Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread

[Cyrus]

There are two scenarios:

1. Iran does NOT have Nukes.

Then, as I said, <font color="blue"> Iran does not pose any significant military threat to Israel. </font>

What could Iran do?? Let's see:

1.A Send ground troops to attack Israel.
Then Iran would have to move armies across (check yer map!) Iraq, then Syria, then get to Israel. Or after Iraq, turn south to Saudi Arabia, then north to Jordan and then Israel. Third option: attack Turkey first, then Syria, then Lebanon, and finally reach (gasp gasp) Israel.

Now, that's a lot of ground to cover, brother! And through some un-friendly countries as well. I'd say that would be one gigantically doomed operation. But let's see you say different.

1.B Wage air war against Israel.
Need I point out the total superiority in material (quantity- and quality-wise), in technical support and in personnel enjoyed by the Israeli Air Force?

I'd say that anyone who would be foolish enough to attack Israel by air, would soon get to know the full wrath of the Israeli Air Force. Dare you say different?

1.C Wage a combination of air and ground war against Israel.
See above.

2. Iran HAS nukes.

Then Iran would be posing a de facto serious threat not just to Israel but to the whole region, on account of the nature of its regime -- which is politically autocratic and unstable, and ideologically extreme and obsessive. (But wait! I already wrote this!)

...Are we getting there, yet?

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;What could Iran do?? Let's see:&lt;&lt;

You forgot 1.d - Finance and provide personnel, logistical support, and materiel including fissile, chemical, and biological weapons for deployment by terrorists on a large scale, perhaps by leveraging, say, existing terror networks such as hizbollah in Lebanon (oh wait - hizbollah is already working for Tehran)...

Given the events of the last few years, I'm shocked that asymmetrical and/or nonconventional tactics didn't appear on your list of "threats".

The president of Iran recently proclaimed - loudly and publicly - his vow to "wipe Israel off the map".

Connect the dots.

[John Cole]

And, as well, "Death to America." Both statements were roundly condemmed by many countries. The Iranian reaction, though, may be telling. They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric. It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric. It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. They are totally responsible for their rhetoric and should assume it will be taken seriously and acted upon by those threatened.



I can't joke to my neighbors that I am dangerous and want to kill them, without expecting some type of reaction.

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;The Iranian reaction, though, may be telling. They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric.&lt;&lt;

This of course was a pathetic attempt at spin control by those in the Iranian government who were alarmed that their President tipped the Iranian's hand.

Imagine if George Bush publicly proclaimed that he was going to "wipe Iran off the map".

The argument that the Iranian president's remarks can't be taken seriously can't be taken seriously.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked that asymmetrical and/or nonconventional tactics didn't appear on your list of "threats".

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind?

It should not be, because it is really quite simple : Terrorists inflict serious harm on individuals and sometimes whole neighborhoods, but the state of Israel itself is in no danger of finding itself, from their activities, militarily defeated or under some foreign occupation.

A military threat, on the other hand, comes almost always on a much grander scale, from another country, and is backed up by a plentiful military capability.

It should be abundantly clear to any one with half a mind to be accurate in what one says, that Israelis are suffering from terrorism but Israel has practially nothing to fear from outside military threats.

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot 1.d - Finance and provide personnel, logistical support, and materiel including fissile, chemical, and biological weapons for deployment by terrorists on a large scale, perhaps by leveraging, say, existing terror networks such as hizbollah in Lebanon.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hezbollah will continue to stage sporadic suicide bombings, guerilla incusrions (followed by suicide missions) and clumsy rocket launches -- but that's it. Hezbollah will not resort to using biological or other such mass destruction weapons, if not for any other reason because this will kill indiscriminately and on a large scale Palestinians as well.

And what's a fissile ? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind? &lt;&lt;

There are several possible explanations for this comment of yours - the most charitable of which is that you are being deliberately obtuse, having found yourself desperately clinging to an illogical, unrealistic, and untenable argument. Unfortunately, if this reply is an attempt on your part to save 'face', it failed miserably.

State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. Any attempts to spin, twist, wriggle, or evade this simple fact is laughable.

And any claim that Iran is not willing and capable to use terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare to achieve it's foreign policy objectives (for example, it's publicly stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map") is equally laughable.

[Gamblor]

Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind?

A terrorist threat is a military threat if you consider the result of both is a big pile of dead Israelis.

With reference to your one-state solution, you ignore the most obvious reason why it would never work - neither party wants it.

Arabs want a state where the state holidays and institutions are Islamic (even if the state is secular in principle), and jews want a state where the institutions are Jewish (even if the state is secular in principle).

Your romantic version of the United States of the Middle East is nice, but even the United States is difficult on obsevant jews. I suppose its better live as a visitor in comfort than a host in squalor.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. Any attempts to spin, twist, wriggle, or evade this simple fact is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is laughable is your total lack of concern for any pretense at accuracy. You will happily bundle together all threats big and small, serious or light, imminent of future, all for the sake of satisfying your paranoia.

Or it may be all due to ignorance.

In any case, and for your (possible) edification, a military threat is NOT the same as a terrorist threat. But you can, of course, carry on abusing those notions. It's a free country.

[ QUOTE ]
Any claim that Iran is not willing and capable to use terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare to achieve its foreign policy objectives (for example, it's publicly stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map") is equally laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are extremely confused.

Iran's foreign policy objective is to wipe Israel off the map! Right. (He said it! Its president said something like it. It must be true.)

Iran can hit Israel with asymmetrical warfare (?! -- the moment I heard the phrase on TV, I lamented the millions of gullible who would adopt it without knowing what it means).

Oh it's a veritable theatre of the absurd. QUICKLY! Hide in the basement! The Iranians are coming -- asymetrically! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

When O when is MMMMMM going to weigh in?