Israel would destroy Iran if attacked: minister

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"An Israeli government minister warned on Monday that Israel would respond to any Iranian attack by destroying that country, public radio reported.

"An Iranian attack against Israel would trigger a tough reaction that would lead to the destruction of the Iranian nation," National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said in remarks of rare virulence.

"Iranians are aware of our strength but continue to provoke us by arming their Syrian allies and Hezbollah," he said during a meeting at his ministry.

Ben-Eliezer, a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's security cabinet, stressed however that the Iranians were unlikely to attack as "they understand the meaning of such an act."

more

[jimshoes]

1. Hey, here's a thought

Let's beat our swords into plowshares before there's no one left.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Destroy Iran by itself or with the help of an ally, say, the U.S.?

[leftynyc]

11. Israel doesn't need US help

to destroy Iran. When they say destroy, they mean nukes.

[Vegasaurus]

3. Guaranteed mutual destruction was the only thing that kept things quiet

during the cold war.

This is no different. Iran has to know that if it drops a nuke on Israel (which I believe is their intent, once they have the capability), Israel will respond in kind.

If Iran is smart, it will keep its nukes to itself, as Israel has always done.

[LeftishBrit]

4. And as Israel and Iran are far closer geographically than America and Russia...

they would need to fear not only retaliation, but the ruin of their own country through nuclear fallout.

Not a very good idea from anyone's point of view. And one reason why I don't think anyone is actually going to drop any nukes - unless, and it's a big 'unless', terrorist groups get hold of nukes.

[azurnoir]

5. Thank you

for making some sense, even "terrorists" that would in the case of I/P be Hezbollah or maybe but I have my doubts Hamas, they still have this "proximity" problem.
Personally have all of the "loose" nukes from the old USSR ever been accounted for? Those would be the ones to worry about.

[msmcghee]

6. The scenario you propose is very unlikely IMO.

ICBM launched nuclear warheads will only be useful for retaliation in this day and age, not for an initial attack. And only against an attacker that used ICBM's or aircraft (unlikely) for delivery - so there would be no question as to who launched them.

The initial attack, especially against a small country like Israel, will most likely be delivered by a small fishing boat, a cargo container, a miniature sub, a rubber raft at night - or some other relatively small untraceable vehicle that will be vaporized in the detonation. It is likely that the agents also will die in the attack. The sponsors may never be known with certainty.

It is not even necessary for the attacker or sponsors to have perfect secrecy. Do you think any democratic state is willing to launch a retaliatory attack that could kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians - unless there is absolute certainty beyond any doubt - or even then knowing that the people were not necessarily responsible for the actions of their autocratic leaders? The best intelligence agencies in the world still don't even know who delivered that Anthrax back in 2000-01.

All it will take is a dedicated terrorist cell and some money. IMO, the only thing preventing such an attack now is excellent HUMINT by the Israelis. My sense is that many Muslim terrorist organizations would have no problem with killing (martyring) thousands of fellow Muslims if they could destroy Israel. They say as much quite openly, quite frequently and with sincere conviction.

The ME is not your cold war of the seventies. The motivations in this war are religious and racial - not opposing economic systems.

[Vegasaurus]

10. Annihilating Israel has been their goal for the last 60 years

if the terrorists had the capability to do so, they would nuke Israel, regardless of the fact that millions of their own people would die.

Since they clearly have no regard for human life, their own, their people's or "the enemy's", and their intentions have always been really clear, nukes or more dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists would yield exactly the results they want. Lots and lots of dead Jews (and lots of dead muslims too, but they seem not to care about that).

[LeftishBrit]

20. I think your reply may have been to post 3...

I was actually making the very point that the real danger IMO is not of a government, even a bad one, making a nuclear first strike; but of a terrorist organization getting access to a country's nukes and the means of using them. I suspect that even Hamas are probably too semi-sane and self-interested to set off nukes; but I was thinking of such organizations as Islamic Jihad, and of course Al Quaeda and its affiliates.

[msmcghee]

24. Ooops! Yes, I agree with your view. n/t

[kayecy]

7. The really interesting question is what would Israel do if was nuked as a self-defence measure?

The really interesting question is what would Israel do if it attacks Iran with conventional bombs/missiles to stop it getting nukes only to find it is too late.

