digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

timesonline.co.uk — According to The Sunday Times of London Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran ’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Sounds more than a bit over the top - eliminating nukes with nukes. What kind of storm would this unleash?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -38/+10This is the Sunday Times story that Matt Drudge is apparently referencing.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -34/+11He has spies everywhere. He's like the wind!
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -104/+28Funny thing is that Israel supposed to be a non-nuclear state. I think someone should just nuke those yahoodies to bring peace to middle east. problem solved.
    • Buddhist, on 10/12/2007, -12/+90...This isn't gonna end well.
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -69/+119"What kind of storm would this unleash?"

      Good question!

      Here's an even better one:

      What happens when Iran completes its well-advanced nuclear project, and makes good on its repeated threats to "wipe Israel (and then the US) off the map"?

      http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

      Those threats were repeated numerous times.

      Do you prefer full-scale nuclear war, with at least three parties that are fully nuclear capable and throw everything they got on each other?

      Or is a tactical nukes preemptive strike really the better - if not only - way for the world to come out in one piece from the clutches of insanely fanatic and violent Iranian regime getting close to wielding the ultimate weapon?
    • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27@alder
      I'm sure some people wouldn't mind another cold war at all...
      Which could very well be a possibility since "Mad Dog" Ahmanidejad doesn't exactly control the military.
    • michaeltime, on 10/12/2007, -85/+46Name a country that Iran has attacked in recent memory?
      Iran were the ones fighting the Taliban before America did anything......
      Iran fought against Saddam for a decade and lost hundreds of thousands of people (fighting against weapons AMERICA supplied them with). You are totally ignorant AdmiralAdama and your foolish comments only serve to still up more hatred.
      Wipe off the map does not necessarily mean NUKE. It just means that Israel should perhaps leave.
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -52/+88Iran attacked Israel via proxy Hezbelloh last summer.

      Iran has attacked the United States repeatedly since 1979
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -25/+57@sooperdooper:

      The "Cold War" remained "cold" - and even so only barely - because decision makers on both sides were ultimately rational people.

      The current Iranian regime is taking orders straight from God. Read the link I posted. Know that "Imam" they're talking about? It's the Shi'ite messiah. Sort of like Jesus, only for him to come, appearantly lots of people have to die.

      But really, I thought it was expressed clearly enough in the direct quote from Iran's supreme leader: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map".

      Your reading comprehension is fine, I assume. So any particular reason why you believe the world will stay safe when the hand of this nut is on the big red button?
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -46/+82"Name a country that Iran has attacked in recent memory?"

      Can I name three?

      1. Iraq, leading to the massacre of millions of Iraqis and Iranians. The Iranian regime was perfectly pleased by the useless death of millions, many of whom were its own people, because all that blood drew the Shi'ite messiah closer.

      2. Israel, through its proxy Hezbollah, trained, armed and regularly reinforced by the Iranian elite revolutionary guard. Sheik Nasrallah acts under direct orders from Tehran.

      3. The USA, Britain, and many countries in Europe, by funding thousands terrorist cells throughout the world. Why do you think they are on every list of terror supporting states?
    • asteron, on 10/12/2007, -24/+76@michaeltime
      "Wipe off the map does not necessarily mean NUKE. It just means that Israel should perhaps leave. "
      I'm sorry but what kind of deluded fool do you have to be to interpret "wipe off the map" as anything but a threat to the existence of Israel? That kind of apologetic attitude is riculously blind in the face of reality.
    • TheSaladMan, on 10/12/2007, -44/+37Alder: "The current Iranian regime is taking orders straight from God."

      George Bush thinks god gives him orders to do with his leadership, but I don't see you supporting the destruction of the USA's nukes.
    • William01, on 10/12/2007, -23/+90I would like to refer people to two comments made by user "kooft" in an earlier story in reference to the "wipe Israel off the map" quote:

      "Translations of Ahmadinejad's speech have him saying "wipe Israel from the pages of history". According to those familiar with Farsi there is no Iranian idiom for "wipe off the map", it's a purely western phrase. If you leave his comment in context you'll here him say something like: "Just like the USSR and the Shah, the Zionist regime will be wiped from the pages of history". If he were to have said "wipe off the map" then how does that apply to the USSR and Shah? The fall of the Soviet Union wasn't a genocide and neither was the fall of the Shah. He was clearly speaking of the government of Israel and not Jewish people in general."
      http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/The_Timeline_of_Saddam_s_reign_from_the_early_days_with_CIA_to_the_present#c4583300

      "'TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

      Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: We say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the five million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people of those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?'

      He's clearly stating that if the Palestinians were allowed to return to their homes and everyone (including Jews) vote for a government that the Jewish government of Israel would cease to be. It wouldn't happen through a genocide, but through a democratic process and the greater number of Palestinians (compared to Jews).

      Not that Wikipedia is the end-all for research, but it has a whole section dedicated to this on the Ahmadinejad page. Here's a pertinent bit:

      'Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

      "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."'"
      http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/The_Timeline_of_Saddam_s_reign_from_the_early_days_with_CIA_to_the_present#c4585108
    • michaeltime, on 10/12/2007, -32/+19@Vincep1974
      Really? Where? The USS Vincennes? Are you confusing Al Qaeda with Iran? Prove it!
      And in what perverse world do you live in where you are allowed to arm one side and not another? Why should Israel get weapons and support from the United States (greatest military on the planet) when the poor of Lebanon are not allowed anything?
      @Asteron
      Yes, the existence of a country that should never have come to existence. Not the people. Not jews. Israel..big difference.
    • Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -38/+33Those saying Iran has attacked other countries by proxy don't have a leg to stand on. There is a long and painful list of US funded intiatives to train "pro freedom" militia that have turned into insurgents and run riot. (El salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change and much more on other pages. )

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Option
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -55/+75"Wipe off the map does not necessarily mean NUKE. It just means that Israel should perhaps leave. "

      OMG, I can't believe someone actually said that. "Leave"?! ROFL. "Leave" where? It's a country with 7 million citizens.

      And yeah, "wipe off the map" means they should just pack all those sky scrapers, busses, freeways, schools, kindergartens, apartment buildings and just... leave.

      Things you read on Digg... That comment just made my day.
    • tralalaa, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11"...This isn't gonna end well."

      Yeah, but on the bright side, at least it will end.

      So sick of hearing about all the meaningless dribble that comes outta the middle east these days.

      "OMG I destroy you because you are jew!"

      Hello, this is 2007. Get over it.
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -50/+33"George Bush thinks god gives him orders to do with his leadership"

      I can't believe you just compared Mr. Bush to those nuts. I can't believe I'm actually answering you. Oh well:

      When was the last time you heard Mr. Bush announcing his intention to "wipe [a whole country] off the map"?
    • michaeltime, on 10/12/2007, -32/+23@Alder

      Well you are clearly an idiot. Iraq attacked Iran. And it did so after receiving very useful satellite images from the United States of America....

      And as for "leave" - well. Why not. That would lead to peace for most of the world. But hell. 7 million vs 7 billion.....
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -12/+36"Yeah, but on the bright side, at least it will end."

      end?

      Yeah, I'm sure pre-emptively nuking another country will be entirely without consequence. I'm sure the rest of the middle east will just lay down arms, and not erupt into some sort of nightmarish bloodbath.

