Iran - The War Begins (article)

[Alan]

You really are a troll.

Hmm at least that's a change from idiot and warmonger i suppose.

Did your parents or family fight in the 2nd WW? I at least got the story and the sentiment straight from the people who were there and put their lives on the line for your freedom.

My grandparents did. I've heard all the stories. Not once but three, four times.

And your constant jibes to churchill are truly putrid. There is/was no evidence of genocide until well into the war. Further as somebody who got the first hand tale you have no clue of the sentiment or wishes of the british people. And it was a democracy. Churchill made a special study of hitler and was a hawk. He was less inclined to believe liars which hitler turned out to be

Unfortuanely people then as today refused to see the signs. Why do you always have to wait untill there is a genocide or global war before doing something about it.
By the way have you read the book I recomended.

But here you are believing in liars even though their lies are so plain to see. And here you are prattling on about getting it wrong but once again you have no solutions and wish to live in a world of gulags & radiation. Why can't you recognise the lies?! Why when the invasion of Iraq was plainly/proven/over and over again do you still insist on your broken image of the world?! LIES. Which letters don't you see?

On the contrary. I don't whant to live in a world of radiation and gulags. Hence why something must be done now to stop those who wish to impose that on the world and I'm not talking about the easy option.

Regarding Iran and the nuke threat: yes the timeline has got shorter the more GB has agitated. WhoTF wants to hear from him anyway?!

The problem is that there is a timeline. It has to be removed.

Which part of high technology don't you people understand? Whole industries have to be put in place to support a nuclear weapon. Basically impossible to hide. But ya, the bombs going to explode imminently?! What fantasy universe do you lot live in?!

I never said immediately . All I say is before he gets one. Iran has ample time to resolve this peacefully.

ROFLOL

ja, alanf still wants a white dominated state... HaHahahahah...

Hmmm hallucinations.

Where exactly did I say that

I worried about you Kilo. You seem suffer from the extreme emotions. One minute then then ROFLOL. Talk about a rollercoaster. It can't be healthy.

 

[nivek]

Note how the US isn't gearing up to attack North Korea which does have nuclear weapons, despite the fact that North Korea was added to the "axis of evil" list.

Gee.. I wonder why... Maybe because any move against North Korea by the US will spell the end of South Korea, one of the US's allies.

Egypt has come out and said if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they too will have to start a nuclear program, to defend themselves from Iran.

 

[Alan]

So rogue nations don't bomb foreign states? What do they do then - look unfriendly?

Bombing a nation doesn't make you by default a roque nation

You'll notice that they took two prisoners hostage in the original attack. It was not the first attack of its kind since Israel withdrew in 2000, infact Hezbollah had made several other attacks before then which resulted in successful prisoner exchanges between the two sides.

Surely they would have realised you can only push the Israelies so far. By the way any idea why Israel still holds onto these prisoners?

Hezbollah did not turn Lebanon into a warzone, Israel turned Lebanon into a warzone. Nasrallah himself said that had he known in advance how Israel would respond he would not have given the go-ahead for the original skirmish. Since such attacks had happened before, Hezbollah had no reason to believe that the results would be any different this time than the last times.

As I said above. So why then were they building tunnels and stockpiling weapons amoung civilians. They were laying an ambush. In other words they were expecting and planning for it to turn into into a warzone. Which they did. Did Hezbollah have permission from the government to launch these raids from Lebanese territory?

So you're telling me that they're suicidal even though there is absolutely no evidence of them being suicidal. Riiiiight. Next thing you'll be telling me that Bush is really the second coming of Christ.

Well they preach martyrdom so yeah I won't take any chances with them.

All those fundamentalists who think the current guys aren't fundamentalist enough.

Would these guys have the resources to rival those that the now overthrown one had.

Irrelevant to the analogy. Though I'll change it for your liking : I shoot everyone I see with something looking like a gun and shout out loudly to everyone else who can hear : "They're a threat to the neighbourhood's peace!"

*sigh*

Because the US isn't after Iran because of its supposed nuclear weapons.

So what they after then?

Note how the US isn't gearing up to attack North Korea which does have nuclear weapons, despite the fact that North Korea was added to the "axis of evil" list.

Did NK state any nation should be wiped out? Does NK have close links to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist? Do they want to dominate their region? Does lil Kim "glow" . I can go on and on.

