Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel

12 Responses to “Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel”

1. Mark on October 30th, 2007 1:09 pm

   Yeah, I always figured that even if Iran does get a bomb they would not use it. It would be certain doom for them if they did. However, what I am worried about is that with a bomb Iran might get more “adventurous”, figuring that no one can take serious action against them because they have the bomb.

2. Roman Kalik on October 30th, 2007 1:36 pm

   *shrug* Tzipi and Ehud hate each other, because Tzipi and Ehud both have super-huge egos and can’t quite get this “working together” idea.

   Thus, Tzipi leaks that Olmert is a big bad person, along with a document trying to show how clever Tzipi is.

   This is known as politics.

3. Danial on October 30th, 2007 10:09 pm

   At least she makes sense.

4. Drima on October 30th, 2007 11:45 pm

   If the Iranian regime didn’t have crazy religious apocalyptic fundies, no big biggie I guess. But it’s not only about Iran actually *using* the bombs. It’s also about them possibly providing a dirty or small one to a terrorist organization overseas.

   Oh and Roman, what about this:

   “Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran”

   ??

5. Roman Kalik on October 31st, 2007 4:10 am

   I read that article with Halevy. I can somewhat understand his position, but he came across in such an arrogant and self-certain manner that I think that he didn’t see this seriously enough. His view is something between realpolitik (Iran was an ally once, leave them a chance to become our ally again in the future), self-certain stupidity (nothing will destroy us, and a nuke hitting Tel-Aviv isn’t that bad - regardless of any WWII evidence that says otherwise), and a rather dismissive view of Iran’s government and capabilities.

6. Roman Kalik on October 31st, 2007 4:18 am

   Here’s the article I read about what Ephraim Halevy said: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3461175,00.html

7. Jerry on November 1st, 2007 6:23 am

   The problem with Iran having a nuclear weapon is that all other Middle East countries would be forced to either obtain analogous nuclear weapons or develop agreements with partners who have these arms for “protection”. There would be NO CONTROLS for anyone. Sooner and not later terrorists organizations would have access to a dirty bomb as well. It’s an easy escalation from a suicide bomber to a suicide dirty bomber. Israel would be eliminated with just two or three detonations. What about Iran’s ventures to Bahrain or UAE which have large Shiite population? Wouldn’t nuclear weapons provide a shield for Iranian expansion into these oil rich countries?

8. Danial on November 2nd, 2007 2:24 pm

   If the Iranian regime didn’t have crazy religious apocalyptic fundies, no big biggie I guess. But it’s not only about Iran actually *using* the bombs. It’s also about them possibly providing a dirty or small one to a terrorist organization overseas.

   Drima, are you trying to say that Iran would give nukes to al-Qaeda? *confused

9. Andrew Brehm on November 2nd, 2007 2:41 pm

   “Drima, are you trying to say that Iran would give nukes to al-Qaeda?”

   It wouldn’t have to be (Wahabi/Sunni) Al-Qaeda. There are enough terrorist groups to choose from.

   I would guess they would give those weapons to Hizbullah, and they might just be stupid enough to use them against Israel.

   I predict this:

   If the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is destroyed, it will have been destroyed by (self-proclaimed) Muslims.

   The Romans tried to destroy Jerusalem, Iran might actually succeed. Afterall, Khomeini and his evil henchmen have already destroyed the Persian Empire. Destroying the Holy Mosque on the Temple Mount will mean NOTHING to them.

   The Persian Empire was staunchly monotheist and tolerant for thousands of years, first Zoroastrian and then Islamic. They always believed in G-d. Until the end when G-d was replaced by Khomeini worship.

   The Arab Palestinians might die celebrating. It doesn’t seem to me that they have understood what it means for Sunnis if Iran has nuclear weapons. They’ll die with Jerusalem and Israel. And the Jews will die FOR Jerusalem and Israel.

   Even Saudi Arabia has understood that Iran is a threat. And in contrast to Saudi Arabia, who stole the two holy cities from their rightful ruler, Iran is not trying to steal Jerusalem from the Jews, Iran is trying to destroy it, in the name of their “god”, who is not Allah but Khomeini.

   If Khomeinis evil henchmen took the Qur’an seriously, they would know that the Jews are supposed to live in Israel and Jerusalem.

   But Khomeinis followers only take seriously Khomeini. They engage in idolatry. That’s why they buy Israel-made printers to create huge posters of their evil leaders.

   A follower of the Qur’an does not need a picture of a bearded guy to know his way.

10. Danial on November 3rd, 2007 4:21 am

    “The Persian Empire was staunchly monotheist and tolerant for thousands of years, first Zoroastrian and then Islamic. They always believed in G-d. Until the end when G-d was replaced by Khomeini worship.”

    lol if you ask hardcore Sunnis about the Persian Empire being tolerant, they will be quick to bring up the alleged “Shi’a Inquisition” that was the result of the Safavids and how the Persian Sunnis were “forcibly” converted to Shi’ism.

11. Andrew Brehm on November 3rd, 2007 8:52 pm

    http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/imamah/turbulent-history-of-imamah

    Danial, Sunnis and Shi’ites have the problem that the two regard each other as heretics. I do not know nearly enough about Islam and the Qur’an to have an opinion on which group is right. (I do reject other groups on account of what I do know.)

    Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, and Yezidis all believe in Allah and, according to Islam, follow a wrong path. But their “mistakes” were made before Muhammed came to correct them. The mistakes and misintepretations Sunnis and Shi’ites see in the respective other group happened after Muhammed. Hence Islamic tolerance as dictated by the Qur’an does only apply to pre-Islamic true religions (like Judaism) but not to post-Muhammed heresies. Knowing the best truth available before the last prophet came and insisting on following it is acceptable. Knowing the final truth and changing it is not.

    Other groups that believe in the same god as Muhammed and Moses but in prophets that came after Muhammed include the Druze, the Alawites (who might or might not be Shi’ites), the Alavis (in Turkey), the Bahai’i, and the Mormons.

    The Hindus are more difficult to classify as their religion is either monotheistic (one god with many faces) or not. In the second case their faith would be wrong according to Islam. In the first case it is debatable.

    Atheism is probably better than believing in idols. Rejecting Allah is not idolatry, believing that the weird rituals of, for example, Scientology, have true value is.

12. Andrew Brehm on November 3rd, 2007 9:00 pm

    Good article about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite beliefs:

    http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2244

Leave a Reply