PDA

View Full Version : The Times:- Israel plans on striking Iran with Tactical Nukes


Razor61
7th Jan 2007, 00:48
From the Sunday Times:-
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington


ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

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.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:


Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment

A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb
Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.


Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

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.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”

brain fade
7th Jan 2007, 01:17
Thank F*ck for the Jews

Where would we be without them?

At peace probably.

threepointonefour
7th Jan 2007, 06:46
Thank F*ck for the Jews

Where would we be without them?

At peace probably.



Hear hear. But I perhaps think that you should have said Israelis? We wouldn't want to be guilty of tarring all Jews with the same brush in the same way that our special relationship ally does with Muslims!


However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.


Obviously not governmental experts, as this smacks of restraint and common sense.

Pontius Navigator
7th Jan 2007, 08:38
Will that be before or after they apply to join NATO?

Get the strength of Article 5 around you.

ma109
7th Jan 2007, 08:44
Agree that there is a big difference between jews and Israelis, and even perhaps between Israelis and Zionists. However (just like muslims) until mainstream jews stand up and condemn this type of action it will be perceived that they support the actions of the minority.

if this strike happens then, no matter how much the US condemns it, they will be seen as having had a major part in it. Then we'll hear the comments about how they hate the US "beacause they hate freedom" :ugh: :ugh:

L J R
7th Jan 2007, 08:48
...and this is news??. Tell me something we didn't know already!

ma109
7th Jan 2007, 08:50
... However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”

yep..always a good idea. Pretend that Israel and the "international community" have the same views / goals . Should the international community also be considering action against other nations who have or are developing nuclear weapons ?

Let's be honest. Israel wants to be the biggest dog in that particular yard. Its main advantage is that it has nuclear weapons and it will do whatever it takes to keep that advantage.

Load Toad
7th Jan 2007, 08:51
Is this the same Israel that recently helped the Chinese with the design of it's latest and most advanced fighter, something to do with the 'template of the F-16? The Israel that is supported militarily by the USA - who sold Isreal the F-16? Is that the USA that is scared of China increasing military strength and technology. Is that the China that regularly sabre rattles at Taiwan and is advancing it's military strength and technology in case Taiwan goes for independence? Is that the Israel that lends Taiwan satellite time so it can spy on China?

Are we talking about the same Israel?

L J R
7th Jan 2007, 09:21
Nice description of a self licking lollipop there Toad!

ORAC
7th Jan 2007, 11:11
The Israelis do have to take into consideration the fact that the Iranian PM has repeatedly said that, as soon as they have the bomb, Israel will be annihalated; and the Iranian president has said that an Israeli or western retaliatory strike would be acceptable, as the Moslem world would survive, but Israel would have been destroyed.

Things like that tend to concentrate the mind. The USA and Europe might be willing to take the chance they're bluffing, Israel cannot. I have said this on several occasions in the last 2 years on this site, but this is a train wreck taking place in slow motion. Iran won't give up their work on a bomb, the rest of the world won't stop them, Israel won't wait till they have it.

It might inconvenience those who just Israel would just go away, but they are not going to put their head on the block just to make things easier for the rest of us.

Mind you, for all their supposedly solidarity, I think Saudi and most of the Sunni nations around Iran might vociferously complain, but would actually be extremely relieved. I would not even consider it unlikely that they'd get to route direct over Saudi enroute to their targets and home.

Razor61
7th Jan 2007, 12:15
What route did the Israelis take when they attacked the Nuclear Power Stations in Iraq?

Navaleye
7th Jan 2007, 12:31
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets.

Really? Israeli F15s at Gib? I can't see our cringing, lying, thieving corrupt government agreeing to that.

ARINC
7th Jan 2007, 12:31
I'm somewhat suprised at the level of near Anti-semitism expressed in this thread.

I'm not Jewish, but if I was and I knew Tehran was serious which from all accounts they seem to be, I'd be voting with the buckets of sunshine. I think it might serve us well to put ourselves in Israeli shoes for a moment. It's not simply a matter of making a tactical decision in support of dimplomatic goals. ie "Top dog in this yard" It's about survival of the Israeli nation. It's also not a question of comparing the rights of Iran against those of Israel either. Iran is not a democracy..Israel is.

Where has diplomacy got us so far ? Nowhere...

