Exterminate Israel

[Raziaar]

I can't honestly believe that when people say that israel must be iradicated, they're just talking about regime. There is a deep, inner hatred for the individual israeli... man, woman, child, and baby. The extremists want all those aforementioned to be killed. Its a racism fueled mentality.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

At least there are SOME voices of reason over there

While most Muslim and Arab capitals have remained silent on the president's remarks, a few have spoken out - including Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

"Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," he told the BBC News website.

"What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," he said.


But still insane voices are touted

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm

 

[Shakermaker]

What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map.

Good point.

 

[15357]

Nope. Here's a recent list (not sure about the exact date for this though):

1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000

w00t! 4th largest army!


ahem....

 

[Lemonking]

Good point.

that is a good point, but will Israel let that happen?


me thinks not

 

[OvA]

w00t! 4th largest army!


ahem....

w00t! massively superior technological arsenal!

 

[15357]

w00t! massively superior technological arsenal!

w00t! Xenophobic Nationalism!

 

[bliink]

w00t! massively superior technological arsenal!

not for long.. America lost its scientific superiority long ago, its military is the last holdout, and its already slipping into mediocrity.
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/28/223228&tid=103&tid=4&tid=219&tid=14

Its a foregone conclusion that the US has or is losing its competitive edge in the science department.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/15/1836222&tid=103

What do you expect with idiots pushing ID, and the fundamentalists and congress getting a stronger and stronger grip on things from particle physics to genetics?

All the while, people gladly sign away their freedom under fear of terrorism, and that only reduces the amount of effort that gets put into advancing the society through science.

Heading for the next dark age it seems.

Furthermore, a superior technological arsenal wont do any good when the nation wouldnt survive a small scale nuclear attack.

Consider this: The damage from a standard nuke would be dozens, if not dozens of dozens, of times worse than katrina. It would eliminate the infrastructure of the area completely too.
A small scale nuclear attack would completely destroy the US economy, its infrastructure, its government. Civil war would break out with the mass riots.

How many nations have "the bomb"? how many could make/buy it? How many have policies that involve "nuke them all if it looks like we'll lose" (The subject of this topic does, actually)?

Having a microwave pain beam isnt going to do squat against a committed nation that wants to have a real war.
China could start nuclear war tomorrow.
It would be impossible to win a nuclear war, regardless of what gadgets you think you have.

Hell, judging by the storms, it wouldnt even take a nuclear war.

 

[Adabiviak]

"War of Destiny"? Sounds like something Bush would say - both cretins for similar reasons.

 

[Flyingdebris]

yeah the US military really needs to get its act together. Their equipment is good, but its slowly becoming or already is obsolete compared to other superpower militaries. it's main strength is deployment and training and that seems to get us by so far. Its main weakness is hippies with signs.

 

[bliink]

Its main weakness is hippies with signs.

You must be kidding.

The US military is in worse shape than I thought.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

that is a good point, but will Israel let that happen?


me thinks not

Yassir Arafat rejected it during the peace accords under Clinton. Many a times has it been offered at virtually no price. I expect (and so far he has, at least by comparison) Abbas to be far more level headed than Arafat who wouldn't settle for a 2 state agreement

 

[SAJ]

Yassir Arafat rejected it during the peace accords under Clinton. Many a times has it been offered at virtually no price. I expect (and so far he has, at least by comparison) Abbas to be far more level headed than Arafat who wouldn't settle for a 2 state agreement

Not true, the price was giving up all claims on large amounts of occupied west bank.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Not true, the price was giving up all claims on large amounts of occupied west bank.

Not true either.

Barak offered 97% of the -entire- west bank and gaza strip for a palestinian state. Arafat rejected. Don't know where you got the giving up all claims on large amounts of the west bank.

This has been consistent throughout Israel's entire history.

Following the 1967 Six Day War, Golda Meir, then Israel's Prime Minister, offered to return virtually all the territories Israel had just captured in exchange for peace.

The Palestinians and Arab States answered with the famous "three no's" -- no recognition, no negotiation, and no peace.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040419-091931-2211r.htm

 

[SAJ]

http://www.slate.com//?id=2064500

Barak hung on to key parts of the Old City and proposed that, before surrendering the West Bank, Israel would annex 9 percent of it, leaving 91 percent for the Palestinians. That was his last, best offer, at Camp David.

But wait. Didn't Barak, as his defenders say, offer Arafat land from Israel proper in return for the annexed 9 percent?

