Page 3 of 4

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:57 am
by RepliMagni
[KMA]Avenger wrote:http://www.infowars.com/withdrawal-of-us-troops-from-iraq-highly-suspect/


And before anyone starts again about my sources, consider this...Infowars gets more site traffic than most of the mainstream media. also The Drudge Report gets more traffic than all the mainstream media combined and routinely links to infowars articles...which are written by many writers including well know experts in the fields of geopolitics, economics and so on.


So we're to judge sources by how popular they are? Jersey Shore ftw baby :smt050

I love the description from google:
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
www.infowars.com/The web page of syndicated radio host Alex Jones. Conspiracy-tinted site containing strong opposition to socialism, communism, and the New World Order.


Doesn't sound like they have an agenda at all ;)

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:00 am
by [KMA]Avenger
Just once i'd like people to actually comment on the article and ignore the website it's posted on. personally i don't care if it's posted on the teletubbies website so long as the damned thing is factual and accurate :?


PS, don't forget that nearly all mainstream tv-news and newspapers are owned by corporations and are also HEAVILY subsidised by Govt...no agenda there mate ;)

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:04 am
by RepliMagni
[KMA]Avenger wrote:Just once i'd like people to actually comment on the article and ignore the website it's posted on. personally i don't care if it's posted on the teletubbies website so long as the damned thing is factual and accurate :?


I'm a historian. First questions I ask is who wrote and why did they write it? The provenance of a source is crucial in determining how "factual" or "accurate" it is ;)

Besides, I only commented this time because you tried to pre-empt the criticism....you just did it badly :razz:

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:05 am
by RepliMagni
[KMA]Avenger wrote:PS, don't forget that nearly all mainstream tv-news and newspapers are owned by corporations and are also HEAVILY subsidised by Govt...no agenda there mate ;)


How you're getting it ;)

I personally don't believe anything I read....call me a cynic, but the more you learn about something the less you actually know about it ;)

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:13 am
by [KMA]Avenger
LOL, can't argue with you there matey.

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:15 am
by [KMA]Avenger
RepliMagni wrote:
[KMA]Avenger wrote:Just once i'd like people to actually comment on the article and ignore the website it's posted on. personally i don't care if it's posted on the teletubbies website so long as the damned thing is factual and accurate :?


I'm a historian. First questions I ask is who wrote and why did they write it? The provenance of a source is crucial in determining how "factual" or "accurate" it is ;)

Besides, I only commented this time because you tried to pre-empt the criticism....you just did it badly :razz:


Whoops, didn't see this. i wasn't trying to "cut anyone off at the pass" so to speak, i was simply explaining my choice for a source :-)

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:16 am
by ~Drunken Master~
If we listen to fox news and other pro Israeli news media then we can easily say that Israel and the west have nothing to worry about and a simple strike will take care of Iran and end of story.

BUT

If we listen to other news media then we can easily say that if Israel was to make a first strike then Israel will not be standing after it.

In conclusion, Iran is NO Iraq and the west know this hence there delay until today regarding making a strike against Iran. it was very easy invading Iraq and Afghanistan as they have NO military infrastructure. now throwing a punch at a punching bag (Iraq) and throwing a punch at another fighter (Iran) is 2 different things.

I was having lunch last Saturday with a friend of mine who has just come to Sydney from Israel and he is very worried about this whole issue, he told me that about 50% + of all Israeli citizens have applied for citizenship abroad now this is very concerning indeed..

@ Avenger , the problem is that you will always get the same replies in your thread. Everyone who is pro Israeli will always post in favor of Israel and those anti Israeli will always post against and this you can never change no matter what the truth ever is.....

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:01 am
by Legendary Apophis
For instance, I am not anti Israel, but I'm not really either a pro Israel (in the sense of agreeing always with what they do). I see this as a very risked move, because Iran has a bigger "stock" of potential troops than Israel, and considering they probably match military-wise (Israel might have more technology but don't count Iran out too easily), it would be quite of a tough one, and Israel has disadvantage to have a small country compared to Iran, it can be a problem strategy wise. Not to mention the wide support in Iran that a war against Israel has, unlike Israel population, probably less manipulated by "propaganda" (they probably dislike Iran, but they aren't into a blind hate where they would be willing to sacrifice everything for the "cause).


