Too bad you will never have any reason. If Iran handed Hezbollah a nuke and some shaheed set it off in Tel Aviv, you'd blame Israel for provoking Hezbollah. Maybe, maybe, you might say "Bad Iran!" But you would never, ever, want to send an American soldier to fight. Which is fine, that's your choice.

But lol @ your promises.

Nice to see that even you think Iran having a bomb is a horrible horrible thing.

But, how about:

Gamblor, Netanyahu (and maybe the NEOCONZZZZ, I don't even know what you mean when you say stupid **** like that) for the last two years, nonstop, over and over: "you don't have to sign a weak deal. Isolate them. Spend resources to ascertain what is going in and out of the country. Punish any countries that are selling them anything remotely usable in a nuclear weapon. Use your political and economic weight."

It is absolutely incredible that you believe that the fictional conversation in your post has ever come close to happening, anywhere.

Suzzer I don't have the will to rehash last nights cluster**** but I guess you were trolling in post 23 and in post 28 you vehemently disagreed with my post that reflected the same sentiment in post 30. Today is a new day so here we go......

Who is calling for Iran to be attacked at this time? The most hawkish view I am aware of calls for the negotiated settlement to be scrapped, sanctions go be maintained, and to try again. The reason for military action would be exactly the same as diplomacy. To prevent Iran from acquiring a nuke.

This sounds an awful lot like the republican plan for health care. How does this end for hawks other than some kind of fantasy targeted bombing?

What's wrong with moving forward with the settlement assuming the final terms are agreeable and enforceable? From everything I've heard and read the final agreement is supposed to keep Iran at least 1 year away from a bomb. Why do you oppose that other than it came from Obama? What details specifically do you disagree with? How would your plan to "try again" be different? Most importantly why should the neocons who oppose this be given any credence whatsoever given their completely abysmal track record?

This kind of diplomacy is some complicated stuff, probably one of the most ludicrous things for internet arm-chair quarterbacks to pretend like they have any real input on. So barring that, I will take my chances with the side that hasn't been dreadfully, criminally, disastrously wrong in recent history. neocons in the middle east are like some degenerate gambler pawning his watch for one last chance to chase good money after bad.

Look at the wars the US got involved in over 9/11. Some people want war with Iran now. If Iran used a nuke on Israel the US Military's conventional forces would dismantle the countries infrastructure. If a terrorist used a nuke on Israel or if it was unknown who did it Iran would be attacked anyway (much like Iraq after 9/11).

It's in Iran's interest for Israel not to be nuked. All those "Death to America/Israel" signs are propaganda to give their people a common enemy to focus on (when the real enemy is the state controlling them).

North Korea is way more unstable than Iran and they aren't launching any nukes anytime soon. The leadership enjoys its lavish lifestyle too much to jeopardize it.

We immediately knew who committed 9/11. Like a nuke could go off in Israel and we wouldn't immediately know the source.

You apparently didn't notice that I said when and not if Iran gets nukes. I don't think there's anything that can be done to stop them. An invasion wouldn't be the same as Iraq since Iran is much, much stronger and it's not going to happen. The 'precision bombing' thing might not work either and it only puts off the inevitable. Iran's going to get nukes, SA and Egypt likely follow, Turkey might as well also w/ all of them sitting on pressures of their own making and praying to Allah that the **** doesn't get real.

I am not arguing that the restart option should be chosen now. The deal is still being negotiated and the successful completion is not a foregone conclusion. The timing of sanctions relief or the access allowed the inspectors are yet unresolved. If the deal fails I suspect Obama would recommend a restart. These are complex deals that are a mix of internal and external politics and economics. You couldn't repeat this process and get the same result in a lab. Too many variables. I bet gamblor has examples where several attempts were undertaken before a peace treaty was eventually concluded. I have been part of much simpler business negotiations and simply changing the personalities has worked.

This is what you quoted:

"All" and "all such threats" are not the same thing.

"All such threats" is rather specific.

Regardless, threatening nuclear scientists with death is good how?

If you read the article, which I doubt most bothered to do, it points out that the Russian nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov was the voice of reason and caution during the Soviets' rush for nuclear supremacy and he was instrumental in ending communist rule.

The article then goes on to point out, that even after Sakharov left the Soviet nuclear program, it continued on unabated.

So assassinating murdering (because that's what it is) Iran's nuclear scientists may feel good (for those who support it), but it achieves nothing, except for making the world more prone to a nuclear holocaust.

I suppose you can hope that scientists will become too "terrorized" to want to work in that field for Iran, but there is no evidence that Iran is having a problem finding replacement scientists and then Israel becomes nothing more than a terrorist state.

Without judging the specific actions since I don't know any of the exact details (and you don't either), I notice your expert analysis on targeting scientists ignored the important detail that scientists who are heading projects under military authority or, arguably, direct military application, can't be considered civilians.

So your language is lol.

Is there another thread complaining about Israel on the front page? Don't think so, but there are 2 by Gamblor trying to stir up more Islamophobia and anti-Iran hatred, so I decided that I would start matching him one for one, an eye for an eye, so to speak.

I logged on tonight because I figured Gamblor would have another thread about a rocket from Gaza landing in Israel today. I figured he forgot to mention that the Israeli Navy wounded 3 Palestinians 2 days ago:

Israel Navy fire wounds Palestinian fisherman off Gaza coast

Pretty sure I complained about the Iraq War and about left and right support, or lack thereof, of the US military last time I posted, 2 or 3 days ago.

I've complained about plenty. Vaccine safety, idiotic conservatives, Putin, ISIS, etc. Look and ye shall find.

But there is no other country that slaughtered thousands of men, women and children last year and to whom we give money and heavy support that I can think of, or I would be complaining about them too.

