring Arab countries: they'll be happy, their Arab brothers will be happy and Israel can get on with the task of constructing houses on Palestinian land.

If killing hundreds of civilians is your idea of "holding back" I suggest that you refrain from engaging in the coitus interuptus method of birth control, unless you want a very large family.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Freshgeardude

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario. That's what Saddam thought when he invaded Iran. Are we prepared to maintain GW levels of military presence indefinitely in the Persian Gulf? Probably not. Would even that be sufficient to prevent Iranian action, which would freeze shipping entirely? Probably not. Would any ship entering the Gulf be able to obtain the usual shipping insurance? Obviously not.

And for those who think the Israelis can singlehandedly maintain action against Iran, think again. They were begging Uncle Sam for ordnance during their last adventure in Lebanon. And anybody who thinks the US can afford to allow Israeli planes to attack Iran across Iraqi or Saudi airspace has shit fer brains. Better off to do the deed ourselves, and not even Dick Cheney could carry that idea forward.

IF anything, Israel held back massively in Lebanon and Gaza.

Did you know that Israel put up posters and gave out pamplets days in advance that they were either A. going through the area or B. bomb the place.

while at the same time they saved innocent civilians, they let some terrorists go.

Israel has enough firepower to carpet bomb the entire country (lebanon).


In Gaza they dropped thousands of pamphlets and made thousands of phone calls to everyone in gaza telling them to leave their homes to protect themselves.

Has anyone in history done such a thing?

Where did you expect the people in Gaza to go? Don't tell me, they can be conveniently herded into one of the neighbouring Arab countries: they'll be happy, their Arab brothers will be happy and Israel can get on with the task of constructing houses on Palestinian land.

If killing hundreds of civilians is your idea of "holding back" I suggest that you refrain from engaging in the coitus interuptus method of birth control, unless you want a very large family.

gaza territory is not simply buildings.

the fliers told them to leave their homes if rocket launchers were near by.


you want to argue about the fact of "where to go" in a time of battle, people can find any spot for safety.

 

[PJABBER]

I don't believe there will be any real time warning to the Iranian civilian population by either the Israelis or the Iranian government that has chosen to put key nuclear facilities in population centers or below schools and mosques. The Iranians want any attack against these to result in maximum civilian casualties which they can then use as propaganda pawns. It is a barbaric practice but one which is also constantly employed by the Palestinians that have no qualms against sacrificing innocents in their struggle for the destruction of the State of Israel.

I think Israel has given plenty of warning even as the Iranians are pleased as punch to accept the delaying tactics of the West. If I were living, working, attending school, praying in the immediate vicinity of these Iranian facilities I would vacate as soon as I possibly could. But the Iranian government's need for hostages certainly makes that an arduous course to take.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
...the Iranian government that has chosen to put key nuclear facilities in population centers or below schools and mosques.

How did you come to the conlcusion that they have done anything of the sort?

Originally posted by: PJABBER
...the Palestinians that have no qualms against sacrificing innocents in their struggle for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Palestinians are largely struggling to free themselves from Israeli occupation, which isn't rightly the same thing as destroying Israel.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: PJABBER
...the Palestinians that have no qualms against sacrificing innocents in their struggle for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Palestinians are largely struggling to free themselves from Israeli occupation, which isn't rightly the same thing as destroying Israel.

Given that they brought this "occupation" onto themselves by trying to exterminate Israel in the beginning and for the next 30+ years afterwards.

They (Hamas) still have in their charter the destruction of Israel.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Magnificent dick-waving bravado in this thread, all based on a short war scenario.

If only we had a mandatory draft for any war, as the politicians and media would be far less eager to rile up such bravado when they'd be putting their own children in the line of fire.

It is not going to be the U.S. that is going to be required to have bravado. It is the Israelis and the Iranians. The Iranians have been freely sending their children in harm's way for a very long time. The Israelis as well.