      Look at how well our current pre-emptive war has been going!
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -26/+13SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY (and saturday)

      One terrorist nation vs the other. BE THERE
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -31/+22@michaeltime:

      1) Swearing doesn't make you right.

      2) If you are familiar with the Iran-Iraq war, you know it's not a clear-cut case of who attacked who. Moreover, the way the Iranians conducted military operations during that war, in the context of them gaining nuclear capabilities now, should be at the very least... disturbing. Sending 16 year old kids straight ahead into minefields as a regulation procedure of clearing them... somewhat unsettling.

      3) Most of the terror attacks taking place daily on Iraqi soil are orchestrated by various branches of Iranian militia. In a very real sense, the Iran-Iraq war has never been over. If all the Iranians wanted was security for their country, and not, say, establish a radical Shi'ite regime throughout most of Iraq, they could just sit safe and do nothing.

      They chose otherwise.
    • asteron, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25@michaeltime
      "Yes, the existence of a country that should never have come to existence. Not the people. Not jews. Israel..big difference."
      I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the country of Israel is filled with Israelis. You think they can destroy a country without harming any of the people? The most important function of a government is the protection of its people. Any government that would not do everything in its power against a threat to its people is illegitimate.
    • William01, on 10/12/2007, -50/+54@alder

      1. Iraq attacked Iran

      2. Israel attacked Lebanon, directly after the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Kidnappings back and forth had been ongoing for years, with the kidnappings by Israel (of both militants and civilians) far outnumbering the kidnappings by Hezbollah. It only appears like Hezbollah started it if you begin your timeline in the correct place.

      3. If there was positive proof that Iran had been involved in a terrorist attack against a western nation, it would have been immediately attacked
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -34/+24@asteron:

      Didn't you hear? He thinks all the Jews in Israel should just... "leave".

      You know, go "poof!" and into the air or something. Like smoke, I guess.

      Or gas.
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -25/+10@tralalaa

      i agree with you

      dear israel and palestine
      just ***** kill each other already and get it over with
      the whole ***** world is sick of your ***** bickering
    • alder, on 10/12/2007, -30/+32@William01:

      1. The relations between Iraq and Iran were temtuous ever since the Iranian revolution. Not surprisingly, Iran tried to introduce the Shi'ite revolution to Iraq. Iran is revolutionary, this is what they do. The Iraqi invasion was an attempt to retaliate for blantant Iranian attempts to destabilize the Iraqi regime and lead to Shi'ite uprising.

      2. Moreover, after the Iraqi invasion was repelled, Iran kept harrassing Iraq with guerilla and terror tactics.

      3. Now it is pulling the same tricks again, resulting in thousands of deaths.

      4. Yes, that does show them to be pretty aggressive.

      5. Hezbollah invaded Israeli territory, attacked a convoy, killed 8 soldiers, kidnapped two (they might be bodies), and bombarded Israeli towns in order to cover up the retreat of their invading force. I don't know how you call that where you live, but most of the world calls that "an attack".

      6. The Iranians aren't even trying to hide their massive funding, strategic and tactic support of recognized terror groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and various Iraqi Shi'ite militias. Read up.
    • ploke, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18@William01 and Michaeltime:

      I just covered this in last term in my "Modern history of Iraq" course:

      Iraq probably was planning to attack Iran for some time but the precise date of Iraqi attack was chosen because of a recurring attack on an Iraqi suburb (on civilians) by Iranian artillery. Iran's (small) attack basically prompted Iraq's massive retaliatory attack (although Iraq would have probably attacked later without provocation).

      The whole situation is murky but to say that Iraq attacked Iran first and not qualify it at all is definitely incorrect.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9Israel just likes to aggrivate people who hate them.
    • Dundasbro, on 10/12/2007, -24/+25You have the right to arm your country if you wish, you do not have the right to attack another countries stuff. Israel is in the wrong here. Anyway
      Also the "wipe israel off the map" thing has been shown to be a misquote. In truth he meant the removal of the zionist goverment in place in Israel in favour for a fairer non-racist one. Here is an article of iran denying it, I could probably find something better if I had the time. - http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/?rss_id=Boston.com+/+News
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -25/+10Alder you festering pile of *****-for - brains - the reason Iran is acting like it does is simple. The US and Israel pose a huge conventional and nuclear threat to it and all of the arab contries around it. And the US has been threatening to invade it since the monumental "axis of evi speech" - foreign policy debacle.
      Any moron who thinks using tactical nuclear weapons is a good idea in any case what ever is a ***** moron and should be lobotomized for the betterment of mankind.
      If isreal acts in this manner, it will be nothing short of a us puppet state launching the first strike in an eventual global thermonuclear war. Israel has the conventional us military hardware to flatten Iran. If it resorts to any type of preemptive nuclear strike it would be a catastrophic ***** that would dwarf the blunder that is iraq. The us and israel need to stfu and stay the hell out of the business of soverign countries like iraq and iran. And stop rattling their lame ass sabers and stirring up this type of *****. I can't believe the density of your logic and the arrogance of those who regurgitate it to you . Grow a brain you ***** moron.
    • Euangelion, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Too bad it's only one nuke.
    • William01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@alder & ploke

      It is not murky. There were small border skirmishes for many years. Then Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran.

      Do you consider placement of blame for the Korean war "murky"? There also, there were small border skirmishes for many years, but then North Korea launched a full-scale invasion of South Korea. Do you consider South Korea "aggressive" because it had taken part in these skirmishes before the invasion, and because it fought back when attacked? I doubt it.
    • BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -19/+21@Alder
      Stop referring to "wipe off the map". Perhaps you didn't read William01's excellent comment. Or you are too shortsighted to read anything that disagrees with your opinion.

      In addition, perhaps people should realize the reasons behind Middle Eastern resentment against Israel. Israel as we know it today was simply drafted right over the middle of other peoples territories after WW2 by the UN. Why? Because they had a big cry in front of the assembly waving their religious texts around "proving" that they own the land.

      Does that mean the Christians should wave the Bible around and claim the city of Bethlehem as "their land", move in, then slowly push the borders outwards assimilating more and more territory that never belonged to them in the first place?

      Using millennia old texts as a title deed is a miserable state of affairs. The Iranian government has a right to be resentful.

      Now I do not condone an arms race in the Middle East, but it's time that people start realizing there is more than one point of view available.
    • MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10***** Israel, the US and they are the reasons why there will never be peace in the Middle East. Stop the illegal occupation of Palestine and there will be progress.
    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16Lets just send Iran a muffin basket and a Hallmark card asking them to play nice. They will understand, we can all be joining hands and singing "cumba-ya my lord" by next weekend. These are not evil people hell bent on world destruction they are merely misunderstood. Besides somehow this has to be Bush's fault or at least the republican party's.
      //sarcasm

      The funny thing all the peace hippies will be the first ones blaming Israel and the US when Iran does go nuclear on the world.
    • diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13am i the only one who wants this alder guy to stfu? c'mon already.

      gotta give William01 some diggs for the excellent quotes. it's a shame when people are missquoted and taken out of context.
    • DAVIBE, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15@Vincep1974

      "Iran has attacked the United States repeatedly since 1979"

      Where did u get this?
    • DAVIBE, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14@alder

      STOP THE BS!
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Alder,

      If we, the United States, were to "throw everything we've got" at Iran it would be gone and so would most of the Middle East. You have no idea the difference in scale between the US Nuclear arsenal and anything Iran might have.
    • infocyde, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@Michaeltime

      Sorry bro, you are the totally ignorant one. Iran is the brains and central exporter of most of the terror that goes on around the world. They are the head of the snake. Also, we (the USA) have plans to nuke Iran as well, and a bunch of carriers are moving there. Dangerous times.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The ideological system of Israel has been such a monumental succes for them, they will agressively keep trying to export it to the rest of the world. The US already fell for the israel-based expansionist model, it'll only take half a billion muslims, frothing at the mouth in rage, to make the rest of the world see the Israeli side of things.
    • enemyofstate430, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Alder above says:

      ""Name a country that Iran has attacked in recent memory?"