I mean, I've complained about ISIS and said we should attack them with our military, missiles, planes and Special Forces. I've never suggested that we attack Israel though, so you are just making stuff up and trying to build to Israel's best and lately only defense: I must be an anti-Semite.

Well, lol that, because I am on record as a very strong supporter of Israeli security, but when I see Israel going off the rails and headed right at me and the US by dragging us into yet another Middle East war, this time with Iran, yeah I am anti-trainwreck, anti-war, and anti-far-right-Israeli nutjobs like Nut-n-yahu. Read his father's racist garbage. Father raised a lunatic.


I think this is the subtle you hate Joos attack. So be it, I wear that attack from people who support Israeli slaughter of Palestinians as a Badge of ****ing honor.

More than happy to have Gamblor's anti-Iran threads merged into one, but he knows what he's doing by front-paging inflammatory titles with no substance and I doubt he plans to stop. This thread has more substance than both of his anti-Iran ones combined.

btw, i noticed that you are a new acct that looks like a gimmick. I haven't checked exactly when it was made and what the other posts are, but you sound like you have some familiarity with the I/P history otf.

So, if some idiot in the street chants "death to Israel", then Israel can murder Iran's scientists? Sounds reasonable?

Iranians fund proxy armies with tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel so that Israel will think twice before it does something like attack Lebanon again, which it first did in 1982, which was the impetus for the formation of Hezbollah. Israel tried to insert a pro-Israeli Christian government during that war, but they failed, after killing 14,000 people or so. That's why Hezbollah was formed and that's why Iran finances them.

You mean like this Hamas peace offer?


Hamas offers Israel a 10-year truce - NBC News

Or this one?


Report: Hamas offers Israel 10 conditions for a 10 year truce -


But Israel does not want to give up the land they snatched in '67.

My post mentions civilians not once, so no clue what you are on about.

But, to get you on the record here, you are fine with murdering members of Iran's military, even though Israel is not at war with Iran?

So, getting back to this, any military contractor is no longer a civilian and fair game in any war or any droning, assassination, covert op, etc?

um, because Iran remembers that 1 million plus Iranians died after they pissed off the West in '79?

That's almost close to Holocaust numbers.

Meh, it is Holocaust numbers, imo.

And don't even go there, yeah, 1 is not close to 6, but still, 1 million dead is a Holocaust imo.

Iraq never attacks Iran in the 80s if Iran has a nuke.

It adds context to why Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah and might rightly believe that acquiring a nuke would make them a whole lot more secure.

Israel bombs Iran nuke scientists and complains about suicide bombers in Israel. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Israel has been using tactics of rank terrorists for like ever.

I was thinking about this recently and the difference between USA's defense of Japan post-WWII and the USA's funding and support of Israel's military, but lack of a formal treaty to defend Israel.

I realized that Israel would never have been able to expand its territory post-Independence if they entered into a formal defense treaty with the US, so Israel has never pushed for a formal treaty and has been happy to take the billion a year to build a military to do whatever it pleases to its neighbors in the Middle East.

Japan has not expanded or attacked anyone post-WWII. Israel would be a smaller country if the US took on its defense post Israel's Declaration of Independence.

Sure we would, because if Iran demonstrated that they are dumb enough to nuke Israel, then what would make us think they wouldn't nuke us, or Saudi Arabia, etc? Iran would have to be destroyed.

We would make sure there were no nukes left in Iran, probably by nuking the place. Maybe not with nukes, but the devastation would be similar. Iran would be rubble.

WTF? Comparing Israel to Japan after WWII? Yes, we did defend Japan and they certainly would have been ripe for attack by Russia at the end of WWII if we hadn't, but we kept them from attacking anyone because they had just tried to take over the world.

But, while we did nothing to help Israel when they were attacked by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we were very busy in Vietnam trying to take over a country for the French. What were the French doing at the time? Selling arms to everyone in the middle east, including Israel, which fought the '67 war mostly with French equipment (their entire air force), not American.

Uh, as I pointed out, it depends I the circumstances, which 99.999% of the time neither you nor I know about. But you're the one calling at murder, and assassination, and screaming bloody murder in general about it.

Israel expanded their territory when they were attacked by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They didn't plan on expanding their territory, and did not fail to enter a defense treaty with the US because they anticipated getting attacked by all their neighbors and then some, winning, and sorta gaining territory.

Also, lol at you saying that I am trying to stir up anti-Arab or anti-Iran hate in general.

Criticizing Arabs is not anti-Semitic, amirite?

You know Israel probably has nukes on subs, right?

If Iran nuked Israel, the US wouldn't have to nuke Iran, because Israel would do it.

Even without subs, I am certain Israel has secreted away their nukes in a manner that will allow them to punish whomever is dumb enough to nuke them first.

Nukes on the High Seas: Israel's Underwater Atomic Arsenal



Just stop with your ridiculous fearmongering.

We've been over this before.

Israel gained most of their territory during their War of Independence, when they captured more land than provided by UN's Resolution 181 and during the '67 war, which Israel started. Remember, Israel first denied that they struck first and then they admitted they did but they claimed that they were threatened and had to strike first. Even if that were true, Israel still did not relinquish the land they captured.

Remember, this was the night I pointed that out and we also talked about about Israel's attack and invasion of Nasser's Egypt in '56? That's when you got mad and started implying I was an anti-Semite, remember?

I do remember your laughable interpretation of who started the '67 war. I also remember basically agreeing that Israel was an aggressor in '56, so I'm sure you're very wrong about the second paragraph.

I've never been mad at you. I knew you were an anti-vaxxer who still thinks that autism is caused by vaccination and vaccination specifically wrecked you somehow, so I've never taken you seriously enough to get mad. Also, you're a 9/11 truther aren't you?