Israel: "Wiped off The Map". The Rumor of the Century, Fabricated by the US Media to Justify An All out War on Iran
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21188
Can someone please debunk the whole Iran wipes Israel off the face of the Earth BS.
- Thread starter Akus
- Start date
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21188
papitosabe
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 650
for them, its a matter of religion... for us, its all geopolitics...
These are the kind of comments that make us appear ignorant and nutty.
FYI, firebombing in Japan and Germany killed more than those two atomic bombs.
If stating a fact is nutty than I guess I'm a bag of peanuts.
Look at a picture of Tokyo after it was firebombed.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-03-09/news/9503110030_1_civilian-deaths-firebombing-raid
TOKYO — Retired Air Force Gen. Earl Johnson has no regrets about the mission he completed 50 years ago Thursday-the firebombing of Tokyo that caused 100,000 civilian deaths.
U.S. no more dangerous than Iran? This is probably one reason why people try to say "we blame America". You're equating the risk of the U.S. having nuclear weapons to the Iranian regime. No one knows exactly what Iran would do, but it's likely they'd use nuclear capability as a way to bully others in the region and be defiant. At the same time, this destabilizes the region, since other Arab nations will want to pursue nuclear weapons to counter the Iranian threat.
Muwahid
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
Iran can't nuke Israel. Israel (Palestine) is holy land, that's like Iran bombing Mecca, Saudi Arabia, just because Sunnis there (Shi'a Iranians hate Sunnis more than Jews); they'd love to kill a whole bunch of Sunnis, but they can't do that because (1) Sunnis (the majority of Muslims) would destroy them (2) It's holy land, they can't destroy their own holy places. Plus millions of Palestinians live in Israel anyway. I mean it's just stupid.
So the whole notion is non-sense, in addition to the fact the farsi translation was misinterpreted.
Besides, when was the last time Iran warred with Israel? Even their proxy warriors Hezbullah, they only fought Israel on their land but never crossed into Israeli territory. But what about Jordan? Egypt? Syria? Lebanon (non Hezbullah)? Iraq? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? They've ALL WARRED with Israel, why not Iran?
Iran is just a trouble maker in the middle east they finance proxy groups like jaysh al mahdi, hezbullah, houthis, the shia in bahrain, make loud speeches and that's about it.
So the whole notion is non-sense, in addition to the fact the farsi translation was misinterpreted.
Besides, when was the last time Iran warred with Israel? Even their proxy warriors Hezbullah, they only fought Israel on their land but never crossed into Israeli territory. But what about Jordan? Egypt? Syria? Lebanon (non Hezbullah)? Iraq? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? They've ALL WARRED with Israel, why not Iran?
Iran is just a trouble maker in the middle east they finance proxy groups like jaysh al mahdi, hezbullah, houthis, the shia in bahrain, make loud speeches and that's about it.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
There are Jews in Iran...
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
I'm not going to get into this whole discussion of whether we should have used the bomb or not.
Who said they can't? How do you know absolutely? Look at MacArthur. He advocated using nuclear weapons on China. I've also heard many neocons who have said they'd start a conventional war with China if China invaded Taiwan despite the fact that it would be global and undoubtedly someone would get butthurt and use nuclear weapons. lol
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...ly-Iran-would-nuke-Israel/UPI-48311304693599/
"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says it is unlikely Iran would use a nuclear bomb but there's no way to responsibly forecast what the "ayatollahs" might do."
"I don't think that anyone can say responsibly that these ayatollahs, if they have nuclear weapons, are something you can rely on, like the Politburo or the Pentagon," Barak said.
"It's not the same thing. I don't think they will do anything so long as they are in complete control of their senses, but to say that somebody really knows and understands what will happen with such a leadership sitting in a bunker in Tehran and thinking that it's going to fall in a few days and it is capable of doing it? I don't know what it would do."
Logic fail. If the U.S. attacked Iran, who would Iran and their proxies attack?
dusman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,376
All arguments are going to go on deaf ears, unless you present the scenario of what happens if in fact Iran went through with a nuclear attack. The argument is far stronger from this perspective and it still doesn't change the fact that Iran is no threat. I've posted this on several threads before and I wanted to put together all of that information for you guys.
