Israel threaten pre-emptive strike on Iran

And how would Iran possessing nuclear energy be protecting Israel's citizens?
How did Israel "protect it's citizens" when it instigated the 2006 Lebanon war?

The key word "allegedly". Is it going to be the same with the UN and the Iraq fiasco. The words that time was "suspected of Weapons of Mass Destruction" which could be "deployed in 45 mins" from an "intelligence source" who later turned out to be a ****ing taxi driver, for Christ's sake, an TAXI DRIVER as an intelligence source to start a whole ****ing war?



Until anything to the contrary is proven, all this is hot air.



Again, a whole load of hot air. Nothing has been proven yet. Bring the proof and THEN attack. You can't attack based on presumptions.



Last time I looked, India isn't as well as Pakistan yet they possess Nuclear weapons.

Ironically, Israel supports a "nuclear free ME" when in fact they have the the ONLY stockpile of nuclear weapons in the ME. Talk about double standards.



My points were derived from a debate on TV (The Big Questions: BBC 1) which was quite interesting as it involved a former ambassador to the IAEA. If you want to have a watch, then the link could be found here and the debate about Iran starts from 20:25 and ends at 41:58.

obviously. by destroying hezbollah, who were respinsible for the daily rockets in israel.

Iraq isn't Iran and vice versa and there's much, much more evidence to support the notion that Iran is attempting to create nuclear weapons than there ever was for Iraq & WMD's.

The crux of your argument is that there is no concrete proof that Iran is developing or attempting to develop the weapon but this works both ways, Iran hasn't proven that its program is entirely peaceful and this is why we're at the stage we're at now. If Iran had fully complied with and abided by the IAEA/NPT etc then we wouldn't be here now but they've been deceptive right from the get go.

If the regime is just playing games and their program is entirely peaceful then they're only shooting themselves in the foot by making things difficult and pouring fuel on the fire. The alternative (and seemingly likely scenario) is that they are interesting in developing a nuclear weapon.

Plus, the world doesn't work with everything requiring 100% proof as a prerequisite... Intelligence agencies sometimes get it wrong (horribly wrong) and other times they're right - either way, things can't always be presented in a black and white 100% right or wrong manner so if there's relatively 'empircal' evidence then action must be considered and in the absence of such evidence, its up to the party in question (Iran in this case) to provide evidence to the contrary but they have not and will not do so which only lends credence to the accusations being made against them.

Oh, and it was the Israeli public that supported a nuclear free zone in the Middle East (64% opting for a NFZ vs a military strike).

You really should get out. Sunshine does wonders to your health.

Why don't you research who instigated the 2006 Lebanon war and then get back to me when you're sober, eh?

It does make me laugh how people question everything Western leaders say, passing it all off as double speak, deception and propaganda but every word uttered by the Iranian regime et al is considered to be honest and truthful.

what exactly is there to research? and you are right about the sunshine,

shame most muslim women never experience sunshine tho.

You could use that very same rationale to flip the argument for a military strike on its head though.

If all of Iran's threats about blowing Israel off the map are to be considered "double speak, deception and propaganda" then the idea that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel is fatally undermined.

How are those statements any more or less credible than those made about weapons inspections or anything else? And yet they have been strategically peddled ad nauseum by AIPAC and other war-mongering organisations as statements of intent to be taken at face value.

Things have to be analyzed and judged on a case per case basis. In this case, it would be outright foolish for anybody to dismiss the Iranian threat to Israel; obviously Iran is never going to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel but the power it will give to Iran is the actual problem. It would be fair to say that the Iranian threat is taken too seriously if Iran had done nothing to arouse suspician but the bottom line is that they haven't - they've being waging a proxy war against Israel for decades, they fund and support terror, they constantly threaten the destruction of Israel (yes, Israel not just the 'Zionist regime'), they enrich Uranium to levels more than necessary, they fail to declare their enrichment program, they take the IAEA for a ride and there's reason to believe they have looked into weaponization and even as far as cooperating with North Korea in actual tests.

This isn't a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. The comment you're quoting is about how people tell us not to trust our government because they're greedy, corrupt and they manipulate us but when the Iranian regime practically says "nope, no nuclear weapons here" whilst sitting on one (don't mean this literally), they just accept it.

When was the last time Iran have attacked or bombed another nation?

Supporting Hezbollah supporting Hamas supporting various other terrorist groups ect. It's really not as simple to just say they haven't attacked another nation recently so everything will be all dandy and fine if they are allowed to pursue nukes.

Supporting Hezbollah supporting Hamas supporting various other terrorist groups ect. It's really not as simple to just say they haven't attacked another nation recently so everything will be all dandy and fine if they are allowed to pursue nukes.

Answer the question.

Its a poor question that does not allow discussion of the other events and issues at play here, so no I don't think I will.

Well the title of the discussion is "Israel threaten pre-emptive strike on Iran", the reason for the threat is to prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons which many accuse Iran doing. The Israeli Prime Minister recently stated "As prime minister of Israel I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation". So my question, which is a perfectly reasonable one is to ask when was the last time Iran have attacked or bombed another nation?

As for attacking nations does that really matter when they have constantly been supporting terrorist groups throughout the middle east as well as supporting dictatorship in Syria?

When it came to supporting Mubarak, It WASN'T TERRORISM.
When it came to regime change in Iraq, IT WASN'T TERRORISM.
When it came to supporting African dictators, IT WASN'T TERRORISM.
When it came to deposing democratically elected governments, IT WASN'T TERRORISM.
When it comes to supporting the Saudi's/Bahrani's, IT ISN'T TERRORISM.


Iran gave arms to a group whose country ISRAEL ATTACKED FIRST, and you call it terrorism.
Iran is trading arms with Syria (a legitimate government) and you call it TERRORISM whilst enforcing regime change.


Tell me that terrorism is only when "our enemies give arms to those that we don't like"?