I will grant there is an argument to wait and see how well opposition to Amidinajad builds in Iran, particularly given the recent local election results in Tehran. But we have seen just how perfidious Iran can be vis-a-vis Nuclear inspections, the option to destroy the Iranian facilities must remain on the table. Now, buck up, you lilly livered liberals.

Load Toad
7th Jan 2007, 12:45
ARINC,
Criticising Israel is not Anti Semitic and saying diplomacy has got us nowhere is simply incorrect.
Iran not democratic - not strictly true.
Try to remember how Iran got to it's present state. Key words for your Google search will be 1953, CIA, TP-AJAX, Shah & democratically elected & coup.

We reap what we sow.

Razor61
7th Jan 2007, 12:45
Navaleye,
I haven't heard any reports of F-15I's in Gibraltar, that statement is obviously not true but the F-15I's have been to Decimomannu last year for several weeks, quite a few of them utilising the range facilities there... which isn't far off the 'range' they were on about in the item above.
They've had plenty of practice on long range strikes, they attacked the PLO in Tunisia with B707T support and of course Iraq's nuclear power stations...

I was just wondering what route they took for the strikes on Iraq, through Jordan or Syria?

mbga9pgf
7th Jan 2007, 12:51
Navaleye,
I haven't heard any reports of F-15I's in Gibraltar, that statement is obviously not true but the F-15I's have been to Decimomannu last year for several weeks, quite a few of them utilising the range facilities there... which isn't far off the 'range' they were on about in the item above.
They've had plenty of practice on long range strikes, they attacked the PLO in Tunisia with B707T support and of course Iraq's nuclear power stations...
I was just wondering what route they took for the strikes on Iraq, through Jordan or Syria?


BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/june/7/newsid_4617000/4617653.stm)

According to this article above, it was the Saudi.

Now, I am sure with the "issues" between Saudi and Iran playing out at present, the Saudis would not blink twice. Not sure if the scenarios are the same though, sure the Iranians are far better prepared for such a strike than the Iraqis were. The Iraq strike was during the Iran-Iraq war, so the Iraqis surely would have been looking in the wrong direction?

Flying Lawyer
7th Jan 2007, 12:54
I'm somewhat suprised at the level of near Anti-semitism expressed in this thread.
Apart from Brain Fade's post, which prompted immediate reactions from other posters: Where?
Do you believe that anyone who criticises Israeli government policies/actions is (near) anti-Semitic?

"I'm not Jewish ....."
Have you perhaps made the same error as Brain Fade?
Did you mean to say you aren't Israeli? ;)

"It's also not a question of comparing the rights of Iran against those of Israel either. Iran is not a democracy..Israel is."
Therefore ............... ?

ARINC
7th Jan 2007, 13:01
ARINC,
Criticising Israel is not Anti Semitic and saying diplomacy has got us nowhere is simply incorrect.

I said near Anti-semitc...And what exactly has diplomacy achieved ? Unless you mean emboldended Iran ?


Iran not democratic - not strictly true.

Do you know what the Gaurdian Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Guardians) is and does ?

Load Toad
7th Jan 2007, 13:01
Jordanian and Saudi airspace apparently - did they have permission? They went unchallenged it seems. F-16s accompanied by F-15 escort.

I think I mentioned F-16 planes earlier in the thread - related to the word China.

This is a bit of a laugh isn't it?

ARINC
7th Jan 2007, 13:10
"I'm not Jewish ....."
Have you perhaps made the same error as Brain Fade?
Did you mean to say you aren't Israeli? ;)
I would argue that being Jewish uniquely implies support of the Israeli state regardless of where you live ?
It might be expressed as Jewish first xyz second.

"It's also not a question of comparing the rights of Iran against those of Israel either. Iran is not a democracy..Israel is."
Therefore ............... ?
The security of a democracy in a global context should be supported....

Load Toad
7th Jan 2007, 13:10
I think Iran has been emboldened by the fact we've er gone to war with their arch enamy and removed that threat to them whilst leaving ourselves well overstretched and unable to sort out Iran because there would be no public support and a massive internationally out cry. At the same time Iran has got hold of nuclear technology - (now where did that come from? Oh according to the BBC in 2005 'Pakistan's Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. He has admitted involvement in the transfer of nuclear secrets to Iran.' ) and they've got a method to deliver it. Where did they get that from? Choose from China, North Korea and Russia.
And Iran has some elections though not for the Supreme Leader. For the President I believe. I reckon that they have a Supreme Leader as a by product of the coup and the imposition by foreign powers of the Shah. Just a thought like.
Sorry - forgot to mention Pakistan is our Ally on the War on Terrror (Redux).

r supwoods
7th Jan 2007, 13:13
Seems the Saudi's getting re-armed soon ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6238633.stm

anotherthing
7th Jan 2007, 13:23
Must have been another slow news day... so the Israelis are drawing up and training on tactics to be used in the event of...