      Can I name three?
      1. Iraq, leading to the massacre of millions of Iraqis and Iranians. The Iranian regime was perfectly pleased by the useless death of millions, many of whom were its own people, because all that blood drew the Shi'ite messiah closer."

      My response: Already full of ***** you are. Iraq invaded Iran first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war

      "The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

      And the US helped the original shah get in power. Why the ***** do you think Iran has F-14s? It is ok. Your ignorance and those that dugg you is excused, even though I thank God you do not run our geopolitics. :)


    • Schpariel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7*** @alder is a known anti-Arab, anti-Islam, pro-Zionist BS/Propaganda spreader ***

      ... Please stop the BS, alder; your mindless propaganda campaign didn't work in the Hezbollah vs. Israel conflict articles. And it's not going to work now either.

      And Ahmadinejad didn't say anything about "wiping Israel off the map" : http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
    • CaffeineAddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Israel has drawn up SECRET plans ...

      Shhh don't tell anyone
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To everyone digging down comments saying Iraq actually started the Iran-Iraq war:

      From wikipedia:
      "The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 (...)".

    • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's amazing how many diggers have already blamed Israel for this apparent strike. Lets not forget this was only a newspaper article and nothing has actually happened.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem is that we (the US) can't attack Iran and neither can Israel with ***** hitting the fan on a cosmic scale.

      Why? Because may lead to our defeat on the battlefield. And why is that?

      1. Iraq would be amplified into a total killing ground and would eventually become a proxy of Iran
      2. China would openly get hostile if we ever prevented any of Iran's oil from reaching them. China is the second biggest consumer of Iranian oil next to Japan and ultimately cause very bad economic problems for them if we had an open war. They actually own most of our debt that we've accumulated because of this war and getting on their bad side would ultimately cause us problems if they stopped buying our war debt.

      Not to mention if they decide now would be a good time to solve the Taiwan issue once and for all.

      Even if that didn't happen our forces stretched too thin in Iraq as it is now, but if guerrilla fighters from Iran stream across the border like they did with Israel and Hezbollah then we will be facing 10,000 + casualties in the first few months of this new conflict.

      So no... We can't attack Iran and we have to face the facts that they will get nuclear weapons and we can only use the threat of MAD (mutual assured destruction against them). After all 90 million dead Iranians isn't going to help Islam any. Or help the Palestinians any.
    • DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2MAD doesn't hold water against a regime that welcomes the Armageddon.

    • floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All major superpowers have secret plans to annihilate another country's infrastructure. I'm pretty sure that is a military defense 101 "anticipate your enemy before they strike and develop a defense plan for every scenario."

      Just because they have a plan, does not mean they will (ever) implement it.
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"This is the Sunday Times story that Matt Drudge is apparently referencing. "

      I never cease to be amazed at what gets dugg down. There are some weird ass people out there.
  • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30"Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout."

    Makes the Hammer of Dawn look like a tiddlywink.
  • gemjap, on 10/12/2007, -26/+16This is worrisome. The Israelis bombed Iraq when they reached this level. The other thing is Bush is a warmonger. I pity his successor whoever that is!
    • sheldonwilson, on 10/12/2007, -19/+38While the use of nukes is a scary notion, so are the comments made by Ahmadinejad. He has often said he wants peace when interviewed by our reporters, but to his he makes promises to destroy Israel and the US(the Little Satan and the Great Satan, respectively). If we sit back and insist on only peaceful negotiations and sanctions, we may end up with a larger problem on our hands similar to the war and holocaust that came about due to the world's initial inaction with Hitler. I am not saying that war with Iran is necessarily the best solution, but if it comes to that the world should stand with Israel to make sure that Mahmoud's promises do not come to fruition.
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18There's only about 15 million Jews throughout the world, so they get a bit edgy when someone threatens to wipe Isreal off the map. But there has got to be a diplomatic solution here. We should have left initiatives like this in the 20th century.
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21sheldonwilson:

      You fool! You misinterpeted the Leader of Iran. What he said was he wanted to stop by Olmert's house later and listen to CDs and stuff.


      [sarcasm directed at other people]
  • BobLoblaw2007, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4deleted
    • Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I think the people in Iran know that you can't nuke Israel without putting the millions of arab Muslims around Israel in danger. Not to mention you guys forget Jerusalem is one of the holiest sites in Islam. They're NOT GOING TO NUKE IT. FFS, I doubt they're even going to develop a nuclear weapon at all.
  • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33This is supposed to be a 'secret' plan huh?
    • akashra, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this at all. To think that Israel among dozens of other countries don't have first-strike missions already prepared (and/or to think they haven't had them for a long time already) is extremely naive.
      Soldiers and pilots are well and truly already trained for these sorts of missions in not just the IDF, but throughout (yet not limited to) the US, British, French and Russian armies and air forces.

      Whatever Israel decide to do I'll support 100%. Regardless of what they do, anything offensive is going to result in a massive disproportionate outcry and response from the middle-east-based and Muslim community, so it's lose-lose.
    • bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1couldnt they atleast wait till I am done with my Masters and outta here. Just 2 more years guys, just 2
  • thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -30/+28Oh yes, let's negotiate with Iran, the supporter of terrorism worldwide. hahaha. Sooner we can get this over with, the better.
    • torabora, on 10/12/2007, -21/+19And what do you consider Israel? Israel commits more terrorism than Iran, they do it on a daily basis with the Palestinians and look what they did to Lebanon. They made Lebanon (not all but major parts) flat with the earth, by all the bombings that they unleashed on it.

      If you want numbers and statistics look up If Americans Knew
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5As far as I know the biggest supporter of terrorism is rather powerful country somewhere below Canada.
  • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21Somebody has to take out the Iran nuke sites. I think the leak here is to put pressure on the US to do something, because the UN "sanctions" were comical and had no effect.
    • jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37When have UN Sactions worked?
    • tonto69, on 10/12/2007, -20/+24Let Israel do it themselves. They keep trying to drag the U.S. into everything and they watch from the sidelines. That is why we are in Iraq now, because of Israel. If Israel wants to bomb Iran's nuke facilities in this case I would support them simply because I don't want to see any country with nukes especially one such as Iran.
    • funkydude101, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5I concur w/ Tonto
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15"When have UN Sactions worked?"

      They actually prevented Saddam Hussein from manufacuring weapons of mass destruction after the first iraq conflict.

    • dogmouthdog, on 10/12/2007, -26/+2Kill the Jews...........................err I mean Iranians.

      Who gives a *****
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6They dont want the US to get involved with the attack, they simply want to know that when the backlash comes from Iran, that the US will be there to help defend Israel. Basically you know, patriot missiles and crap like that. I was too young for the 1989 bombing of Iraq, but I cannot wait for this upcoming fireworks show. Its gonna be a doozy.
    • bobbyi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"When have UN Sactions worked?"