Realistically, Iran will have no self-defense option but to counter-attack with a nuke or two.

Israel is nuked, but clearly started the conflict so what happens next?
.
.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Clearly, many would be very pleased.

Israel would be reduced to ashes. And then, magically, all problems in the Middle East would disappear.

I reached this conclusion based on your response: "Realistically, Iran will have no self-defense option but to counter-attack with a nuke or two." Isn't it interesting that Israel "...attacks Iran with conventional bombs/missiles to stop it getting nukes..." and you opine "...Iran will have no self-defense option but to counter-attack with a nuke or two" But, the blame still lies on Israel for getting "nuked." The ironic thing, I said as much in a post a few days ago and it was deleted, yet, here we have a situation much like described....Israel is nuked, and is still to blame for "starting the conflict."

[kayecy]

9. What a fair-minded, rational person you are!....

What an fair-minded, rational person you are:

"The ironic thing, I said as much in a post a few days ago and it was deleted"

Quite right too if it was anything like "Behind the Aegis" posted on the ProSemiteundercover Forum on April 5th:

"So, you aren't only a Jew-hating sack of shxx, you're sexist to boot? I should have guessed. You are no more worthy of "honest" debate than David Duke or a Holocaust denier"

And on April 4th, I see you thought the DU rules were somewhat limiting your range of abuse:

"You are a liar, and an anti-Semite! You're on OUR board, son, and there is no fxxxxxx rule disallowing calling a Jew-hater a Jew-hater! ......So, piss off, you Jew-hating sack of sxxx!"

I assume you are the same "Behind the Aegis" who posted the above abuse on the PSU forum?
.

.

[leftynyc]

13. Do you make any money on your

career in stalking?

[kayecy]

15. You should really check your facts before making an accusation like that.....

You should check your facts before making accusations of stalking....If you look at the ProSemiteundercover Forum you will see one "GabysPoppy" (a moderator!) had been himself stalking on DU and had written the following:

kayecy Fri Jan-18-08 09:39 AM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x196670#196688

BTW - have DU mods yet to figure out which Zombie this ASSHOLE is?

Is it stalking to register openly on the PSU forum and ask them what their problem was?
.

[leftynyc]

16. Of course not

It's only creepy when you feel compelled bring it back here.

[breakaleg]

17. No. It's important to know the people you are dealing with on this forum.

Here, they can't say how they really feel for fear of the rules and getting deleted. But that other forum, mainly is there to vent and attack the posters here. Nothing creepy about being aware.

[leftynyc]

18. Knock yourself out

I still think stalking is creepy and you can apologize for it all you like - it's stalking. And so sorry you find the rules here so cumbersome.

[breakaleg]

30. Pardon me?

I don't find the rules here cumbersome. It's the people who go to another site to vent how they really feel, saying things that are against DU rules, that do. I think you are getting me confused with some others. They are the ones stalking. Creating a shadow site for DU to say vile things about some posters here.

[leftynyc]

32. Is DU the only site you post on?

I know it isn't for me. And what is your problem with people going to another site and saying anything they damn well please? If you object to what they're saying, don't post there - very simple.

[kayecy]

33. What is "creepy" about reminding someone of their abusive insults?...

It's only creepy when you feel compelled bring it back here.

What is "creepy" about reminding someone of the abusive insults they have thrown at you?......You have made the baseless accusation that I make money from "a career in stalking"....That is really creepy.


"Behind the Aegis" made a comment on my post No 7 which I did not think should be left unchallenged.... I was not prepared to engage in a debate with such an abusive person, so publishing his previous insults appeared appropriate.

You will note that he, himself has not objected to me posting his insults, only you.
.

[leftynyc]

34. Maybe he/she doesn't give a shit

I think it's creepy that you're following him around to see what he/she is saying about you on other sites.

[bemildred]

35. There are a lot of "creepy" people on the internet, apparently.

I never go anywhere but DU, but I've had people "warn" me several times about what was being said about me elsewhere. Yet when you check, all you find is a few angry vituperative losers. People seem to think this is the real world here or something.

[leftynyc]

38. Nobody should be worried about

what anonymous people are saying unless, of course, they are completely insecure which I recommend therapy for.