My credentials on Iran: I was 1 of 4 Primary Missile Defense Operators under PATRIOT assigned exclusively to counter the Iranian air threat. My unit was also the first unit to deploy to South Korea in 50 years. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf http://www.fbmonitor.com/monitor/2007/03 March/032207/PDF/16.pdf
Iran's Threat Potential: Iran does have various capabilities that do make it a fairly strong adversary. It's strength is predominately by air. Namely, a fairly strong Air Force and large arsenal of missile types. It is also assumed that they have UAV and cruise missile technologies. They have an Army, the Revolutionary Guard, but it is insignificant in comparison to its air capability.
Since we are interested in nuclear threat potential, we have to first identify how they would use a nuclear weapon.
1) We can rule out suitcase nukes for now, because the United States and Russia are the only countries whom have successfully made a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried by a person. Considering Iran has yet to create even a single weapons-grade warhead, its reasonable to assume that they are even further from having the technical knowledge to scale one down.
2) The only means therefore to make an attack with a nuclear weapon is by a missile capable of carrying a warhead. Iran's missile arsenal consists of Shahab-1 through Shahab-6, Scud-B and Scud-C missile types and various other short range missiles. Most of these are IRBMs (Intermediate Range) and none are ICBMs (Inter-Continental). Iran currently has no ICBM capability. This rules out any potential they could launch a warhead at the United States.
Missile Defense Systems in the Region: All of the following is public record and UNCLASSIFIED, just so it is clear.
I know for a fact that PATRIOT, AEGIS, and Israel's Iron Dome is deployed in the region. Other systems that are likely to be active are MEADS, THAAD, Arrow-2, and Phalanx 1B. We have sold PATRIOT PAC-2 missile defense systems to Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.
I've created a very rough map highlighting the approximate locations and coverage of PAC-2/PAC-3 (PATRIOT) systems in the region. These reflect both U.S. and foreign systems. Keep in mind, this does not reflect ANY OTHER systems that are active in the region.
Range rings and locations are only rough approximations. Again, all public domain and unclassified. Foreign missile defense systems are reflected, but the number of systems emplaced is uncertain. This map assumes less systems than are likely active.
As you can see, Iran's missile capability is almost entirely isolated from being any threat to Israel. In order for Iran to launch any nuclear payload at Israel, they would have to first defeat the missile defense systems in Iraq, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, etc. Just look at line of sight from Iran to Israel and you'll see it's a foolish argument. Since there is no way for Iran to defeat these systems, their only option would be to overwhelm them. In order to do that, they'd likely have to launch their entire arsenal of missiles, which is essentially impossible due to the amount of logistics that would involve, without clearly setting of early warning WORLDWIDE.
We have great early warning systems that would allow us to send in our Air Force to take out most launch locations, prior to launch. These would primarily be the mobile launch platforms and any mobilization on the ground would obviously be identified by satellite. Emplacement of these mobile launch systems takes hours to conduct, allowing more than enough time to respond. Further, any missiles that are launched would then allow us to immediately identify launch locations we initially missed, so it is unlikely they could fire more than one volly from each location. This means that logistically, they not only have to beat our early warning systems, but they'd also have to launch from multiple thousands of locations.
If Iran Does Launch: Iran would obviously not launch the few nuclear warheads they would have from locations anywhere near its borders as they would not want these locations to be vulnerable to air raids. Therefore, these warheads would much more likely be launched from mid-country. This is an important fact and poses major challenges to Iran, because any nuclear payload launched from Iran has a very high probability of being shot down over their own country and would cause widespread nuclear fallout for IRAN itself. It would then be followed by probably the largest counter-offensive in human history by the United States and Israel.