      Apartheid in South Africa is the first thing that comes to mind.
    • buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"They dont want the US to get involved with the attack..."

      I don't want the U.S. to get involved either. Not before action is taken, not after. For once I hope that we just mind our own damn business. I know Israel is considered our ally, but we have enough on our plate as it is. If some sort of military action were to take place, I hope our leaders make that fact clear to the Israelis. You are on your own.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10tonto: Israel do it themselves? Bwahaha. Israel is the US. They are using our weapons, our money and our technology. Any boneheaded blunder they decide to perpetrate is the same as if we did it.
    • ashester, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5jdavid is right, the UN hasn't really done anything, and their sanctions are laughable. This whole situation is disgusting, all the worlds leaders must have the intellect of a 5 year old, either that or they are mentally retarted (Bush, example #1). This is really infuriating and i'm almost at a loss for words. The article says that Israel would hope to prevent another holocaust, while they are letting one happen in Darfur. I guess you have to be the chosen people to be saved from a genocide, or maybe you just need to be in horrible situations for basically the existance of your people. The Israeli's justifications for these things are as disgusting as the reasons that Iran and other arab countries want to wipe them off the map. Let me clairify i'm talking so negativly about the Israelis because they are the ones who according to the times are planning this and i have found (at least living in New York) are almost never negativly talked about, and i think its best to have both sides of the isle scolded. Like i said before though, this is disgusting and infuriating. My point is that both extremes in this situation are horrible, and there is no winning As i have said and is apparent from what i have written, i can hardly collect myself, i hope this isn't true and if it is, i hope it doesn't happen.
  • gamebittk, on 10/12/2007, -28/+32Israel has a right to bomb Iran. If the head of head of a country promised to blow you off the face of the earth, wouldn't you respond? The only way Iran can quickly destroy a country [Israel] is with nukes - and if Israel wants to stop them, they need to target their source of the nukes.

    -Mike
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -15/+34Nikita Kruschov promised to "bury" the US back in the 60s.

      By your bizarro logic, then starting world war 3 would have been the only correct response. Fortunately, not everyone thinks murdering people is the correct response to ***** foreign leaders talking smack.
    • bmson, on 10/12/2007, -18/+22Words and actions are not the same thing.

      Israel is more threat to Iran, than Iran is to Israel.
      Just wait and see who attacks first.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -16/+17"Sounds more than a bit over the top - eliminating nukes with nukes."

      Oh my gawrsh! Next thing you know, people will try to use guns to stop gunmen! Or -- gasp -- aircraft to intercept other aircraft! Or ships to intercept other ships!

      Damn, those diabolical Israelis are so much more creative than everybody else! Fighting fire with fire -- who would have thought?
    • buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15Must be a lot of Jews/Israeli sympathizers/anti-Iranian people here. Bmson made a 100% true statement and gets Dugg down for no apparent reason. Israel has nukes. I don't think they've come out and made it official yet, but it is widely accepted that they are nuclear. All signs point to Iran being a ways away from developing the technology needed for a nuclear weapon. I'm not pro-Iran or pro-Israel, but it is pretty evident Israel is the stronger of the two.
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@kremvax

      If I recall, the correct quote by Nikita Khrushchev was that "we will bury you" meaning that our system will outlive yours and we'll be left to bury yours. It was widely interpreted as "we'll kill you and then bury you" in the West.

      We've come so far since the 60s... The irony.....



    • markob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@buckynekkid: that's well known. When Israel attacked Lebanon few months ago, UN made a resolution against Israel and stupid US vetoed it again (like every single in 160+ history). Whoever here didn't agree with veto was voted down, really pathetic.
      The world disgustes me: it's all about bloody US and their interests. It came out a month ago that Israel has nuclear weapons. No one did *****! When same thing came out for Iran and N. Korea, it's like the ***** has hit the fan. Okay, it's not like I support anyone, but any country (incluiding US, India, Isreael, ...) having nukes should face severe sanctions, embargo etc. Another thing was Israel attacking Lebanon, no one did a thing. I so despise israelis.
      • tomerdean, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1That's not the same thing at all.

        Israel is a advanced, democratic country - every miltary move here is done with authorization and as a last resort to ensure survival.

        On the other hand, Iran is lead by one man who promised to wipe Israel off the map anyway possible. There is no talking to him, his mind is set. He doesn't need UN/US approval. He doesn't need to have counsils and reviews to think it over - he can just wake up one monring and decide it's time and launch a nuke.

        That's the difference... We're fighting for survival, they're fighting for hatred...
    • idisagree, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0Iran has NEVER stated its desire to "blow ('Israel') off the face of the earth". Formerly racist South Africa does not exist but its citizens do, and in a better republic. A Zionist state that claims to be a "Jewish State" and not a state for all of it's citizens does not deserve to exist (eg remain in business as usual). And in regards to nuclear weapons and non-proliferation; the only possible uses for the Zionist state's nuclear arsenal is in order to intimidate NATO (last year the Zionists perfected submarine launched missles without a word of censure from President Bush aka the Invertebrate). The Zionist state absolutely will not exist (eg remain the same) if it attacks the Republic of Iran (the originator of the 'suicide'-bomber; a necessity during the US instigated Iraq-Iran war). The Zionist state won't use nuclear weapons against the US supported dictatorship in Egypt even after the Muslim Brotherhood topples the US puppet (as they surely will), because of the chance of nuclear fallout and radiation. Same for Gaza, Lebanon, and Jordan. In short, it is the right of every people and nation to defend itself (including the Republic of Iran); and if you don't want WW III (a war the US-Zionist State Axis cannot possible win), don't attack Iran.
  • datcrazydj, on 10/12/2007, -51/+1What the ***** does Israel have anything to do with this?
    • Cam_86, on 10/12/2007, -18/+47Are you living under a rock?

      Ahmadinejad is building nuclear reactors, capable or creating weapons grade uranium.
      Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be pushed into the ocean.
      Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust happened.
      Ahmadinejad plays nice and 'sane' when hes in the worlds view, but goes bat-***** insane with anti-west/Israel rhetoric in his own country.

      The worst part is, this is prob. the smartest way of dealing with Iran... Get Israel to do the dirty work, and behind closed doors kiss there ass cause they just saved America and the rest of the west from getting into a dirty situation. Israel does not even need to give people in that region a justified reason for them to be hated so much, so they might as well earn that despise they have coming at them. I don't know if Israel would actually use nukes to take out Iran's nuclear plants though....
    • returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8Words are one thing, actions are another. He can say whatever the ***** he wants, but if he doesn't have the capacity to act or intention to act, I don't care. Now Israel has the capacity and the intention to escalate the violence further, and I have no sympathy for them. If the US cares they should let Israel create a state in their backyard. Perhaps we can give them the south. That would certainly end the Middle East violence.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Who the hell is going to be able to stop him once he DOES have the capacity to act? You stop somebody BEFORE they have the capacity to do nuclear attacks. You DON'T wait until AFTER they've acquired this ability, YOU MORON.
    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"Words are one thing, actions are another." Exactly, he is busting his ass to make a nuclear bomb..
      Make a nuclear bomb= action
  • elbxmatatan, on 10/12/2007, -61/+16***** jews causing problems as usual. All problems end when this terrorist regime in Israel is replaced.
    • Aloyarc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15Borat?
    • Cam_86, on 10/12/2007, -19/+51Yeah, those jews so CLEARLY deserve all that hatred... I mean just look at all that crap they pulled in the last 100 years... like nearly getting eradicated, and defending the tiny country from people who target there children and elderly.