Yes. But the terms of the trade bordered on insulting. In exchange for the 9 percent of the West Bank annexed by Israel, Arafat would have gotten land as large as 1 percent of the West Bank. And, whereas some of the 9 percent was choice land, symbolically important to Palestinians, the 1 percent was land whose location wasn't even specified.

The Israelis, for their part, had sweetened the pot considerably by the time they got to Taba—most notably in accepting Palestinian sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif. They also made the land offers more generous. But they didn't really offer "97 percent of the West Bank," as has been asserted not just in such right-wing outlets as National Review and the Fox News channel, but in Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, and elsewhere. The Israelis offered 94 percent of the West Bank—a 6-percent annexing—and then offered to compensate the Palestinians with land from Israel proper equaling 3 percent of the West Bank. That is, they offered a total land mass as large as 97 percent of the West Bank.
Taba was a big step forward. A 2-to-1 land swap sure beats a 9-to-1 swap. But it still left Arafat having to answer the obvious question: Um, why not 1-to-1? If Israel really accepts the principle that pre-1967 borders are a valid goal except where rendered impractical by demographic "facts on the ground," then shouldn't it offer fair recompense for the land being withheld—especially since it created those facts on the ground, in some cases cynically? Israel's Taba position also left in place some details—no Palestinian military, for example—that made the term "statehood" a bit misleading.

The best offer in simple terms , was 97% of 20% , of what used to be your homeland. Hardly "virtually no price" in anyones language.

 

[Milkman]

Doesn't Iran have like the fourth largest army in the world?

Saddam had the 4th largest before the Coalition steamrolled them in the first gulf war. Numbers mean absolutly nothing, especially in a hodge-podge organization such as the Iranian Military.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Saddam had the 4th largest before the Coalition steamrolled them in the first gulf war. Numbers mean absolutly nothing, especially in a hodge-podge organization such as the Iranian Military.

That depends. Shure, The Isrelis are technologically superior and one on one thier forces would almost cirtainly win. But they arnt that much more technolgically advanced so the Iranians may have a chance. Dont forget, before the revolution in '79 the US supplied the shar's forces with the latest US equipment. And after that they've almost cirtainly bought alot of stuff of the Soviets/Russia (There was a rather long war with Iraq not so longago and tensions in the region have remained high, especially with greater US precence in the area)

Also, numbers do count, thats a major reason as to why the US have not and probubly will not make any moves against North Korea for some time.

 

[Gunner]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm


Genocidal fools, they won't stop. They won't stop even after the creation of a Palestinian state, that's not what they want. They want the Israelis to be pushed into the sea, plain and simple.

And this comes as a surprise to you? This has been a mantra of the regime ever since the 79' revolution. This isn't new, and nothing is going to change... Iran barks, its' trading partners (russia, europe) get embarrassed and that's it. It's been like this for thirty years. Oh and let's not forget who put these ****ers into power, the US and Europe.

Nice job really. GG.

 

[Razor]

my what an insightful comment ...if that is the eventuality then be prepared for the war that will end all wars as it will quickly become a religious war


you people dont seem to understand that the middle east is a powder keg waiting to blow up. It's been brewing for over 20 years, a misstep will bring everyone into the fight and it'll end noisily and in utter finality for millions of people from all over the world



the US opened a pandoras box with the invasion of iraq ..your kids kids will still be dealing with it's ramifications

The Middle East has been a powder keg for thousands of years with countries, factions and religious extremists exterminating each other. The only difference now is that there is a possibility both sides have nuclear weapons.

The Israeli leadership might be quite hardcore when it comes to stamping out terrorism but that's exactly what they are doing. Even with Israel given back territory to the Palestinian's, some of the Palestian terrorist organisations basically said they would not stop until Israel is are wiped off the face of the Earth.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Furthermore, a superior technological arsenal wont do any good when the nation wouldnt survive a small scale nuclear attack.

I will not accept this since it is just pure speculation. What I will do is argue that a superior technological arsenal will indeed do much good in terms of protecting the integrity of the nation and its various infrastructures. The better our exoatmospheric kill vehicles are and the more we develop laser technology for modified Boeing 747 aircraft, the less likely we are to ever have to deal with a nuclear stirke from ICBMs. Likewise, the better our communication systems are and the better our detection equiptment is, the less likely we are to have to deal with a small nuke event like a dirty bomb in one of our major shipping ports. So advances in technology in general and for our arsenal would indeed do much good.