The UK used to have kill plans in TacMans for Soviet vessels.... to be used in the event of

What the freak is an armed force supposed to do but train for possible scenarios? That's it's purpose, to be ready to protect its country.

That aside - considering the crusade against state sponsored terrorism etc, the holier than thou governments of the west should really look at their allies and see what they are up to, as nicley summated by Load Toad in posts 8 and 21.

There again, we have a history (old and recent) of supporting governements/regimes, sponsoring the leaders, then going to war with them when they start to do things we do not like... why change the habit of a lifetime :ugh:

Razor61
7th Jan 2007, 13:53
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/june/7/newsid_4617000/4617653.stm)
According to this article above, it was the Saudi.
Now, I am sure with the "issues" between Saudi and Iran playing out at present, the Saudis would not blink twice. Not sure if the scenarios are the same though, sure the Iranians are far better prepared for such a strike than the Iraqis were. The Iraq strike was during the Iran-Iraq war, so the Iraqis surely would have been looking in the wrong direction?

It does seem that Iraq must have been pre-occupied with defending its eastern border and perhaps moved the majority of its Air Defence to that region and left the western borders pretty much open? By the time the Early Warning Radars picked up the packages i guess it was too late to swing the other way and even if they did, they would have opened a gap in the eastern border allowing further strikes from Iran.

It is still odd that although Saudi Arabia didn't get on with Saddam, that they would still let Jewish aircraft fly over their airspace, especially well armed Israeli aircraft. And Jordan for that matter who haven't exactly seen eye-eye with Israel in the past.

SASless
7th Jan 2007, 13:58
Fade,

Are you suggesting the way to world peace is to destroy the Israeli's and return the land to the Palestinians?

Your premise seems to suggest that.

brain fade
7th Jan 2007, 17:25
Sassy

Not really, it's not a practical thing to advocate. Although I can see why some would be keen to see such an outcome and that it would certainly bring this particular long running conflict to a close.

But it does seem to me that Israel is the pivot upon which a lot of our troubles revolve.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of either their foreign or domestic policy. Neither, FWIW, do I approve of, or even understand, the US's unequivical backing for Israel.

Heaven knows what solution could be found for the 'situation' out there, but I think we'd be a lot nearer to peace worldwide, if it could be sorted out.
I think the creation of you know where back in 48 was a giant boo-boo, by the Brits and one that we'll still be living with the consequences of for a good many years after you and me are long gone.

There's no real solution that I can see, but remember the Balfour declaration was descibed at the time as 'one country handing a second the territory of a third'.
It was never really going to go down well. and ermmm, it hasn't.

Self Loading Freight
7th Jan 2007, 19:16
One point that nobody's mentioned - this is the Sunset Times here. At best, this is somebody flying a kite. The chances of that paper accurately reporting what's going on with Israeli top-level military planning is about the same as me having a bar mitzvah in the Dome of the Rock.

Oy and indeed vey.

R

MarkD
7th Jan 2007, 22:12
The Sunday Times, Israel and nuclear weapons.

Where the Mordechai did I hear that before?

Polikarpov
7th Jan 2007, 22:47
The same story was the front cover of this week's Spectator magazine, which was out last Friday, somewhat before the Times.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/new_covers/cover.gif

SASless
7th Jan 2007, 23:13
Fade,

I fully agree with all you said. The Sixty Four Dollar question is how a peaceful and permanent solution can be found that will answer every party's needs.

PTT
7th Jan 2007, 23:48
Fade,
I fully agree with all you said. The Sixty Four Dollar question is how a peaceful and permanent solution can be found that will answer every party's needs.
Move the Israeli nation somewhere else, i.e. where we haven't simply stolen the land and drawn lines on maps expecting thousands to abide by western "rules" without any mandate or sense of responsibility. After all, Israel has only been an independant nation since 1947, a mere 3 or 4 generations.