      :|
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31Mel Gibson?
    • Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15With what?

      Explain to me how the Jews caused this and why they need to be "replaced"

      And I'd also like someone to explain to me why elbxmatatan's comment is getting dugg up.
    • mmm620, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28"***** jews"
      you make it pretty easy to tell the difference between a bigot and someone who simply disagrees with Israel's policies.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4"Explain to me how the Jews caused this and why they need to be "replaced""

      The jews need to be replaced if not only for their horns being a physical danger to the unfortunate people in their surroundings.
  • inquebiss, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5Maybe they'll all wipe each other out and we won't have to deal with them anymore. Good riddance.
    • barryannarbor, on 10/12/2007, -16/+24Really - good riddance? What computer are you using right now - very damn well likely some components were made in Israel. Same thing with the software. Look in your medicine cabinet - how many of those drugs were developed by Israeli firms.

      More to the point, do you really want to see a Western democracy get destroyed by a theocratic regime? Do you seriously believe that Iran would stop with the destruction of Israel?
    • IrritatedJones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah except for the fact that we have over 100,000 U.S. troops stationed over there in the middle of what looks to be a ***** storm.
    • KillaGoat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Maybe you want to see ww3 within your lifetime? Because that's what it's going to..
  • verifex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Anyone have a spare nuclear bunker I can live in for a little while?
  • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. [...] The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause."

    - john titor
    • JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The Middle Eastern country who has the largest and most powerful military is not prepared for a true offensive? I think the attacks on Lebanon alone prove that statement wrong. They are fully prepared to start a huge offensive.
    • shteinb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Thats a naive thing to say...Israel is as prepared for an offensive war as any country in the world, apart from the US, Russia and China. It has arguably one of the best trained militaries in the world (compulsory, serious training for all citizens). A very impressive arsenal of high tech weaponry, both purchased abroad and self developed(Israel designs a large part of the US arsenal). Certainly the most powerful missile and aircraft supply. Finally it has a working missile defense system. Ofcourse it still has the ultimate defense as you said... Don't use what happened in Lebanon as a frame of reference, that was not a real war, more like a high level operation. Israel's hands were tied, it was trying not to cause civilian deaths, and had no intention of toppelling the Lebanese government.
      As for the article itself... I don't buy it. A plan might exist... but hey the US has plans for a Canadian invasion, among many other ludicrous contingencies.
    • livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wait.. Did you just quote John Titor the self-proclaimed time traveler?
  • Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -31/+22Jesus, when did digg get loaded with all you neo-cons.

    This is BS Iran is no where near having nukes no mater what the Bush camp or Mosad tell you. This is more "WMD" talk people, but much more dangerous.
    • tonto69, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19They are much closer than you think. Once they have them, you can't take them away and they can move them around so it will be hard as hell to find and destroy them.
      • mohtasham, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0Do you have your own intelligence agency? CIA has reported that Iran is not developing any nuclear weapon. You ***** fag
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -22/+14Isolated, hurt, angry people (re: nerds in basements) tend to drift towards neo-con ideals.

      - Help me beat spam boy for the most digg-downs ever!
    • Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8totto69, show me a report.
    • JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Show us a report otherwise. Iran is close to being able to make nuclear weapons themselves, and are definitely capable of BUYING them at this point.
    • craig870, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I for one am not concerned. According to Eggzb Iran is not even close to having nukes. I feel much safer now. You know you can sight what ever source you want but common sense tells me that Iran having nuclear capabilities is a very bad thing.
    • Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6The burden of proof should be on Israel shouldn't it?
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I'm so sick of burden of proof *****.

      Sometimes you have to consider probabilities because absolute proof is unavailable. Sure, in a perfect laboratory environment proof is possible. Join reality, where you have to take your best guess based on the information that is available to you and know that you did the best you could.
    • Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh...Just like Iraq.
    • mohtasham, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0I guess Digg has been very popular among Jewsh people. That's why you see so many bull ***** comments in here
  • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13I swear Israel's government is insane. They try to stop the violence then go do something stupid to provoke more of it. If Israel does this I won't be surprised when someone sets off a nuke or chemical weapon in the middle of Jerusalem as retaliation.
    • barryannarbor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Not in Jerusalem, in Tel Aviv. And when a nuclear attack does occur, the Western nations will hem and haw, and do nothing.
    • returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12They are going to set off the next World War. Mark my words.
    • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -23/+11Don't forget Israel attacked Lebanon, a small country with a mostly Christian population and until the attacks a growing economy. They leveled good portions of highly populated cities and destroyed the roads to wipe out a few terrorists. They have no respect for the lives of innocent people when they hunt terrorists. This can also be seen in their policy of destroying the family homes of terrorists. Policies that make the terrorist job of getting to blow themselves up easier.
    • barryannarbor, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29You've been pretty brainwashed, haven't you?

      The PLO, after being expelled from Jordan and Syria, entered Lebanon in the late 1970's and did their best to destabilize that country. They terrorized the Christian community and created their own mini-state. They proceeded to use southern Lebanon to attack northern Israel - all the time with the entire Arab world essentially cheering them on, and the UN simply ignoring the issue.

      It was the Moslem PLO, not the Jewish Israelis, who attacked the Marronite Christian population.

      Get your history correct.
    • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6I would argue your the one being brainwashed with this neo-con Israel can do no wrong *****. It doesn't change the fact it was Israel that basically flatten the cities in that area.
  • tonto69, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18This is one of the few times I would support Israel. But they better go it alone and not try to 'cajole' the U.S. into it as the article states.
    • JonAce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil."

      I wouldn't worry about that. :)
    • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You are sadly mistaken if you think Israel doesn't have the US's "blessing"
    • CzechRebel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@ tonto69

      You know the Jews were doing a lot better when they were doing it alone. 1948, 1967, 1973, Israel did pretty well with no help.

      Enter Jimmy Carter. Camp David. Israel is our ally. Israel starts to give up territory. Israel plays by US rules. Israel is barely hanging in there. Israel is always talking about giving up territory.

      I am fairly pro-Israel and therefore I would like the US to let them go it alone.
    • tonto69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1CzechRebel...if you think Israel did not have the U.S.'s help in those years you referred to, you are very mistaken.
  • rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"i love the smell of nuclear bombs in the morning"
  • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Appeasement and suicide are insane. That was the lesson of the 1930s.

  • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34To all you Non-Muslims... it's not widely known, but Muslims are allowed to give false information to Non-Muslims during Jihad. It's called Taqiyya.

    Take anything they tell you with a grain of salt.

    taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and

    a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

    Taqiyya and kitman or 'holy hypocrisy' has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.'
    The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists
    • inquebiss, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12I love tequila
    • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"Sunni unbelievers"

      This is great. Islam is just as hypocritical as Christianity. There is no unity in Islam - especially with a comment like this. Shiites and Sunnis believe in the same God and the same Mohammed, yet have the audacity to call their brothers unbelivers. In fact they'll go so far to treat these unbelievers as bad as pagans or Christians. Hell, just look at Baghdad. Muslims blowing up muslims, in the name of Allah!
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Hehe, look at the Muslim rant over their sunnah/shiite difference yet has no problem with the part about being a lying bastard. That tells you everything you need to know.