Conclusion: Iran would have to be 100% suicidal to engage in such tactic. Doing so has nearly 0% probability of achieving anything but causing fall-out upon their own citizens and then being obliterated by a massive counter-offensive. This fact, armed with the above knowledge, shows that it is unreasonable to even entertain the idea that Iran would be so ridiculous to engage in such warfare. Even if you were to assume that they were entirely motivated by Islamic Radicalism to carry out Jihad, this hardly seems like any efficient manner to fulfill such means.
This is an ongoing side project of mine to piece together more details through public sources to round out a strong argument. I'm working towards a more formal presentation that can be used by the grassroots. I'm hoping someone might have a better way to get this publicized so that its more useful and reputable. I contacted Ben Swann to cover this argument, but I haven't gotten a response. If there is a lot of support to go that route, it might be worth going at him as a group.
My credentials on Iran: I was 1 of 4 Primary Missile Defense Operators under PATRIOT assigned exclusively to counter the Iranian air threat. My unit was also the first unit to deploy to South Korea in 50 years. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf http://www.fbmonitor.com/monitor/2007/03 March/032207/PDF/16.pdf
Iran's Threat Potential: Iran does have various capabilities that do make it a fairly strong adversary. It's strength is predominately by air. Namely, a fairly strong Air Force and large arsenal of missile types. It is also assumed that they have UAV and cruise missile technologies. They have an Army, the Revolutionary Guard, but it is insignificant in comparison to its air capability.
Since we are interested in nuclear threat potential, we have to first identify how they would use a nuclear weapon.
1) We can rule out suitcase nukes for now, because the United States and Russia are the only countries whom have successfully made a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried by a person. Considering Iran has yet to create even a single weapons-grade warhead, its reasonable to assume that they are even further from having the technical knowledge to scale one down.
2) The only means therefore to make an attack with a nuclear weapon is by a missile capable of carrying a warhead. Iran's missile arsenal consists of Shahab-1 through Shahab-6, Scud-B and Scud-C missile types and various other short range missiles. Most of these are IRBMs (Intermediate Range) and none are ICBMs (Inter-Continental). Iran currently has no ICBM capability. This rules out any potential they could launch a warhead at the United States.
Missile Defense Systems in the Region: All of the following is public record and UNCLASSIFIED, just so it is clear.
I know for a fact that PATRIOT, AEGIS, and Israel's Iron Dome is deployed in the region. Other systems that are likely to be active are MEADS, THAAD, Arrow-2, and Phalanx 1B. We have sold PATRIOT PAC-2 missile defense systems to Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.
I've created a very rough map highlighting the approximate locations and coverage of PAC-2/PAC-3 (PATRIOT) systems in the region. These reflect both U.S. and foreign systems. Keep in mind, this does not reflect ANY OTHER systems that are active in the region.
Range rings and locations are only rough approximations. Again, all public domain and unclassified. Foreign missile defense systems are reflected, but the number of systems emplaced is uncertain. This map assumes less systems than are likely active.
As you can see, Iran's missile capability is almost entirely isolated from being any threat to Israel. In order for Iran to launch any nuclear payload at Israel, they would have to first defeat the missile defense systems in Iraq, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, etc. Just look at line of sight from Iran to Israel and you'll see it's a foolish argument. Since there is no way for Iran to defeat these systems, their only option would be to overwhelm them. In order to do that, they'd likely have to launch their entire arsenal of missiles, which is essentially impossible due to the amount of logistics that would involve, without clearly setting of early warning WORLDWIDE.
We have great early warning systems that would allow us to send in our Air Force to take out most launch locations, prior to launch. These would primarily be the mobile launch platforms and any mobilization on the ground would obviously be identified by satellite. Emplacement of these mobile launch systems takes hours to conduct, allowing more than enough time to respond. Further, any missiles that are launched would then allow us to immediately identify launch locations we initially missed, so it is unlikely they could fire more than one volly from each location. This means that logistically, they not only have to beat our early warning systems, but they'd also have to launch from multiple thousands of locations.
If Iran Does Launch: Iran would obviously not launch the few nuclear warheads they would have from locations anywhere near its borders as they would not want these locations to be vulnerable to air raids. Therefore, these warheads would much more likely be launched from mid-country. This is an important fact and poses major challenges to Iran, because any nuclear payload launched from Iran has a very high probability of being shot down over their own country and would cause widespread nuclear fallout for IRAN itself. It would then be followed by probably the largest counter-offensive in human history by the United States and Israel.