Short war or just a continuation of the efforts of over a half century to destroy Israel, this is a conflict that will not be a final solution. And I do mean to use those exact words as the genocidal elimination of the State of Israel is a goal proclaimed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Israelis in their military engagements have exercised great restraint and humanitarianism and took excessive casualties in doing so. I don't believe it benefited them in the least; look at the anti-Semite commentary throughout this thread. The commentary is much worse throughout the jihadist Mid East.

The greatest proponent of the destruction of the State of Israel is the Iran theocracy at this point. The Iranian theocracy supplies huge amounts of funding, weapons and military trainers to surrogates and itself employs active Revolutionary Guard units toward the destruction of Israel and the permanent removal of its protectors (the U.S., GB, etc.) The Iranian government is now seeking the weapons of mass destruction that will achieve the genocide they believe will move their theocracy into unquestioned dominance of the region and ultimately the world.

Who will resist them?

Ready to take the risk

If you ask Israel Air Force pilots what their country should do in light of the imminent threat of nuclear armament in Iran, they will offer a clear, unequivocal response. The pilots and navigators who sit in every advanced fighter jet, whether an F-15I Ra'am or an F-16I Sufa; the crews working with anti-aircraft missiles and on helicopters; the transport people; the intelligence and communications divisions; and the aerial command and control centers - all will answer simply, each in his or her own way: Here I am - send me.

Those who will take part in a mission against Iran will be volunteer enlistees. The number of those hoping to jump into the required slots will be greater than the number of slots available.

An Israeli strike will also not rely solely on aircraft. Unlike the Iranians, the Israelis do have functional ballistic missiles capable of reaching out and touching their enemies.

Study: Israel may attack Iran nuclear sites with ballistic missiles

Israel is widely assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting Iran with an accuracy of a few dozen meters (yards) from target. Such a capability would be free of warplanes' main drawbacks - limits on fuel and ordnance, and perils to pilots.

Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak.

While the genocide apologists here just repeat the anti-Semite propaganda of the anti-Israeli press, they would be better served to understand the vulnerability of both Israel and Iran. And they would be better served by understanding that projection of power by Israel into Iran, while not an easy tasking, is one very much within the capabilities of the Israeli military.

A CSIS study quoted above was offered here before, obviously ignored by many posters and is well worth a reading by those who want understand the military options.

CSIS - Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran?s Nuclear Development Facilities

Another study, an earlier one from MIT, also conjectures that Israel would be able to conduct an effective strike -

?Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: PJABBER
...the Palestinians that have no qualms against sacrificing innocents in their struggle for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Palestinians are largely struggling to free themselves from Israeli occupation, which isn't rightly the same thing as destroying Israel.

Given that they brought this "occupation" onto themselves by trying to exterminate Israel in the beginning and for the next 30+ years afterwards.

They (Hamas) still have in their charter the destruction of Israel.

They argue that they can't control individuals and then call themselves the governing authority of those people....

I'm sorry but NO nation in the world would take hundreds of rockets a week aimed at their civilians (note, not military, NEVER military) without trying to stop them by occupying ALL of the areas they live in.

If anything, Israel has shown great restraint. Their enemies are hiding amongst civilians.

That does NOT mean that Israel is free of guilt for some actions, like using human shields of Palestinians (we can argue forth and back forever but i have it on good authority that they did) walking ahead of them or the use of WP in densly populated areas (which has been recorded and is part of the UN investigation).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Palestinians are largely struggling to free themselves from Israeli occupation, which isn't rightly the same thing as destroying Israel.

Given that they brought this "occupation" onto themselves by trying to exterminate Israel in the beginning and for the next 30+ years afterwards.

You are spewing ingnorant and bigoted nonsense which largely stands in conflict to well established historical fact here.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They (Hamas) still have in their charter the destruction of Israel.