    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4its all about the sunny's verses the *****
      the ***** are always having a ***** day meanwhile the sunny's are having a great time
      the ***** see this and do whatever they can to spoil it for them
    • Tzvi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2What’s your point? That they might be lying that they hate America in order to continue a jihad against... America?
    • Tzvi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6macktwo:
      Your comment about "Kol Nidre" is like saying that Catholics are fully permitted to kill because they could just go to confession for penitence.
    • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Regardless of your suspicions of Kol Nidre, the fact is that we don't face a global Jihadist/Terror threat from the Jewish people.
    • RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@CiXeL

      So they're just playa-haters huh?
    • gamebittk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Kol Nidre is not even close to havin anything to do with lying to gentiles.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre
    • DAVIBE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0the takiyah: ..i think its for saving yur balls during an interrogations


    • Matthew720, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Let's set the record straight once and for all. Racist propaganda like that only makes the world dislike you even more and you lose your credibility real quick like. Discerning readers know. The hatred and racism that you claim your "enemy" possesses is obviously not in short supply where you grew up. Otherwise you wouldn't be so foolish as to generalize and spread lies and bigotry so easily and readily. While Israel hasn't threatened any country with nuclear weapons it has been and continues to kill, bomb, maim, shoot, massacre, gas and expel innocent people, who bigots like you consider to be sub-human. Nevermind the countless UN resolutions Israel has been defiant of for years. That same propaganda of yours, those cheap psy ops tactics you use to discredit your neighbors is inexcusable. Last time I checked, it was Israel that destroyed 420 villages in 1948 and massacred Palestinians in an attempt to scare those remaining into leaving their homes, belongings and villages behind. Before 1948 Jews and Muslims and Christians lived on the same land, sharing the same resources. It wasn't until Zionism emerged as a racist movement with an inherently racist ideology that matters got out of hand. The same venom and hatred that you spread against your neighbors today is the source for that same hatred you hypocritically criticize. Israel kills Palestinians and last year alone has killed tens of innocent Lebanese civilians. It doesn't threaten to "wipe" a country off the map, but it's actions during the last 4 years are indicative of the gradual wiping off of an entire nation and soon the entire Middle East if maniacs in power decide to carry out their plans. If you think Iran is a terrorist state because of what it has said, then consider the actions of Israel after all it has DONE. It's obvious who's the aggressor in the Middle East and the arguments claiming that Iran attacked Israel through Hezbollah don't hold water. Hezbollah was created as a resistance movement to remove the Israeli occupation from Lebanon back in the early 1980s. Israel still occupies parts of Lebanon and has refused to remove its troops from there. Don't you think that the Lebanese people have a right to defend themselves? Last year, Israel claimed that it couldn't sit idle and let the cross border attacks on its northern towns continue and so the kidnapping of the two soldiers was supposedly the last straw. But, if one seriously looks into what happened in the weeks and months prior to this incident one realizes Israel's folly. Israel kidnapped thousands of Lebanese from southern Lebanon (over the years). It holds these people in Israeli jails with no charges or trials and then has the audacity to accuse Hezbollah of instigating the recent conflict.
  • Calculon64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Time to get long oil stocks and futures.
  • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1to answer the submitters question

    i believe the type of storm created is what is referred to technically as a ***** storm in the meteorological community, a second possibility is that it would create an equally rare nuclear winter effect. I prefer the ***** storm.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So basically like the one seen at Tubgirl? :)
  • digginestdogg, on 10/12/2007, -27/+19Ah, wait a minute. Israel has nuclear weapons? I am shocked simply shocked to discover this! Why that's a direct violation of the non-proliferation treaty. The US should, as they have with Iran, demand immediate inspection and surrender of all materials or Israel will face international sanctions! Fair is fair. Israel has no more legal right to nukes than Iran.

    Or is there ia religion-based double standard? Well, and then we wonder why the Arabs laugh at us? they can see the hyposcrisy. I am no fan of Isalmists or Iran. But you canot bring peace by discrimination and unequal treatment--that only brings more strife.

    I say disarm them both now. And fast--this is getting out of control and poses a danger to us all. Bombing Iran will only make it worse.
    • DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12Good post except it's not really a religious "rights" thing or whatever anti-religious conspiracy you're concocting, it's just that we have a ton of jews in our government who make these sort of decisions.
    • barryannarbor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's. And has never threatened a neighbor with them. No Israeli leader has ever publicly stated that he would exterminate Iran, or any other Arab country.

      It's not a religous double standard, it's a question about whether a country run by a lunatic should be armed with nuclear weaponry.
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10i dont know why youre getting dug down but youre damn right.
    • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Pakistan, a Muslim nation has nukes.
    • asteron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31You do know that Israel never signed the Non-proliferation Treaty? Iran has however and is legally bound to not develope nuclear weapons.

      As for your disarming claim, you really think you can disarm muslim countries left and right? These are people who fire machine guns into the air for celebration, suicide bomb at the drop of a hat, and have a militant history going back over 1000 years. Good luck with that.
    • JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Uh, not really. I think it has more to do with the fact that ever since World War I, Isreal has been one of the only countries in the Middle East to support us. Isreal is an ally, while the other nations hate America. American allies get certain rights from the American Government that American enemies do not. Iran wants to destroy Isreal and America by any means possible, including the use of nuclear weapons. Isreal and the US want to prevent this by any means possible, even if it means using nuclear weapons to wipe their out (so they have no chance to bounce back and launch any weapons that weren't destroyed if they used conventional bombs).
    • digginestdogg, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4":Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's. And has never threatened a neighbor with them. No Israeli leader has ever publicly stated that he would exterminate Iran, or any other Arab country."

      well, beside the poitn that they were teh agressor and stolle the land so have no the defensive positon (neve mind they are stealing more and more land as they go). So of course now they can sit back and play pacifist--they already agressively stole the land they sit on. Sonow they play innocent and "oh woe is me--the Arabs are pickign on me". I have no sympathy for the Islamists or taliban at all but I find the Israelis the lesser of two evils but only marginally. And if this it true, they are going way to far.

      Need I point out that Iran has not threatened to use nuclear weapons on any country either? Nor do they have them as far as we know. But we do know Israel has them. And apparently, contrary to what you say, they are threatening to use them against another nation--the first time ever such an abominaton would be commited. Against innocent civilians! EVER! Oh wait...there's that thing the US did to Japan...and not once but twice. Using nuclear weapons on civilians? Why that would be terrorism wouldn't it? Well...sure unelss...Unless of course it is us, then its called war or defense.

      LOL. If you don't think the Arab world sees through these double standards, then you are even stupider than I think your are. This will only escalate the strife not quell it.
      • tomerdean, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1So many things you are saying are sooo wrong....

        Israel didn't steal any land, we were attacked and we won. So they left and we took their land... nobody told them to attack us... that's the consequence of war, that they started mind you...

        Iran said they want to destroy US/Israel by any means possible, and then we see they're developing nukes...common now...