 

[Xarog]

Bombing a nation doesn't make you by default a roque nation

Then what does?

By the way any idea why Israel still holds onto these prisoners?

Nope.

So why then were they building tunnels and stockpiling weapons amoung civilians.

Where else were they supposed to build their bunkers?

They were laying an ambush.

It's their country. I would expect any attacked nation to want to ambush anyone who had invaded them.

In other words they were expecting and planning for it to turn into into a warzone.

Planning for the worst does not mean you hope the worst actually happens. And it's on record that Hezbollah would rather not have had the war happen.

Well they preach martyrdom so yeah I won't take any chances with them.

Something in common with the Christians then.

So what they after then?

Oil, attempting a regime change in line with the Neocon objectives, Getting rid of the last regional powers in the middle east so as to give Israel a free hand - there's many possibilities.

Did NK state any nation should be wiped out?

Did Iran?

Does NK have close links to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist?

Why don't they go after Saudi Arabia then?

Do they want to dominate their region?

I dunno - you tell me.

 

[Skeptik]

You'll notice that they took two prisoners hostage in the original attack. It was not the first attack of its kind since Israel withdrew in 2000, infact Hezbollah had made several other attacks before then which resulted in successful prisoner exchanges between the two sides.

Hezbollah did not turn Lebanon into a warzone, Israel turned Lebanon into a warzone. Nasrallah himself said that had he known in advance how Israel would respond he would not have given the go-ahead for the original skirmish. Since such attacks had happened before, Hezbollah had no reason to believe that the results would be any different this time than the last times.

Let me see if I understand your analogy. Poke the sleeping lion over and over. When it wakes up and mauls you, complain bitterly that he never minded the poking before, so it just isn't fair because you never 'expected' it to retaliate.
Doh!

(Oh and the Sheba farms are disputed territory. Syria also has a claim on them. Besides, Israel 'won' them in a war, so they don't have to return them)

 

[Xarog]

Let me see if I understand your analogy. Poke the sleeping lion over and over. When it wakes up and mauls you, complain bitterly that he never minded the poking before, so it just isn't fair because you never 'expected' it to retaliate.
Doh!

Not at all. First off there's the fact that in the analogy there is no reason for the poking. Secondly, it's not complaining about the 'mauling', its saying that it wasn't expected.

There has been repeated skirmishes between Lebanon and Israel since 2000 from both sides. There was absolutely no indication that Israel would suddenly go nuts. And I put mauling in inverted commas because as far as maulings go, Hezbollah came out on top.

(Oh and the Sheba farms are disputed territory. Syria also has a claim on them. Besides, Israel 'won' them in a war, so they don't have to return them)

Wrong. Annexing territory through conquest is illegal under International Law.

 

[Skeptik]

Not at all. First off there's the fact that in the analogy there is no reason for the poking. Secondly, it's not complaining about the 'mauling', its saying that it wasn't expected.

There has been repeated skirmishes between Lebanon and Israel since 2000 from both sides. There was absolutely no indication that Israel would suddenly go nuts. And I put mauling in inverted commas because as far as maulings go, Hezbollah came out on top.


Wrong. Annexing territory through conquest is illegal under International Law.

OK, so they didn't expect a sleeping lion to maul them. So we can categorise them as a little doff as well. (I dare you to try it and say you "didn't expect it"!)

Hezbollah got a severe beating by Israel, despite being an Iranian proxy army - and the rockets were stopped.

Iranian-backed Hezbollah gained admiration for taking on the 'lion', which is to be expected if you tried it - though they might send you for psych evaluation.

I understand Lebanon is in complere turmoil at the moment, so was it really worth it?

What I don't undestand is why Hezbollah didn't return the kidnapped soldiers. This might just be a huge mistake in the long run. Israel has means and method to create havoc in the Lebanon.

It may be illegal to own captured land now, but at the time it was not. (I'll check this)

 

[Xarog]

OK, so they did'nt expect a sleeping lion to maul them. So we can categorise them as a little doff as well. (I dare you to try it and say you "didn't expect it"!)

Then the analogy is flawed because Israel does not behave like a Lion. And if you poke a sleeping lion it may well move off instead of pick a fight.

Hezbollah got a severe beating by Israel, despite beging an Iranian proxy army - and the rockets were stopped.