And as to whether or not the US is falling behind the rest of the world scientifically, look at the fact that

In the 1980s, the United States accounted for about 40 percent of the science papers published in the world."It's important to note that, while the percentage of share of these countries may have fluctuated, the numbers of papers published in all regions have increased," said Henry Small, chief scientist of Thomson Scientific. "This makes it particularly difficult to attribute this trend to any purported U.S. shortage of scientists." The United States published nearly 50 percent more papers in 2004 than it did in 1981, while the world total of papers increased by 56 percent, according to Small.

Find the whole article here. So I find it difficult to believe any story that says the US is falling behind in any field, let alone science. While it is true that our current administration hasn't been putting enough money toward research and such, the US isn't exactly in the Stone Age. This is more a criticism of the Bush administration than an insight into the state of Science in the US currently. Oh, and FYI, the "News" that you see on Slashdot most of the time isn't really newsworthy at all.

A small scale nuclear attack would completely destroy the US economy, its infrastructure, its government. Civil war would break out with the mass riots.

I think this is an absurd comment to make and it borders on fear-mongering IMHO. What exactly do you consider a "small scale nuclear attack?" What country actually has the capability of launching ICBMs that will reach US soil unhindered? What is the probability of this happening? The only realistic nuke-related disaster I can envision is a Chernobyl-like scenario at a reactor facility(potentially very bad) or a dirty-bomb incident which would be arguably less threatening to the nation's infrastructure than Katrina.

And before we go writing-off the USA in one fell swoop, lets try to think reasonably about this: How exactly do you see the infrastructure/economy/government of the US being destroyed utterly because of a nuclear strike? Unless it hit Washington DC directly and killed everyone there I can't imagine sucha case. This means they would have to wipe out the entire Shadow Government as well which, to me, seems highly unlikely. The Continuity of Operations Plans was put in play for a reason.

And Civil War? I don't think that's what it would be called exactly--Anarchy more likely, but not Civil War.

How many nations have "the bomb"? how many could make/buy it?

12 countries have them most likely. A few more could perhaps buy them, but then they all have very few options in terms of deployment.

China could start nuclear war tomorrow.

So could France! Let's not be too heavy-handed with our nuke-fear rhetoric.

It would be impossible to win a nuclear war, regardless of what gadgets you think you have.

Yes, that's why no one has started one yet, even though many nations could. The whole world loses.

Hell, judging by the storms, it wouldnt even take a nuclear war.

And what, pray tell, would it take? 4 cat-5 hurricanes hitting all the major US cities at once, a few earthquakes over 8 on the Richter scale centering in or around major US cities, the next Ice Age, a 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton weight being dropped on the US, an asteroid colliding with earth and shattering it entirely, etc etc. No more talk of how close we are to the brink of disaster. This just gets people worked up.

 

[Razor]

You must be kidding.

The US military is in worse shape than I thought.

That is the biggest problem that politicians have when going to war with the it's militaries, a very vocal minority who tries to disrupt the everyday lives of as many people as they possibly can to get the politician's to opt out of any war.

Yes, sometimes they are justified like for Vietnam where America should of kept out of but what you will generally get is a very anti-war media hyping them up to try to "convince" more and more people into anti-war ideas by giving them highly biased news.

 

[Flyingdebris]

And what, pray tell, would it take? 4 cat-5 hurricanes hitting all the major US cities at once, a few earthquakes over 8 on the Richter scale centering in or around major US cities, the next Ice Age, a 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton weight being dropped on the US, an asteroid colliding with earth and shattering it entirely, etc etc. No more talk of how close we are to the brink of disaster. This just gets people worked up.

you forgot zombie plague...

 

[CptStern]

That is the biggest problem that politicians have when going to war with the it's militaries, a very vocal minority who tries to disrupt the everyday lives of as many people as they possibly can to get the politician's to opt out of any war.

I disagree ...you make it look like the anti-war movement is against war all together. There was little to no "anti-war" movement during the initial US involvement in vietnam but with growing casualties, uncertain justifications and all out lying by the government it was just a matter of time before regular people stopped and took notice ......sounds kinda familiar, but this time around the US has the media on it's side

Yes, sometimes they are justified like for Vietnam where America should of kept out of but what you will generally get is a very anti-war media hyping them up to try to "convince" more and more people into anti-war ideas by giving them highly biased news.

nope that's not it at all ....it was the embedded journlaist that turned the tide against the war. They reported on the reality of the war and of the 10's of thousands of young men dying for god knows what

 

[VictimOfScience]

you forgot zombie plague...