        Another thing, Israel will only target military targets used to create nukes. On the other hand Iran will target cities for maximum casualties.... see the difference now?
  • DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -20/+15Sweet, this is the only time I've ever thought Israel was cool.
    • salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1You should read "Six Days of War" by Michael B. Oren.
  • quami16, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Well. I'm gonna go back and read that article about Jesus returning this year.

    This'll be an interesting year.
  • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14It is essential to remember that Iran has been in a state of war with the West since 1979 when they took over the US Embassy, which is and always has been an act of war. Here's what Khomeini said in 1979 about the war between Islam and Infidel:

    Khomeini explained in a radio address from November 1979 that the current struggle amounts to a “war between Muslims and pagans”: “The Muslims must rise up in this struggle, which is more a struggle between unbelievers and Islam than one between Iran and America: between all unbelievers and the Muslims. The Muslims must rise up and triumph in this struggle.”

    www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/4884331.html
    • Toallpointswest, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Hey you're missing a bit of history - like the part where we shot down one of their passenger airliners killing over 200 of their citizens. Then made silly excuses for it, and promoted the crew. Oh did I mention we refused to apologize for it. The ill will the Iranians may have for the US is earned.

      Oh that's also forgetting to mention that we overthrew their government which led to the Islamic Revolution.

      History, apparently you weren't paying attention in class.
    • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Not all badness in the world can be traced back to America. The Jihad has been going on for 1400 years, and is continuing.
    • infocyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Toallpointswest

      About that plan with civilians being shot down. The plan didn't respond to radio attempts to contact it, and was in a downward angle approaching the US Warship that fired upon it. It was an accident. But there were reasons why US Ships in the region had itchy trigger fingers and loose rules of engagement when the event happened. And there might have been a reason why the plan came at the US Warship the way it did and why it refused to answer radio warnings for it to back off. Still it was a horrible tragedy to see all those civilians die. I'm sure the Iranian govenment wept bitterly at the 3000+ American civilan deaths on 9/11.

      Ultimately we should support regimes that respect the rights of their citizens, support the freedom of religion and free speech, and regimes that are for the people and buy the people. Iran fails to meet all these criteria, where Israel meets all of them (well at least for Israeli citizens...the so called palistinians have quasi legitimate gripes with that).

      With those criteria it should be obvious that we should be against the Iranians and for the Israelis, while putting pressure on the Israelis for better treatment of the Palistinians. That seems to be exactly what our policy is.
  • dan2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13So this is how civilizations become extinct.
    • infocyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Overmind

      Conventional bunker busters won't work. Iran has learned lessons from both Iraq wars and knows that facilities at or near ground are easy targets. The US briefly discussed using small scale tactical nukes in Afghanistan to dig out some caves because they were so deep. Obviously we didn't, but in digging out Iran's nuclear infrastructure tac nukes might be the only way to do it successfully. I'm not advocating that Israel use nukes, nor am I advocating that is shouldn't, just laying out this fact. Iran's nuke program is down and deep.
  • Overmind12812, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4There is no reason why Israel couldn't use a restrictive conventional (and not nuclear) preemptive attack to quell the nuclear threats in Iran. Look at how Israel has handled "threats" in the past. Remember Lebanon? Well, that was using only a small fraction of the Israeli Defense Force's tactical strike capabilities. Furthermore, Israel's tactical nuclear weapons plan is preliminary at best and probably won't happen; kinda like the US during the cold war and their Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) which drew up full scale nuclear counterforce attacks against the Soviet Union. There isn't even any confirmation that Israel even has nuclear weaponry; of course they have asked for it but the US (at least as of now) won't go that far. The Jewish state of Israel has a lot of haters, they are just trying to stabilize their world any way they can; sometimes even using destabilizing means such as violence instead of diplomacy. When diplomacy fails to work, you have to reach for the big stick at some point.
  • missingdigits, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Mazing how stupid people are on Digg...

    Iran will implode if we let it happen. If we create rabid nationalism (which is what Bush is doing BTW) America will become the greatest evil ever in their minds. The youth of Iran HATE their government. But hey, let's make them hate the USA even more....The Western Iran "policy" is to make them the "evil-doers" so we froth at the mouth in anticipatin of blowing them to bits, cause they are all terrorists. You know what? There government is doing the same thing.
  • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This is a video speech Netanyahu gave in Los Angeles in Nov.

    It's his "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany" speech

    http://www.jerusalemonline.com/ujc.asp
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5hell no. nazi germany was way more organized and a hell of alot cooler.
      at least they had their technology ***** together
      i dont think anyone is looking at iran as an 'advanced country'
      germany was a decent rival. iran is just a small group of people with power and money trying to start ***** while north korea whines and begs at the sidelines for some US attention like a little kid nagging his mom.
    • infocyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@mclumber1

      Those weapons work well against caves and lightly fortified command centers. The Iranians dug deeper, fortified more. Even the conventional weapons you mentioned will not guarantee the destruction of a well fortified deep target, even after multiple strikes.
  • tdot10101, on 10/12/2007, -17/+0Didn't the USA use tactical nukes in Afghanistan? the bunker busters? uranium tipped err whatever. This article says that this will be the first time nukes have been used since 1945... i question that fact.
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I think you're thinking of Depleted Uranium? It's a type of armor. It's not a nuclear reaction weapn.

    • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We used Daisy Cutters, Fuel/Air bombs and other large bombs in Afghanistan. When fuel/air bombs hit their target, they do not immediately explode. The casing ruptures, and the explosive material is sprayed outward (but not yet ignited) at a predetermined amount of time, a small charge is lit off, causing a chain reaction between the fuel and the surrounding air, creating a HUGE fireball. This weapon is particularly effective in caves because not only will it kill a lot of enemies because of the blast and flames, but it wll also suck out all of the oxygen, making the cave unbreathable. Even if you survive the blast, you'll die of oxygen deprevation.
    • Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Vincep1974 It's not only a type of armor. Certain ordinance, I believe, is tipped with it in order to punch through tough targets.
    • VindictivePantz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13No nukes were used in Afghanistan.

      Uranium tipped shells puncture enemy armor more effectively, but it has nothing to do with an actual nuclear detonation. The US uses them, but how often and how much, I am not sure of.
  • Deion, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2NOW YOU'RE COOKING WITH GAS
  • cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4talk about double standards
    • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20War is not kindergarten. We have two standards, yes, -- one for our allies and one for our enemies. That's the way the world works.
    • bmson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@AdmiralAdama
      Then we should change this world.
      I can't... but We sure can.
  • marinist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'm skeptical because the threat of doing this to Iran may be more useful than actually carrying it out. I have a hard time imagining how nuking Iran would make them any safer.
    • ebs16, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Israel's plan is not intended to make the world safer, per se, it's an attempt to stop it from becoming a hell of a lot more dangerous. Israel wants to take out Iran TODAY, before it can become an even larger INTERNATIONAL threat.
    • Managore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4That mentality could be used on any country that isn't an ally of the US. Why are people supporting this and condemning what happened in Iraq?
    • ebs16, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The Iraq operation was/is completely botched and from the looks of things, shouldn't have happened to begin with. Also, Iran is actually making weapons and we have clear, real, internationally accepted proof that Iran is developing nuclear technologies.
  • gabrielg01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Secret" plans on front line news. Give me a break!
  • carve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12You don't get nuclear weapons and then decide when, where, and how to use them on a whim at the spur of the moment. You draw up contingency plans for every situation. We probably have plans to do the same- it does't mean we're going to do it.
  • Orion2569, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4it's the end of the world as we know it.... (and i feel fine...)
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5I am supporting Israel. Nuke the Iran government, they want nothing but bad stuff to the westworld and others (inclusive neighbor contries).
  • sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I remember a poll a few years back showed that people thought Israel was the biggest threat in the world... followed closely by the US.
    • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11They aren't. It is just anti Bush people and anti USA/Westworld. If the poll was in the US, then I am just amazed, VOTE ON THE ONE YOU LIKE FFS. Don't be false with your choices.

