A Question, Not An Op-Ed

[Annie]

I usually don't use Front Page, for fear of further anti-Semitism rants, but this isn't an op-ed or perspective piece, rather a question:

http://frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=688

Decision Time: Will this war go nuclear? - Friday, July 14, 2006 2:20 PM
Here is the situation: World leaders are lining up, either on the side of the Islamic terrorists (Chirac and Putin) or the side of their victims (the United States and -- somewhat -- Great Britain). The Vatican, which has an unsavory record in regard to the periodic slaughters of the Jews has thrown its moral weight (such as it is these days) onto the scales against the Jews. As the Hizbollah terrorists fire hundreds of rockets into Israeli cities from Lebanon and the Pope condemns Israel's attempts to destroy the rockets aimed at its citizens, Israel's chief of staff is forced to concede that those rockets can reach farther than previously thought, putting more Israelis in danger. Meanwhile, the Syrian terrorist state tells Time magazine that it could destroy Israel's nuclear sites. Hizbollah, Hamas, Iran and Syria occupy areas that are one hundred times the size of Israel and the populations they control are ten times the size of Israel's.

Hizbollah and Hamas, and their patron Iran, have sworn to remove Israel from the face of the earth -- in those very words. Iran has defied the world community in asserting its determination to complete its nuclear program. Syria supports Iran, hosts Hamas and is a party to this malignant Islamic crusade. Behind them stand Russia and China and North Korea, and also apparently the international left which is lining up squarely behind the jihadists -- and has been doing so throughout the open preparation of this second holocaust. The left's favorite apostle Noam Chomsky only months ago was embracing Hizbollah's Hitler, Hassan Nasrallah, and his genocidal agendas.

So here is the issue: If you were Israel's prime minister, could you afford to wait until Iran attains nuclear warheads for Hizbollah's missiles? Or can you be sure it hasn't already been supplied such warheads by Russia or China through Iran? Could you afford to wait to see if Syria will supply the chemical and biological weapons it has cached for Saddam Hussein to Hizbollah and Hamas? Or would you proceed to plan B and obliterate them now?

While the Israeli prime minister ponders this question, leftists who are encouraging the forces of genocide -- Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran -- might want to think how all the present bloodshed and the next terrible decisions that Israel must take to defend itself -- and their consequences -- will lie on their heads.

 

[dilloduck]

I usually don't use Front Page, for fear of further anti-Semitism rants, but this isn't an op-ed or perspective piece, rather a question:

http://frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=688

I would assume that Israel has it's survival as priority #1 and using all of the inteligence they have at there disposal and any influence they have with larger, more powerful countries they will do what is necessary before they are themselves destroyed.

 

[Mr.Conley]

(While laughing)

OMG... so much... so wrong... and misleading... really... hilarious... so... naive... terrible, terrible... question... absolutely adorable...

(Mr. Conley chokes on own laughter and dies, but is reborn, stronger and more powerful then ever before)

 

[Annie]

(While laughing)

OMG... so much... so wrong... and misleading... really... hilarious... so... naive... terrible, terrible... question... absolutely adorable...

(Mr. Conley chokes on own laughter and dies, but is reborn, stronger and more powerful then ever before)

Why not just answer the question?

BTW, you never did respond about scientific study on media?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Why not just answer the question?

Why not?

Here is the situation: World leaders are lining up,

If by lining up you mean their state departments issued brief statements while the actual leaders were off having a good time at the G8 summit in Russia, then yes, world leaders are lining up.

either on the side of the Islamic terrorists (Chirac and Putin)

What the heck? On the side of Islamic terrorists? By urging Israel to show restraint and reframe from bombing civilian targets? That's a far cry from allying, supplying, and assisting the Hamas and Co. while calling for the death of Israel.

The Vatican, which has an unsavory record in regard to the periodic slaughters of the Jews has thrown its moral weight (such as it is these days) onto the scales against the Jews.

Who cares? The Vatican has no nukes, and no real influence in geopolitics. Plus the Vatican is run by the Catholic church. Of course they are going to call for an end to violence. They're a freaking pacifist religon. That's like expecting the Dahli Lama to call for all out war on North Korea.
'Oh my God, the Vatican called for an end to violence. Stop the Press.'

As the Hizbollah terrorists fire hundreds of rockets into Israeli cities from Lebanon and the Pope condemns Israel's attempts to destroy the rockets aimed at its citizens

Yea, totally, except that he called on Israel to take the lead in ending the violence.

Israel's chief of staff is forced to concede that those rockets can reach farther than previously thought, putting more Israelis in danger.

Finally, a statement of fact.

Meanwhile, the Syrian terrorist state tells Time magazine that it could destroy Israel's nuclear sites.

'The Syrian terrorist state' also tells Time magazine it can wipe Israel off the map.

Hizbollah, Hamas, Iran and Syria occupy areas that are one hundred times the size of Israel and the populations they control are ten times the size of Israel's.

Yea, Iran's, Syria's, Hamas', and Hizbollah's vast deserts totally kick Israel's desert's ass. Oh, wait, the amount of useless land you own doesn't really come into play in war unless your invading Russia.
Nice about the population though. Too bad the GDP of the entire Arab world is only slightly greater than that of Spain.
Plus, Israel has a little thing called total air supremacy.

Hizbollah and Hamas, and their patron Iran, have sworn to remove Israel from the face of the earth -- in those very words.

Oh yes, they said it, and they can do it. They just haven't really felt like destroying Israel for the past 50 years.