[bemildred]

39. So the whole internet should be in therapy I guess. nt

[leftynyc]

40. Only if you really care what anonymous

posters are saying about you. I frankly couldn't care less. Anyone, anytime can take an out of context post and make someone look bad - tis the nature of the internet. I only care what family and friends think.

[bemildred]

41. But if you don't care, why post at all? nt

[leftynyc]

42. I like to read what others have

to say. It gives perspective. That doesn't mean I take it personally.

[bemildred]

43. So it's "creepy" but not personal?

Sort of like going to a horror movie?

[leftynyc]

44. I guess

I don't do horror movies - real life is scary enough. And the creepy was an observation.

[bemildred]

45. "Creepy" is an opinion.

Think about it, "creepy" is always the way particular people feel, there is no way to measure it except as the expressed opinions of people.

[leftynyc]

46. Yes - but if some anonymous

person said it, I'd take it for what it was - an opinion express by someone I didn't care about.

[bemildred]

47. Well, that's true.

Once I read "creepy" or similar name calling I usually tune out pretty fast.

[leftynyc]

48. I'd like to make something clear

There are many posters on this board (and others) who's opinion I may respect - I want to hear their take on whatever it is being discussed as I consider them thoughtful persons even when I disagree with them. This is the category I put you in (for whatever that's worth).

Then there are the ones I have no respect for - I think of them the same way my cats do the fur covered mice I buy for them to play with. Just something to pass the time until something more interesting comes up. For those people, I not only don't respect them, I'm usually laughing at them.

I realize there are those who try to respect everyone and they are better persons than I am. I can live with that.

[bemildred]

50. Well, that's nice of you to say.

I try not too do to much of that myself, tempting though it is at times.

[kayecy]

36. Now I wonder why you find my post "creepy" but not the insults posted by "Behind the Aegis"?

How the hell could I be following him around when "GabysPoppy" started the thread by pasting an old DU post from me?...."Behind the Aegis" chose to jump in and be abusive.....What evidence have you got that I am "following him around"?....this is the third accusation you have made with absolutely no support.


It seems strange that you don't find the abusive insults posted by "Behind the Aegis" disgusting.....I wonder why?


Do you post on the ProSemiteUndercover Forum yourself by any chance?....Are you worried that someone might paste some of your own comments here?
.

[leftynyc]

37. I never said you were disgusting

I said you were creepy which I stand by. And when and where I post is none of your damn business.

[Dick Dastardly]

31. I was banned too my friend

I dont even know why

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Stick with the program.

I see you can't respond to what was written here.

[leftynyc]

12. The whole of the mid-east would be ashes

If Israel goes down, it will take their enemies along with them.

[LeftishBrit]

22. And probably the rest of the world would follow...

It would set off WW3, major environmental disaster, and end of the world, here we come! Not an attractive prospect from any point of view.

[leftynyc]

25. You're probably right

It's not very comforting when you realize this world has always used any weapon it has come up with. That big boom is like great sex to some people.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Do you honestly think...

that a country attacked conventionally 'has no self-defense option but to counter-attack with a nuke or two'?

The general view, even of those who support their countries having nukes, is that nuclear retaliation is a powerful deterrent *to a nuclear first strike against them*. Not that it should be seen as an option in conventional war. That is the view of right-wing hawks, not progressives.

[kayecy]

27. You are right....Perhaps I was too flippant ...Let me try again.

Do you honestly think that a country attacked conventionally 'has no self-defense option but to counter-attack with a nuke or two'?

You are right......Perhaps I was too flippant and put it badly......The point I was making, was that every country has the right to defend itself and as far as I am aware, there is no law against defending oneself with a nuke.

Israel and the US are considering a first strike on Iran.....They can do this with impunity because Iran has no significant military retaliation capability and is not thought to have a nuke.....However, in international law, Israel and the US would almost certainly be considered the aggressor and if Iran did retaliate with a nuke, where would the International Community stand?


Incidentally, according to Seymour Hersh, the Bush Administration has examined the possibility of using a nuclear weapon as this is the only way to guarantee the destruction of Iran’s underground sites

[henank]

23. Why would Iran have to "realistically" nuke Israel?

Why is it a "realistic" option? Is nuking the only counter-measure it could take? Why couldn't it retaliate with conventional bombs?