Conclusion: Iran would have to be 100% suicidal to engage in such tactic. Doing so has nearly 0% probability of achieving anything but causing fall-out upon their own citizens and then being obliterated by a massive counter-offensive. This fact, armed with the above knowledge, shows that it is unreasonable to even entertain the idea that Iran would be so ridiculous to engage in such warfare. Even if you were to assume that they were entirely motivated by Islamic Radicalism to carry out Jihad, this hardly seems like any efficient manner to fulfill such means.
This is an ongoing side project of mine to piece together more details through public sources to round out a strong argument. I'm working towards a more formal presentation that can be used by the grassroots. I'm hoping someone might have a better way to get this publicized so that its more useful and reputable. I contacted Ben Swann to cover this argument, but I haven't gotten a response. If there is a lot of support to go that route, it might be worth going at him as a group.
Last edited:
otherone
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,638
WINDOW DRESSING. Why do we give EGYPT 1.5 BILLION each year? Why do we give JORDAN 400 MILLION? Why do we give PAKISTAN 700 MILLION? Your neocon friend justifies bleeding us dry because of third world saber-rattling? There will ALWAYS be third world saber-rattling! Is it Eastasia this time? Or Eurasia?
EBounding
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,296
That whole write up was extremely informative. Thank you very much.
I just wish Paul would explain things like this. Instead he just says things like "they can't even make enough gasoline" and "Israel has 300 nukes". That doesn't convince people because people believe Iran can get away with getting a single nuke (that doesn't exist) to hit Israel just once and it would be the "The greatest under-reaction in history". People don't get that Iran would be obliterated before they even "lit the fuse".
It's pretty simple. Iran tries anything serious, like bringing a nuke into Israel, Israel turns Iran into a glass parking lot.
Obviously, this is a terrible outcome, and we all hope and pray it never comes to that, but this obvious consequence of hostility should allow people to not be so fervent to go to war. Israel is a big boy, and can take care of itself. Besides, no one is saying we should stop selling weapons to Israel, so it's not like they would be left defenseless if our military didn't intervene in their squabbles.
I just don't understand the Israel circle-jerk among typical Republicans.
Obviously, this is a terrible outcome, and we all hope and pray it never comes to that, but this obvious consequence of hostility should allow people to not be so fervent to go to war. Israel is a big boy, and can take care of itself. Besides, no one is saying we should stop selling weapons to Israel, so it's not like they would be left defenseless if our military didn't intervene in their squabbles.
I just don't understand the Israel circle-jerk among typical Republicans.
With Palestinians growing at a faster rate than Israel, Israel is going to have to either give sovereignty to the Palestinians or engage in apartheid (a minority undemocratically controlling a majority).
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
Both the head of the Mossad and Benyamin Netanyahu say that Israel can handle Iran. Nuff said.
SaulPaulinsky
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 351
Dusman,
Thanks for the great post there. +rep coming your way for sure.
But, the obvious follow-up question here is: "Would that capability to deter and defeat an attack from Iran exist if the US withdrew from the region? And how would the defense plan be expected to change (from an UNCLASS perspective, obviously) without nearly instant response capability from US air assets?"
Part of your explanation of how Iran is easily deterred is derived from U.S. assets. So certainly a political opponent is going to ask what happens if us dangerous libertarians get our way and those assets aren't there anymore.
Thanks for the great post there. +rep coming your way for sure.
But, the obvious follow-up question here is: "Would that capability to deter and defeat an attack from Iran exist if the US withdrew from the region? And how would the defense plan be expected to change (from an UNCLASS perspective, obviously) without nearly instant response capability from US air assets?"
Part of your explanation of how Iran is easily deterred is derived from U.S. assets. So certainly a political opponent is going to ask what happens if us dangerous libertarians get our way and those assets aren't there anymore.
Similar threads