      USA and Israel are no threats at all. Iran and North Korea are the biggest threats right now.


    • bmson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10@iAlex
      Westworld?
      I'm from Iceland and I must agree. I think Israel is one of the biggest threat to the world, at the moment and the States. But that does not mean that Iran is not a threat

      Israel is no threat to Iceland and Iran is neither. They have nothing against many western countries.
      Israel is a paranoid country and when you can to stupid things, when you are paranoid. Even though you thing you are doing the right thing.
  • DingoAteMeBaby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Its about time.
    • infocyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 @ranirastabout

      Ahh frack, I hate when people get are sarcastic for no reason. My post directed at you was uncalled for, I apologize.
  • ranirastabout, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3"Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire."
    Moshe Dayan, 1952 , Israeli defense minister

    Rather renders all statements made by anyone citing any reason for any war in the Middle East null and void, don't you think?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
    • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16What kind of Empire is the size of New Jersey? And giving back land they won in defensive wars?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13One statement by a defense minister ages ago doesn't define Israeli policy. Take your propaganda elsewhere.
    • Tzvi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12In Hebrew, the term empire was used in the same way as viable nation or country. Your Wikipedia link is to an article completely unrelated- the actual Jewish empire which did exist 3000 years ago. Just like the Persian (Iranian) one 2300 years ago.
    • infocyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ranirastabout

      Yeah, you are right. One out of context quote pointing to the awe inspiring wikipedia by one Israeli general should render null and void thousands of other quotes from Middle Eastern regimes and two or three offensive wars those regimes wages on Israel.

      Nice work.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

  • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Why not just let Israel deal with the Iranian problem? The current regime in Iran clearly needs to go, and it's hard to imagine that it could be replaced with anything worse. Such a condition does not apply to Saddam Hussein's regime, which almost certainly will be replaced by something worse once the American-imposed democracy inevitably falls. I say let Israel do the dirty work here, and the American government can offer a weak public admonishment, while thanking them in private.
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Btw. Venezuela should be nuked too. Their president is an idiot. And I don't mean nuke the people, nuke the idiot governments. Venezuela is supporting Iran and they need to get down! Nuked or not.
  • raz98, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10I believe Israelis would be capable of starting a WW3 just to protect their "chosen people" with any cost for the outside world. This (nuclear or not ) strike against Iran is prepared from a long time ago if you watch their news, their propaganda and paranoia is very strong, is clear they are building a case for this preemptive war, just like US did in IRAQ.

    And I'm afraid , the consequences will be far more grave than the Iraq War.
  • gameface247, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5America, ***** yeah.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Amazing how a civil war in the Palestinian Territories between Hamas and Fatah doesn't make Digg front-page news, but unsubstantiated anti-Israeli propaganda does.
    • livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If you read comments and the one's dugg or modded down says to me that the only way it made it to the front page is because of all the pro-Israeli/anti-Iran people here.
  • millerm277, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Okay, so Israel is preparing for possibly having to go to war with Iran, to stop Iran from attempting to destroy them....maybe I'm missing the news part here.
    It's only actually worrisome if it is put into action.

    We train our troops for all sorts of scenarios that aren't likely to ever happen.....better to be ready for an attack and not have to execute it than to need to attack and have no idea on how to do it.

  • kdepa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It really bothers me how little the people on here actually understand the history of Israel in the Middle east. Yes, I 100% believe that israel never should have been created back in the 40s. However, now that they have been a nation for ~50 years, there are plenty of people living there who have nothing to do with what the governments do. If more people actually understood the history of the middle east, they'd understand why so many of the arab nations do not like Israel. Just because you don't like the Israeli government, doesn't mean that you hate the israeli people.

    Just so you know, the sole reason that the nation of Israel was created was due to the widespread persecution that the jews had experienced, especially under Hitler during WWII. Several Jewish people felt that there should be a nation of just Jews. I have nothing *against* that happening, but I certainly have something against the way that the land was literally stolen from Palestine. I'm certainly not trying to defend anything that Iran has done, but I certainly can't defend what Israel has done either.
    • Tzvi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5And that terrorist George Washington and his cronies- zero right to declare a nation already inhabited by Native Americans. If you think about it, same situation in 1948 as 1776: settlers living in an English colony have had enough with their British rulers and declare independence.
    • raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Great, thats why they got land in the middle of arabs, which did not belong to the jews for the last 3000 years...great excuse..if you did not read history very well, 20 million Russians and Ukrainians died in that war
    • fsnuffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9How many "Arab" nations existed 75 years ago. Most of them were created when the British left the region and are totally artificial
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@ kdepa

      how about "we just dont give a ***** anymore and we don't care" ?
      we're ***** sick of the middle east ***** being in the news over and over and over and over
      the endless whining and bitching and revenge
      its BORING
      just ***** kill each other off already and get it over with
      why prolong the pain?
      if they all died the world would be a more peaceful place
      think of all the untold suffering of the future generations of people born in that area
      cut your losses and either make up or kill each other off
      get living or get dying
  • Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7A nuclear strike against another nation would absolutely decimate any claims of a legitimate preemptive strike for direct national security interests. Israel would likely suffer largely increased attacks by Arab militant groups and global outrage. Additionally, their non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be a central issue, most likely with Iran pounding that pulpit. It would pave the way for a perceived legitimacy for Iran's own Nuclear programs.

    In short, it is probably like one of the worst ideas ever. However I doubt they would be foolish enough to launch such an attack, contingency plannings are just that: contingent on a large series of unlikely events.
    • jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"A nuclear strike against another nation would absolutely decimate any claims of a legitimate preemptive strike for direct national security interests. Israel would likely suffer largely increased attacks by Arab militant groups and global outrage. Additionally, their non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be a central issue, most likely with Iran pounding that pulpit. It would pave the way for a perceived legitimacy for Iran's own Nuclear programs."

      Hey dummy - you do know Israel didn't actually sign the NPT, right? And that Iran DID sign it?

      Sugh. Go read a book.
    • Managore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Robotsu said "Additionally, their non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty", which was just one point of his argument, the rest of it was perfectly valid. Also, "non-compliance" could be taken to mean both agreeing to the NPT then breaking the treaty, or never agreeing to it in the first place.
    • Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hey *****-for-brains! Re-read my post. Nowhere do I state that Iran hasn't signed the NNPT, nor that Israel has ever signed it. Which is exactly my ***** point, for the United States to have yet another nuclear weapon wielding nation--neigh, ally--existing outside the metrics of the NNPT just gives Iran that much more of a perceived legitimacy of a basis from which to argue.
  • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Brown people stink.

    - Help me beat spam boy for the most digg-downs ever!
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7you have to say something more offensive and not use a disclaimer
      like ***** JEWS would suffice
  • bustaballs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8FINALLY! Some truth about Israel comes out! Thank you UK for having non-biased news unlike the US!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.