Bullsh!t. Hezbollah killed more Israeli soldiers than the Israelis killed Hezbollah fighters. And the rockets were stopped by a ceasefire agreement, not by any military action of Israel's.

What I don't undestand is why Hezbollah didn't return the kidnapped soldiers. This might just be a huge mistake in the long run. Israel has means and method to create havoc in the Lebanon.

They're happy to exchange the Israeli prisoners for Lebanese prisoners, which is exactly what has happened in the past when Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers. As I said, this is not the first time a prisoner exchange was attempted by Hezbollah. This time is different only because Israel refuses to come to the negotiation table, i.e. Hezbollah is still perfectly willing to agree to a prisoner exchange.

 

[kilo39]

Hmm at least that's a change from idiot and warmonger i suppose.

My grandparents did. I've heard all the stories. Not once but three, four times.

Unfortuanely people then as today refused to see the signs. Why do you always have to wait untill there is a genocide or global war before doing something about it.
By the way have you read the book I recomended.

On the contrary. I don't whant to live in a world of radiation and gulags. Hence why something must be done now to stop those who wish to impose that on the world and I'm not talking about the easy option.

The problem is that there is a timeline. It has to be removed.

I never said immediately . All I say is before he gets one. Iran has ample time to resolve this peacefully.

Hmmm hallucinations.

Where exactly did I say that

I worried about you Kilo. You seem suffer from the extreme emotions. One minute then then ROFLOL. Talk about a rollercoaster. It can't be healthy.

I am grateful for your sense of humour. No sorry I didn't read the book (my ever present pile)...

You say "see the signs." But don't you see there are/were no signs. The signs were made up to justify a false war (this is endlessly verifiable and is now common knowledge.) How can you point fingers at resistance when your lies justify or made the resistance in the first place?

Don't you see that Iran is one tiny little country (who purported to want nuclear power for civilian purposes.) But now all of a sudden they are the bogeyman of the world (exactly as Iraq.) What timeline? The only time any timeline has come into play is GB's threats and posturing.

I agree that Iran wanting to enrich uranium is tricky but they threw out the inspectors due to american agitation, Same with Iraq. Saddam threw out the inspectors originally due to american agitation. If america wasn't agitating then nothing changes, Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Act, it falls under their jurisdiction and for this they were first held to account. The fact that India and Pakistan (countries with regular past wars) are not sanctioned just shows the racism and hidden agenda of america. Pakistan (who armed both NKorea and Iran?, in terms of tech) is patted on the back and given a bone. Sickening rhetoric to further america's not so hidden agenda. And I note you dismiss the Project for a New World Order document: try reading it sometime and you will see how transparent their agenda is.

"Why wait for a genocide or global war?" Has not america made this war? Did they not make the genocide (the original chemicals?) Please look the question straight in the face and answer yes or no (keeping in mind the lies and who exactly is doing the agitating and who exactly invaded another country on false pretexts in the first place.)

/I removed that white comment one minute before your post/

 

[kilo39]

Bombing a nation doesn't make you by default a roque nation

oh man that's funny LOL

 

[Skeptik]

Then the analogy is flawed because Israel does not behave like a Lion. And if you poke a sleeping lion it may well move off instead of pick a fight.


Bullsh!t. Hezbollah killed more Israeli soldiers than the Israelis killed Hezbollah fighters. And the rockets were stopped by a ceasefire agreement, not by any military action of Israel's.


They're happy to exchange the Israeli prisoners for Lebanese prisoners, which is exactly what has happened in the past when Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers. As I said, this is not the first time a prisoner exchange was attempted by Hezbollah. This time is different only because Israel refuses to come to the negotiation table, i.e. Hezbollah is still perfectly willing to agree to a prisoner exchange.

There had been peace on that border since 2000, and Hezbollah had no business provoking Israel.

You mention the Sheba farms as a reason. Here is the real reason:

Israel's occupation of the Shebaa Farms, along with the presence of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, is often used as a pretext and stated as justification for the Hezbollah's continued hostilities against Israel even after Israel's verified withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah's spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin, however, had this to say about an Israeli withdrawal from Sheba Farms: "If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them. ... Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine, ... The Jews who survive this war of liberation can go back to Germany or wherever they came from. However, that the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 will be 'allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

And contrary to your assertions about casualties:

The conflict killed over 1,200 people, most of whom were Lebanese, severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure ...