You got the Hamas having the destruction of Israel in their carter correct. However, it's only your bigotry that allows you to ascribe what is there to Palestinians at large, as your ignorance allows you to ascribe what is there to Hamas at large even though it was never ratified and no one is required to swear to uphold it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
They argue that they can't control individuals and then call themselves the governing authority of those people....

Sure, much like the "govening authorty" of Vichy France couldn't control the resistance there.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm sorry but NO nation in the world would take hundreds of rockets a week aimed at their civilians (note, not military, NEVER military) without trying to stop them by occupying ALL of the areas they live in.

You are putting the cart before the horse here; those rockets started long after the occupation.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
That does NOT mean that Israel is free of guilt for some actions, like using human shields of Palestinians (we can argue forth and back forever but i have it on good authority that they did) walking ahead of them or the use of WP in densly populated areas (which has been recorded and is part of the UN investigation).

I'm glad to see you acknowledge as much. Is there any chance you could help my convince CC to come to terms with such realities too?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Palestinians are largely struggling to free themselves from Israeli occupation, which isn't rightly the same thing as destroying Israel.

Given that they brought this "occupation" onto themselves by trying to exterminate Israel in the beginning and for the next 30+ years afterwards.

You are spewing ingnorant and bigoted nonsense which largely stands in conflict to well established historical fact here.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They (Hamas) still have in their charter the destruction of Israel.

You got the Hamas having the destruction of Israel in their carter correct. However, it's only your bigotry that allows you to ascribe what is there to Palestinians at large, and your ignorance which allows you to ascribe what is there to Hamas at large even though it was never ratified and no one is required to swear to uphold it.

You know, contradictions of facts may make you feel better but it really doesn't add anything to a discussion.

Truth is, if the Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow, if the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no Israelis tomorrow.

Hamas and Al Aqsa don't want peace, they want to eradicate Israel no matter what.

They are terrorists attacking civilians exclusivly, they are the scum of the earth.

You actually think they give a FUCK about their civilians? Well they do as far as longing for them to hurt and die so they can use them as leverage to blame Israel, i promise you, no one loves dead Palestinians as much as Hamas and Al Aqsa.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
They argue that they can't control individuals and then call themselves the governing authority of those people....

Sure, much like the "govening authorty" of Vichy France couldn't control the resistance there.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm sorry but NO nation in the world would take hundreds of rockets a week aimed at their civilians (note, not military, NEVER military) without trying to stop them by occupying ALL of the areas they live in.

You are putting the cart before the horse here; those rockets started long after the occupation.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
That does NOT mean that Israel is free of guilt for some actions, like using human shields of Palestinians (we can argue forth and back forever but i have it on good authority that they did) walking ahead of them or the use of WP in densly populated areas (which has been recorded and is part of the UN investigation).

I'm glad to see you acknowledge as much. Is there any chance you could help my convince CC to come to terms with such realities too?

I don't think you get it, Common is a real good man who without a doubt can acknowledge facts that goes against Israel but people like you are useless, completely and utterly useless.

You're as useless as those who still argue that Iraq had WMD's, you've made up your mind and no evidence or reason will ever be even thought of as logical and reasonable by you.

I might be Jewish by decent but right is right and wrong is wrong and i don't give a shit WHO does WHAT because what is simply IS.

That is the difference between me and you, you'll never acknowledge error or fault of "your side". If someone put a picture up showing a Palestinian stabbing a child you'd find a way to justify the action of the Palestinian.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You know, contradictions of facts may make you feel better but it really doesn't add anything to a discussion.

Rather, they make CC feel better because he is unwilling to accept the facts.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I don't think you get it, Common is a real good man who without a doubt can acknowledge facts...

Rather, you don't get the fact that CC constantly demonstrates otherwise, one example being just above.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You're as useless as those who still argue that Iraq had WMD's...

Rather, you keep making faith based arguments like those who did/do argue that Iraq had WMD's, while I have too much respect for reality to engage in any such nonsense.