Now, about the posts regarding WW3 and how it would be positive, especially for economy, I wonder where the heck you get that false idea from. You think WW3 will be a battlefield in a set place with both armies fighting while investors/generals sit in cozy places drinking tea and coffee while discussing and enjoying the show? (ie: WW1)
You have several scenario, and none is "all the better in the best kind of worlds".
*You have a long lasting war, where both sides suffer alot but the leaderships don't want to give up and carry on until last troops are gone. You get this kind of war in the movie "Things to come", which I hope some of you already seen (or read book otherwise). Sure this is 75 years old, but it gave a good idea of what a long drawn war would become. Take into mind technology is less evolved in this movie than the end of WW2 which leads me to second situation.

*Side A launch two missiles both equipped with nuclear power, you get the like of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but in the start of the war (and the devastating damages would be increased due to the progress made in 65 years), due to thinking it would make the enemy surrender quickly. However, the enemy, side B, being filled with hate towards side A, will either ask for their allies, and/or strike back with deadly surgical strikes, except it wouldn't be with rockets. There, it would likely be bacteriological/electromagnetic weapons, either by their own creation or acquired from black market, striking the main cities from side A to cause deep damages.
If side B manages to get nuclear power countries in their side, these will attempt to attack side A's main cities and/or weapons factories/launching facilities as well as military bases, and you can see how the war can last differently depending on the stubborness, amount of powerful allies or ways to strike back.
The amount of material casualties, and even more human casualties would be giant. Not to mention that the weapon factories would be targeted (down goes the theory of "I will get rich from the misfortune of the others"), and if the "investors" were to live in one of the main cities from side A (or B...), they could as well die in one of the nuclearstrikeback/bacteriological attacks from strike B and its allies.
Judgement Day in Terminator, just a movie? Take a guess. ;)

Yes movies (or fictional books) remain fiction, but you have some of these which contain some truth, if the situation or a similar one could happen. I don't think they would think about Terminator or Things to Come if they were to go for a WW3, because these would appear to be movies and thus because they are movies they wouldn't be taken seriously.

However, I agree this is unlike this orange alert news is the risk to start WW3.

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:42 am
by MEZZANINE
The only way Iran would stand a chance is if them Russians backed the up, in the words of Frank Herbert 'The Spice must flow'.

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:49 am
by ~Drunken Master~
MEZZANINE wrote:The only way Iran would stand a chance is if them Russians backed the up, in the words of Frank Herbert 'The Spice must flow'.


The pact between Russia, China, Iran and Syria is getting stronger each day, the issue we have is that America owes most of its debt to China and America has backed down to Chinese pressure in the past, so in the Iranian case how will America react ???

All talk or will it apply some action as well ? I guess time will tell and what costs money today (knowing the future) will be free tomorrow (meaning when it happens)

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:59 pm
by Lithium
chine and russia wont ever agree to let iran fell under us, uk , fra and etc. they see that eu-us is marking their territories with blood (north africa) . seeing teh economical danger of us-eu i dotn see any war soon. its jsut a move to distract ppl from hats going on in their countries.

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:32 am
by RepliMagni
Apparently Sarkozy doesn't like the Israeli PM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15635476

:smt050

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:49 am
by [KMA]Avenger
French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.



LMAO!

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!

Nicolas Sarkozy<<<The dirty satanic globalist scum-bucket!


^Whoops, did i say that out loud!?! :?

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:22 am
by Legendary Apophis
[KMA]Avenger wrote:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.



LMAO!

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!

Nicolas Sarkozy<<<The dirty satanic globalist scum-bucket!


^Whoops, did i say that out loud!?! :?

Wow what a solid argument against his politics! Even the extreme left parties in my country do find better arguments sometimes! :smt043

:smt081 :smt081 :smt081

Sorry, were you serious? #-o

Ohmygod I would have voted for a "dirty satanic globalist scum-bucket" in 2012, I should reconsider my vote, how could I have been so blind? :smt107
[spoiler]Like IF I would change my vote due to such "arguments"! :lol:[/spoiler]

Re: Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:39 am
by [KMA]Avenger
Image

Sorry Jim, my bad...he's a Long Horns fan #-o Wait...all these famous people are Long Horns Fans :shock:


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=long+h ... 8gOEzoDXBw


/sarcasm