Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I don't think any of the Muslim countries would launch a full nuclear attack on Israel. To understand this, you have to look at the history of the region. Israel includes Jerusalem, which is the Holy Land for all three major religions, including Islam. The Old City of Jerusalem contains some of the holiest Islam buildings in existence.
The Muslims don't want the land mass of Israel to be a wasteland for the next 1000 years, they want the land mass back so that they can once again hold Jerusalem.
That being said, I could see the Islamic extremists launching a bio-weapon against Israel in the hopes of destroying or weakening the population in order to regain Jerusalem.
Actually, I don't think any of the Muslim countries would launch a full nuclear attack on Israel. To understand this, you have to look at the history of the region. Israel includes Jerusalem, which is the Holy Land for all three major religions, including Islam. The Old City of Jerusalem contains some of the holiest Islam buildings in existence.
The Muslims don't want the land mass of Israel to be a wasteland for the next 1000 years, they want the land mass back so that they can once again hold Jerusalem.
That being said, I could see the Islamic extremists launching a bio-weapon against Israel in the hopes of destroying or weakening the population in order to regain Jerusalem.
I would agree with this. I'm working in Saudi right now and you can't lump these Arab countries together. Iran is not Arab and the Saudis can't stand them. They do feel that Israel should give up Jerusalem at the very least as it's one of their holy cities. Not only does Saudi dislike and distrust Iran, they also don't like Qatar or Kuwait or just about anone else that's not Saudi. The point being that these are not monolithic thinkers although they do agree about certain things including that Israel needs to be removed from "Palentine."
Think about that the next time you decide to call Israel the aggressor.
No, I will not.
So, the only reason why, say, Iran has not attacked Israel is because of a lack of nukes? First off, Israel was created by the U.S. with the help of England shortly after WWII. It wasn't like the plot of land chosen was vacant or anything Second, Israel is an aggressor.
So, the only reason why, say, Iran has not attacked Israel is because of a lack of nukes? First off, Israel was created by the U.S. with the help of England shortly after WWII. It wasn't like the plot of land chosen was vacant or anything Second, Israel is an aggressor.
Historically, Israel is not an aggressor. I agree with your point about the creation of Israel, and the displacement of the culture that already existed in the area. However, the majority of Israel's military action has been in defense of the land they occupy, and this is mainly because the U.S. and the U.K. have been acting as forces of reason to keep them in check. Without that influence, I can see Israel becoming an aggressor very quickly.
If your neighbor is continually killing off your extended family, eventually you'll get tired of it and decide to do something about the situation.
Nukes are a deterent. Any country that has them realizes the repercussions that would follow should they release them. It would result in devastation to one country, while at the same time it will cause devastation upon itself.
How about leveling the playing field in Palestine? Give them equal weaponry to which Israel possesses. Then it would be a balanced "war".
So, the only reason why, say, Iran has not attacked Israel is because of a lack of nukes? First off, Israel was created by the U.S. with the help of England shortly after WWII. It wasn't like the plot of land chosen was vacant or anything Second, Israel is an aggressor.
The only reason Iran has not either enabled Hamas or done the job themselves with whatever means at their disposal, is because they know you'd turn the region into a smoking hole in the desert were Israel eradicated.
There was no Palestine, EVER. There were various regions of crappy land that all the other Arab nations reluctantly allowed the "white trash of Arabs" to occupy but as the Indios are to Mexico, so too are the Palestinians to the so-called "Pure A-rabs".
And Fatah & Hamas blowing up shopping markets and buses full of innocent people are not agressors???
No, I think that Arab nations wouldn't use nukes, or give them to terrorists to use because we can track the materials to know who produced the bomb and would utterly destroy them.
All the Arab nations combined can't produce bombs that would destroy our ability to retailiate or cease to exist. We could do that with 3 tridents in the entire middle east.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Second, Israel is an aggressor.