Hezbollah rocket fire killed 43 Israelis and injured thousands. Hezbollah initially claimed only 70 deaths of its fighters, but later confirmed about 250. A U.N. official estimated about 500 Hezbollah deaths. On August 16, the AP reported that Israeli security officials confirmed the deaths of 165 Hezbollah fighters and estimated that about 400 more had been killed.[105] In a public briefing reported by United Press International on September 7, Major General Yaakov Amidror, a former senior officer in Israeli military intelligence, reported that the IDF identified 440 Hezbollah guerrillas dead by name and address, and estimated the actual casualties to be 500-700 dead. The Washington Times reported on September 27 that the IDF identified 532 Hezbollah militants dead and estimated that possibly up to 200 more were killed.[106] An IDF spokeswoman estimated about 600 Hezbollah fighters were killed.[26]

 

[Xarog]

There had been peace on that border since 2000, and Hezbollah had no business provoking Israel.

Rubbish.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv...Held+by+the+Hizbullah+-+Oct+2000-Jan+2004.htm

You mention the Sheba farms as a reason. Here is the real reason:

And from the same link you have Nasrallah saying :

In a 2003 interview, Nasrallah has answered questions concerning the establishment of a Palestinian state established alongside an Israeli state stating "that he would not sabotage what is finally a 'Palestinian matter.' But until such a settlement is reached, he will, he said, continue to encourage Palestinian suicide bombers."[72] In the same interview, Nasrallah stated that "at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on", adding, "Of course, it would bother us that Jerusalem goes to Israel ... [but] let it happen. I would not say O.K. I would say nothing."[72] Similarly, in 2004, when asked whether he was prepared to live with a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, Nasrallah said he would not sabotage what is a Palestinian matter.[61] He also said that outside of Lebanon, Hezbollah will act only in a defensive manner towards Israeli forces, and that Hezbollah's missiles were acquired to deter attacks on Lebanon.[73]

So it sounds like the spokesman was engaging in rhetoric. At the very least Nasrhallah is more likely to have a say in what Hezbollah does and does not do than Ezzedin.

And contrary to your assertions about casualties:

I misremembered the casualties for the Hezbollah fighters as 84 instead of 184, so the claim that Hezbollah killed more Israeli soldiers than Hezbollah fighters is wrong.

I suggest you read the following links.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/crooke10132006.html

And also, the IDF is likely to exxagerate the claims about Hezbollah deaths to make the civilian deaths seem less than they really are. I'd be skeptical about their claims.

 

[Syndyre]

Yet Israel uses those weapons to bomb other foreign states.That's what do you when you're a rogue nation, not so?

Rogue nations do bomb other states sure but inferring from that that all states which bomb other states are rogue nations is false logic. Remember Hezbollah did kidnap the Israeli soldiers first.

Of course it doesn't. "I wish you would die" isn't a threat wheras "I'm going to kill you" is.

Maybe in isolation but taken in context with Iran's terror sponsorship, suspected nuclear weapons programme etc. it appears far from harmless. This is of course assuming he really did say that and not the generally accepted "wiped off the map" version.

No it wasn't. Japan tried to surrender before bombs were dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki(sp). America refused to listen to any diplomatic messages sent by Japan and so the Japanese tried to send the message via the dutch who still have the communications on record iirc.

Do you have any evidence of this? IIRC the Japanese didn't surrender even after the Hiroshima bomb.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Wrong. Weapons of mass destruction are weapons that actually cause massive destruction - i.e. flatten a ton of buildings. Chemical and Biological weapons do not do this and are thus not WMD.
You're thinking of the term NBC (nuclear biological and chemical weapons).

Actually Nuclear Biological and Chemical, are all weapons of mass destruction, the term mass destruction, comes from the human masses, as in the destruction of humanity on a mass scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD

And for those who think chemical and biological are not possible, you can create a decent chemical device that would effect hundreds of people in a shopping mall for instance, simply by what you can buy at De LA Rey or Brights hardware and garden centre.
A biological , can be grown in a petrie dish in your oven, or fridge, if you know what to do and you only need basic biology, not a degree in the stuff.
Out of all the WMD, nuclear , is the least of the worries.
The greatest threat as far as terrorism, from an availability point of view , is biological. The hardest part of that, is finding a way for a virus, to survive long enough to do damage, thankfully most of the more serious viruses, kill too quickly, so the chance of infeccting large amounts of people is not that easy, and a lot dont survive outside the host for too long either.