Arkansas, perhaps?

galaxy flyer
8th Jan 2007, 00:22
Maybe, the Palestinians need to find a home....Jordan. It was the British who put the King of Hajez (western Saudi Arabia today) into power in the Transjordan (Palestine) as a consolation prize for having lost the Hajez to Ibn Saud in the 1920s. The Arabs have done nothing for the Palestinians after telling them to leave and, then, losing the war to push the Israelis into the sea. If the Arabs wanted to help the Palestinians, they would welcome them into their countries. Having done that, the Jordanians were "thanked" with a near-Civil War in 1970, the Jordanians had to violently throw them out in Black September 1970.

I am sure there exist many refutations to this history.

GF

eagle 86
8th Jan 2007, 00:22
Love it!!
GAGS
E86
PS C'mon JackoDicko don't disappoint me!

Blacksheep
8th Jan 2007, 00:22
Some strange reasoning coming out here on a Military Forum, from military people. The media urge for scoops leads them to look in the obvious places to be the first to report on something and it wouldn't have taken a genius in the editorial office to work this one out.
The job of the military is to defend the state and prepare for any likely scenario. Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has a declared intention of wiping out the State of Israel. The plain fact is that the Israeli defence forces simply must prepare for a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear programme - before they are capable of producing the weapons and mating them with a delivery system. Iran will never enter diplomatic negotiations with Israel so there is no alternative. The Iranians are getting closer to achieving their aim, hence the inevitable Israeli pre-emptive strike must be getting closer. The Iranian production facilities are deep underground, what have the Israelis got that can do the job?

Could they get away with a nuclear strike? Hell, the Iraq invasion was a pre-emptive strike to disarm Saddam - because he "has weapons of mass destruction and can deploy them within 45 minutes". What's a couple of tactical nukes compared to a complete invasion?

What about the oil? Well, they have to sell the damned stuff somewhere. With a 20% shortage, when the price becomes impossibly high we'll do what we did last time - turn to alternative energy sources. Once we're suffering from electricity rationing the Greens opinions will be overridden and we'll simply go nuclear and do without the oil.

Ian Corrigible
8th Jan 2007, 02:52
Jordanian and Saudi airspace apparently - did they have permission? They went unchallenged it seems. F-16s accompanied by F-15 escort.
The Beeb carried a couple of good interviews (one with four of the F-16 pilots, a second with an Indian pilot in Iraq on 6/7/81) last year:

Osirak: Over the reactor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4774733.stm)

"The F-16s passed me at Osirak" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5073750.stm)

I/C

jayteeto
8th Jan 2007, 07:47
I suppose it might help to put yourself into this scenario. If, for example, Bulgaria were developing a weapon system that could destroy all of the UK and they declared a serious intent to use it, even stating they would accept retaliation. How would you feel today???? If you knew that we could destroy that weapon before it was finished, would you want the military to do it??? Just remember folks, this technology could eventually be used as a threat against the Western nations, even in our lifetime.
On the other side of the coin, is this weapon actually being developed?? Or is it like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?????
I say go for it and 'undevelop' the nukes!!

brain fade
8th Jan 2007, 08:30
SAS

We agree on something??? Now I am worried!

I feel sorry for them, as did the Brits and the UN back in 48. We probably thought we were doing Gods work by helping to re-establish Israel. I think we should have let him do it in his own time-as He said he would.

This will prove to be a false start imho.

PTT.

While no-one advocates or approves of conflict, if they'd installed Israel where I live, I'd be fighting them myself!

As the yanks seem to be in love with them-although no-one ever seems able quite to explain why- maybe Arkansas would be a good choice!:ok:

ARINC
8th Jan 2007, 10:24
Interestingly I'm led to believe from ex colleagues that IDF aircraft regularly overfly Tabuk (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/tabuk.htm) and have on the odd ocassion performed a touch and go. :uhoh:

West Coast
8th Jan 2007, 20:39
Curious how threats from Iran about wiping Israel off the map seem to be lost on the Euro intelligensia. When Israel plans for action based in part from these threats, they are lambasted.
Love to see a hostile government in Dublin with a few nukes to spare and an agenda. A record of rhetoric that included wiping the UK off the map and a soon to be capability to do so and your lot would be a helluva lot more receptive. Thankfully your level of hypocracy and ignorance is based on the reletive peace the majority of your citizens have grown up to enjoy.

At least Israel is listening when threatened.

Fade
How's the cave and OBL doing these days? He would be proud of you.

Sunfish
8th Jan 2007, 21:03
Dear dear dear! I thought military aircrew might be better informed. Please remove foot from mouth before engaging same.