Iran has defied the world community in asserting its determination to complete its nuclear program.

Okay, so therefore we can expect a 10 way nuclear exchange? I don't think so.

Syria supports Iran, hosts Hamas and is a party to this malignant Islamic crusade.

Okay, I'll give you that one. Good work, they're 2 for 9.

Behind them stand Russia and China and North Korea,

Except not at all. Russia isn't going to go nuclear over Syria. China doesn't care about Syria because they don't have enough oil. And North Korea? Like they're going to send in troops to fight the Israelis.

and also apparently the international left which is lining up squarely behind the jihadists

Really? And where is this line? Oh wait, it doesn't exist expect for a few crazies.

-- and has been doing so throughout the open preparation of this second holocaust.

Because everyone knows that the liberal, Jewish media has been having a hard on for another Holocaust for 60 years now.

The left's favorite apostle Noam Chomsky only months ago was embracing Hizbollah's Hitler, Hassan Nasrallah, and his genocidal agendas.

And was condemned for it.

So here is the issue: If you were Israel's prime minister, could you afford to wait until Iran attains nuclear warheads for Hizbollah's missiles?

Get serious. Iran's not going to supply Hizbollah with nukes. I doubt that even in ten years they could transport it to Syria, much less but the thing on shoulder-mounted rocket. Besides, Iran doesn't want to get owned in the ensuing international responce.

Or can you be sure it hasn't already been supplied such warheads by Russia or China through Iran?

Yea, actually, you can. Why? Because Russia and China don't hate Israel enough to use WMDs to destroy them. Chinese people LOVE the Jews.

Could you afford to wait to see if Syria will supply the chemical and biological weapons it has cached for Saddam Hussein to Hizbollah and Hamas?

Syria has had 20+ years to sneak Hizbollah and Hamas some WMDs, but they haven't. Why would they start now? To force the international community to invade? Yea, they makes prefect sense.

Or would you proceed to plan B and obliterate them now?

WMDs are for having not using. Especially when you know you'll get it in the butt if you do use them.

While the Israeli prime minister ponders this question, leftists who are encouraging the forces of genocide -- Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran -- might want to think how all the present bloodshed and the next terrible decisions that Israel must take to defend itself -- and their consequences -- will lie on their heads.

Partisan F**king Bullshit.

BTW, you never did respond about scientific study on media?

A read through it, but I can't find the damn thread. I think they raised an interesting concern though, but I have to question their methodology. Based on what I read, I also think the study might have been a bit rushed.

 

[Annie]

Why not?

If by lining up you mean their state departments issued brief statements while the actual leaders were off having a good time at the G8 summit in Russia, then yes, world leaders are lining up.

What the heck? On the side of Islamic terrorists? By urging Israel to show restraint and reframe from bombing civilian targets? That's a far cry from allying, supplying, and assisting the Hamas and Co. while calling for the death of Israel.

Who cares? The Vatican has no nukes, and no real influence in geopolitics. Plus the Vatican is run by the Catholic church. Of course they are going to call for an end to violence. They're a freaking pacifist religon. That's like expecting the Dahli Lama to call for all out war on North Korea.
'Oh my God, the Vatican called for an end to violence. Stop the Press.'

Yea, totally, except that he called on Israel to take the lead in ending the violence.

Finally, a statement of fact.

'The Syrian terrorist state' also tells Time magazine it can wipe Israel off the map.

Yea, Iran's, Syria's, Hamas', and Hizbollah's vast deserts totally kick Israel's desert's ass. Oh, wait, the amount of useless land you own doesn't really come into play in war unless your invading Russia.
Nice about the population though. Too bad the GDP of the entire Arab world is only slightly greater than that of Spain.
Plus, Israel has a little thing called total air supremacy.

Oh yes, they said it, and they can do it. They just haven't really felt like destroying Israel for the past 50 years.

Okay, so therefore we can expect a 10 way nuclear exchange? I don't think so.

Okay, I'll give you that one. Good work, they're 2 for 9.

Except not at all. Russia isn't going to go nuclear over Syria. China doesn't care about Syria because they don't have enough oil. And North Korea? Like they're going to send in troops to fight the Israelis.

Really? And where is this line? Oh wait, it doesn't exist expect for a few crazies.

Because everyone knows that the liberal, Jewish media has been having a hard on for another Holocaust for 60 years now.

And was condemned for it.

Get serious. Iran's not going to supply Hizbollah with nukes. I doubt that even in ten years they could transport it to Syria, much less but the thing on shoulder-mounted rocket. Besides, Iran doesn't want to get owned in the ensuing international responce.


Yea, actually, you can. Why? Because Russia and China don't hate Israel enough to use WMDs to destroy them. Chinese people LOVE the Jews.

Syria has had 20+ years to sneak Hizbollah and Hamas some WMDs, but they haven't. Why would they start now? To force the international community to invade? Yea, they makes prefect sense.

WMDs are for having not using. Especially when you know you'll get it in the butt if you do use them.

Partisan F**king Bullshit.

A read through it, but I can't find the damn thread. I think they raised an interesting concern though, but I have to question their methodology. Based on what I read, I also think the study might have been a bit rushed.

I'll respond to the more important stuff when I return from work this afternoon. On the last though, I think you still owe me rep!

I conceded the methodology weaknesses from the beginning. I don't think they were a result of 'rush' as much as controlling variables, nearly impossible with the topic. It would take many studies of one variable at a time. If the variables could all be identified, then tested, the summation would still be concentrated on the color of the horse that had once again changed colors.