Its true--the advances that have been made in this field cannot be overlooked!*




*See Shaun of the Dead for further analysis of the zombification of the masses

 

[Razor]

I disagree ...you make it look like the anti-war movement is against war all together. There was little to no "anti-war" movement during the initial US involvement in vietnam but with growing casualties, uncertain justifications and all out lying by the government it was just a matter of time before regular people stopped and took notice ......sounds kinda familiar, but this time around the US has the media on it's side



nope that's not it at all ....it was the embedded journlaist that turned the tide against the war. They reported on the reality of the war and of the 10's of thousands of young men dying for god knows what

Do you feel then that World War 2 would of been much less popular if the on the spot war journalists weren't so censored?

 

[CptStern]

if the cause is just that alone will drive the war

oh and you cant compare ww2 to modern times ..it took hours to get news out of the front, now it's instantaneous, yet it's more censored now then it was back then.

 

[Razor]

if the cause is just that alone will drive the war

oh and you cant compare ww2 to modern times ..it took hours to get news out of the front, now it's instantaneous, yet it's more censored now then it was back then.

No matter what the cause is, you will always have the pacifists that believe all war is bad and will protest against such war, even if it's purely a defensive war that would mean annihilation of the country.

 

[CptStern]

I disagree ...see this is a completely misunderstood issue. There is no such thing as an anti-war movement ..in other words there is no group that follows and protests every conflict on the grounds that it is morally wrong. There is no cohesiveness between groups ..in fact many openly denounce their rivals. Each group has their own goals in mind, and that in turn is what will motivater them to take up a specific cause. I dont think anyone could accurately label me as "anti-war" because it's just a blanket statement that has no real specifics. I'm anti-war in iraq but I'm no pacifist

 

[kirovman]

, a 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton weight being dropped on the US

Heh, hate to be pedantic, but that's the weight of a million suns. :E

 

[Polaris]

We must nuke Iran before they nuke us...
Cold war isnt over...

 

[CptStern]

We must nuke Iran before they nuke us...
Cold war isnt over...

hmmm lets see, who should we invade on the grounds that they are a danger to humanity:


a country that defies international law and invades and utterly destroys a nation with no real justification

or

a country that if cornered or threaten wouldnt hesitate to use whatever they had


seems to me there's bigger fish to fry

 

[The Mullinator]

Heh, hate to be pedantic, but that's the weight of a million suns. :E

heh heh, ya thats either a large enough weight to crush the whole planet or its dense enough to become a black hole and suck the whole earth into it.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Heh, hate to be pedantic, but that's the weight of a million suns. :E

Yes, thank you, I am well aware of that fact, but I was trying to call to mind something like this from the geniuses at Monty Python. The humor was to be found in the exaggeration but apparently it was all for naught. ;(

 

[CptStern]

is it just me or does anyone else say out loud in their best Dalek voice "EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE" whenever they read this thread title?

 

[Razor]

hmmm lets see, who should we invade on the grounds that they are a danger to humanity:


a country that defies international law and invades and utterly destroys a nation with no real justification

or

a country that if cornered or threaten wouldnt hesitate to use whatever they had


seems to me there's bigger fish to fry

Just mislabel Bush's world map with Iran ontop of North America and you can kiss good bye to the worlds biggest nuisance....















...Canada.:imu:

 

[CptStern]

Just mislabel Bush's world map with Iran ontop of North America and you can kiss good bye to the worlds biggest nuisance....















...Canada.:imu:

you'd better watch your mouth smartass ...we have weapons that can reach you :E

 

[Sulkdodds]

is it just me or does anyone else say out loud in their best Dalek voice "EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE" whenever they read this thread title?

Oh thank god I'm not alone.

 

[Zeus]

Just mislabel Bush's world map with Iran ontop of North America and you can kiss good bye to the worlds biggest nuisance....















...Canada.:imu:

LOL! Nice one

 

[Bait]

you'd better watch your mouth smartass ...we have weapons that can reach you :E

You calibrate it, I'll get the plutonium filled water balloons.

 

[VirusType2]

Nope. Here's a recent list (not sure about the exact date for this though):

1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000

hmm like 5 of 10 of the largest armies on earth want to destroy the united states and one of them is us!

One thing though, these middle eastern countries have been at war forever. This certainly doesn't help thier military strength or economy, after years of fighting has taken its toll.

Anyone played risk the board game? its like you take 10 of your troops and attack 7 of thier troops you end up weak as hell.

meanwhile china has 1,700,00 troops. lol. makes me want to buy american when i go to wal*mart