For a start, Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty. All that the IAEA has said in their reports is that they cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

The Likudniks and their fellow travellers in the press (especially the Murdoch press) then morph the possibility of a program into a capability to build a bomb into posessing nuclear weapons.

Current wisdom is that Iran doesn't have the capacity to produce weapons grade uranium and certainly doesn't have the reactors operating to make weapons grade plutonium.

Then there is the little matter of weaponising a device into a deliverable package - something that I'm sure you know far more about than I do, but which is commonly believed to be not a trivial, nor quick, task.

Go and read up about it at armscontrolwonk, they do the calculations on the electrical power and number of centrifuges required to do this stuff.

Then there is the little matter of what Iran's leaders have actually said.

Firstly they have consistently said that they have no nuclear weapons program and wouldn't want one.

While they quite obviously hate Israel's guts, they have never said that they are going to attack Isreal, let alone with nuclear weapons, and they have been widely misquoted about their intentions. What they have said, taking a thirty year old quote from Kohmenie, is that Israel will eventually "disappear from the pages of history".

Read up at "informed comment" by Prof. Juan Cole who speaks the language and studies the country.

The real issue is that if Iran is not attacked the current debacle in Iraq will see it emerge as the leading regional power, something that is a nightmare for Israel and the oil interests that are driving the Bush Administration and that bloody poodle Blair.

We are going to attack Iran, probably after a false flag operation, or perhaps the Iranians will be provoked by the forthcoming deliberate destruction of large areas of Baghdad and the killing of all shia males of military age - for that is what "rapid disarming, clearing and holding to provide security" in Kagan's presentation actually means.

The outcome of such an adventure is going to be at the minimum the destruction of the forces in the gulf and the emasculation of the United States and Britain as world powers.

GeeRam
8th Jan 2007, 21:09
Curious how threats from Iran about wiping Israel off the map seem to be lost on the Euro intelligensia. When Israel plans for action based in part from these threats, they are lambasted.
Love to see a hostile government in Dublin with a few nukes to spare and an agenda. A record of rhetoric that included wiping the UK off the map and a soon to be capability to do so and your lot would be a helluva lot more receptive. Thankfully your level of hypocracy and ignorance is based on the reletive peace the majority of your citizens have grown up to enjoy.

Hmmmm.....and also remember there are plenty of British ex-servicemen, including my late Father, and two Uncles, that spent a great deal of time being shot at and blown up by the Irgun/Stern Gang..........:rolleyes:

brain fade
8th Jan 2007, 22:37
Westie

Thanks for the insults.

I'm no fan of OBL.............unlike you Americans who built him right up when he was your big pal shooting your Stingers and other weapons off at the Russkiesfor you !

What goes round comes round.....as you lot will never learn.

What IS it with you guys and Israel anyway? Anyone would think they've got something on you.;)

West Coast
8th Jan 2007, 22:48
"they have never said that they are going to attack Isreal"

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

If a leader of a country said of your country that it needed to be wiped off the map, what would you say of its intentions, hostile perhaps? If you choose to find wiggle room between saying your country needed to be wiped off the map and saying it would attack, I at least hope you see how one might interpert it as a threat of violence.

SASless
8th Jan 2007, 22:57
Gee,

How many Irgun attacks against yer Gramps and Dad were perpetrated in Blighty?

I can understand yer concern over your family getting the boot out of Palestine and all....but gee whiz....its been years since that happened.

Of course with all the agro "Spams" get here....the Irgun boys have another century and a half to go to get to our current status now.

You guys sure take offense to getting shown the door.

PTT
9th Jan 2007, 00:13
but gee whiz....its been years since that happened.
I suppose 60 or so years is only a long time if your country has only been around for a couple of hundred itself. Get some time in... :rolleyes:

West Coast
9th Jan 2007, 00:50
You however haven't. The UK for the majority of its citizens has only known peace on its shores.

Ali Barber
9th Jan 2007, 01:42
Apart from the Blitz and the constant threat of IRA attacks for many decades.

PTT
9th Jan 2007, 06:12
You however haven't. The UK for the majority of its citizens has only known peace on its shores.
As opposed to the US.... :suspect:

And of course, there's no "the British are coming" hangover in the US either. What nationality are Hollywood bogeymen traditionally? But it's been years since that happened...

Art imitates life... :rolleyes:

brain fade
9th Jan 2007, 07:35
Westie

Having criticised me as a fan of OBL rather unfairly IMHO, why won't you respond to my post reminding you who built him up?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1