 

[Syndyre]

Hezbollah did not turn Lebanon into a warzone, Israel turned Lebanon into a warzone. Nasrallah himself said that had he known in advance how Israel would respond he would not have given the go-ahead for the original skirmish. Since such attacks had happened before, Hezbollah had no reason to believe that the results would be any different this time than the last times.

Is the original attack justified then? Was Israel not justified in taking action to rescue its citizens and soldiers?

 

[Syndyre]

(Oh and the Sheba farms are disputed territory. Syria also has a claim on them. Besides, Israel 'won' them in a war, so they don't have to return them)

Yeah it seems as if the Syrian claim is more legitimate than the Lebanese one too but clearly Hezbollah need some sort of stated objective to justify their existence.

 

[Syndyre]

They're happy to exchange the Israeli prisoners for Lebanese prisoners, which is exactly what has happened in the past when Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers. As I said, this is not the first time a prisoner exchange was attempted by Hezbollah. This time is different only because Israel refuses to come to the negotiation table, i.e. Hezbollah is still perfectly willing to agree to a prisoner exchange.

Israel has no obligation to negotiate with a group that invaded its sovereign territory and kidnapped its citizens, you really can't portray Hezbollah as reasonable after committing these actions.

 

[Xarog]

Rogue nations do bomb other states sure but inferring from that that all states which bomb other states are rogue nations is false logic. Remember Hezbollah did kidnap the Israeli soldiers first.

I'm not only talking about what happened in 2006. Israel has been accused of many different warcrimes and among them is using military hardware to assassinate civilians in the occupied territories.

Maybe in isolation but taken in context with Iran's terror sponsorship, suspected nuclear weapons programme etc. it appears far from harmless. This is of course assuming he really did say that and not the generally accepted "wiped off the map" version.

Generally accepted by the west who heard the "wiped off the map" version first, which was also translated by the west.

And exactly what terror sponsership are we talking about. Iran may supply Hezbollah (which is only regarded in any way as a terrorist organisation by a mere 6 countries), and perhaps it does supply insurgents who fight inside Iraq (but mainly target military personell/vehicles which isn't terrorism but guerrila warfare), but I'm not aware of any direct sponsership of terrorism.

Either way the threat is inferred and not implied and that means the words don't carry a threat.

Do you have any evidence of this? IIRC the Japanese didn't surrender even after the Hiroshima bomb.

Still looking for sources. I last read it many years ago and I'm not entirely sure where.

 

[Xarog]

Actually Nuclear Biological and Chemical, are all weapons of mass destruction, the term mass destruction, comes from the human masses, as in the destruction of humanity on a mass scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD

Actually the link says :

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

WMD has become a political term for the US as a means to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Is the original attack justified then? Was Israel not justified in taking action to rescue its citizens and soldiers?

Same can be asked about Hezbollah. Israel invaded Lebanon and kidnapped Lebanese citizens before Hezbollah returned the favour.

Israel has no obligation to negotiate with a group that invaded its sovereign territory and kidnapped its citizens, you really can't portray Hezbollah as reasonable after committing these actions.

By that standard, Israel isn't reasonable either.

But that's besides the point. I said they were being reasonable about returning the prisoners in that they weren't refusing outright to return the prisoners under all circumstances.

 

[Syndyre]

I'm not only talking about what happened in 2006. Israel has been accused of many different warcrimes and among them is using military hardware to assassinate civilians in the occupied territories.

Accused by who? Plenty of country's that level accusations have an ulterior motive. There's also a fine, sometimes non-existent line between civilians and terrorists/Palestinian militias because they obviously aren't part of any regular, organised army.

And exactly what terror sponsership are we talking about. Iran may supply Hezbollah (which is only regarded in any way as a terrorist organisation by a mere 6 countries), and perhaps it does supply insurgents who fight inside Iraq (but mainly target military personell/vehicles which isn't terrorism but guerrila warfare), but I'm not aware of any direct sponsership of terrorism.

What about the Shiite insurgents, which you admit Iran supplies, which attack Iraqi Sunni's? Or do you think they make sure they only use their Iranian-supplied weapons against US forces? Also, from one of your earlier quotes from Wikipedia:

But until such a settlement is reached, he [Nasrallah] will, he said, continue to encourage Palestinian suicide bombers.