[kayecy]

28. See my Post 27 above...... n/t

[pegleg]

29. Actually Russia and the US are only less than 100 miles apart

just across the Bering sea, but I know what you mean.

[bemildred]

14. Baghdad Bob becomes Tel Aviv Ben. nt

[msmcghee]

19. Oberliner has just started a new thread . .

. . about 2 terrorists who crossed near Karni, blew up some fuel pumps/tanks and then shot 2 Israeli civilians and wounded some others - before being killed by the Israeli border police.

This illustrates why a nuclear attack on Israel that may not be traceable to any state actor is possible. It's because of the incitement from groups like Hamas who have access to Palestinian TV, radio and news outlets and the general practice of raising Palestinain children to hate Israel and Jews with such vengeance.

Most suicide attacks like this are executed by volunteers whose level of hatred causes them to do it. Many attacks are not coordinated by any militant group at all. Often, a single person or a small group of friends simply decide to start killing. It would be easy enough it seems to use people like this to deliver a suitcase nuke or several small vials of airborne anthrax or something else equally as horrifying. They would have no idea who their sponsor was - and if they thought they did it would probably be carefully planted false information.

With that much hatred and desire for martyrdom in the minds of so many as we see every day - it's only a matter of time until some small group decides to make a name for itself in an attempt to destroy Israel. When it happens, no-one will have any good idea who was behind it. I don't believe any western power (Israel included) would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians on a hunch.

[azurnoir]

49. A "minor" detail or correction

"I don't believe any western power (Israel included) would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians on a hunch".

What has the US done in Iraq? OK the number of civillians does not yet number in the hundreds of thousands, just a "mere" hundred thousand or so, but it done on a hunch or worse on a lie.

I suspect that for most of the world the US or us are a lot scarier than Israel could ever "hope" to be.

[bemildred]

52. Vietnam was based on nothing at all.

Estimates vary, but the numbers are in the millions, all for nothing, and not even based on a hunch.

[number6]

51. just a world wide war with 1.2 billion Muslims

how would that work out ? Russia and China ? (oil and energy deals with Iran)

what an Idiot

[bemildred]

53. Top Iranian army officer: If Israel attacks, we'll 'eliminate' it

In a new round in the war of words between Jerusalem and Tehran, the Iranian army's deputy chief threatened Tuesday to respond to any
military attack from Israel by 'eliminating' it.

"If Israel wants to take any action against the Islamic Republic, we will eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe," Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff Mohammed Rada Ashtiani said, according to the semi-official Iranian news agency Mehr. "Our answer to any military attack against Iran will be strong." Ashtiani was speaking at a press conference to mark "Army Day," which will take place on April 17. He was referring to recent drills carried out by the Israel Defense Forces and the civilian population.

"As the President has said, we have the motivation to defend the borders of our country," he added.

According to the officer, the Iranian armed forces are in a situation which does not allow to mount an attack on Iran via land.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975194.html

[Vegasaurus]

54. That's always been Iran's goal

and they are very clear about their intentions.

With the capability, which is coming soon, they will attempt to do more than give lip service to their goal of eliminating Israel.

Unfortunately for them, Israel will respond (or pre-empt them) and it will mean a lot of dead Muslims.

Israel will not pre-emptively attack Iran unless attacked, or threatened. After all, they have lived with nukes for decades, and never used them.

But put a nuke in the hands of a nutter like Ahmanidiot, and he would blow the middle east to smithereens.

There is a reason terrorists and nutters shouldn't have nukes.

[bemildred]

55. U.S.: Iranian threats to 'eliminate' Israel justify int'l sanctions

In a new round in the war of words between Jerusalem and Tehran, the Iranian army's deputy chief threatened Tuesday to respond to any military attack from Israel by 'eliminating' it.

The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday that the comments showed the international community was right to sanction Iran.

It is "more unbelievable rhetoric out of the leadership of the Iranian government about attacking a fellow member of the United Nations," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "Any civilized person finds that disturbing."

Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff Mohammed Rada Ashtiani was quoted earlier by the semi-official Iranian news agency Mehr as saying: "If Israel wants to take any action against the Islamic Republic, we will eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe... Our answer to any military attack against Iran will be strong."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975194.html