PDA

View Full Version : Israel has ally in Iran attack!!



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2012, 10:09 AM
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/01/14165312-reuters-sources-azerbaijan-explores-aiding-israel-against-iran?lite

Reuters sources: Azerbaijan explores aiding Israel against IranBy Thomas Grove, Reuters
BAKU, Azerbaijan -- Israel's "go-it-alone" option to attack Iran's nuclear sites has set the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a U.S. presidential election campaign.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a "red line" for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large and distant enemy.

But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?

Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran's far northern border, has, say local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range attack.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A far cry from the massive support America should be giving Israel but every little bit helps. Obama has abandoned our Alliance with Israel but dares not openly announce it because of the coming election and the desperate need for every single vote he can get.-Tyr

Dilloduck
10-01-2012, 11:29 AM
It's gotta be a trick. 95% of the people there are Muslims.

jafar00
10-01-2012, 04:43 PM
It's gotta be a trick. 95% of the people there are Muslims.

Even more strange. Although it's an officially secular country, most of them are Shia. Israel must be paying them a hefty sum (of US taxpayer $) for them to go against Iran.

Voted4Reagan
10-01-2012, 05:41 PM
or maybe they dont want a NUCLEAR IRAN on their Southern Border....

Dilloduck
10-01-2012, 05:56 PM
They already have a nuclear Pakistan. What difference does it make. and besides THEY ARE MUSLIM. Israel trust MUSLIMS ?? :laugh2:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2012, 06:15 PM
They already have a nuclear Pakistan. What difference does it make. and besides THEY ARE MUSLIM. Israel trust MUSLIMS ?? :laugh2:

Maybe they understand all to well what a nuked Iran would be, maybe they arent keen on a rebirthed Persian Empire. Maybe they do not think a nuke blasted Israel will turn out well when Israel sends a few nukes back in return. Radioactive fallout in the region not being a welcomed thing..-Tyr

Drummond
10-01-2012, 07:02 PM
'Strange', Dilloduck, that for someone who doesn't want the US to make great efforts to support Israel, you also deride anyone else who may, possibly, aid them instead ... ?

Anyone would think that your real motivation was to resist the idea of ANYONE helping Israel when she needs it (.. surely not ?) ...

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2012, 07:04 PM
'Strange', Dilloduck, that for someone who doesn't want the US to make great efforts to support Israel, you also deride anyone else who may, possibly, aid them instead ... ?

Anyone would think that your real motivation was to resist the idea of ANYONE helping Israel when she needs it (.. surely not ?) ...

Methinks Dillo does not like Jews... sshhhh dont tell anybody..-;)--Tyr

Drummond
10-01-2012, 07:09 PM
Methinks Dillo does not like Jews... sshhhh dont tell anybody..-;)--Tyr

... why, the very idea ... !!! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh::coffee:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2012, 07:22 PM
... why, the very idea ... !!! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh::coffee:

Shocking ain't it. We have several here that practice their duplicity as if every person here is too dumb to ever see it.. I find that entertaining and often funny as hell myself.-Tyr

jafar00
10-01-2012, 08:50 PM
or maybe they dont want a NUCLEAR IRAN on their Southern Border....

Actually that would be a good thing for them. They are both Shia. Iran would be on their side.

Dilloduck
10-01-2012, 09:51 PM
Methinks Dillo does not like Jews... sshhhh dont tell anybody..-;)--Tyr

omg--I shoulda known you'd resort to the old anti-semitic bromide. Wanna get me on hate speech too ?:laugh2:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-02-2012, 07:15 AM
omg--I shoulda known you'd resort to the old anti-semitic bromide. Wanna get me on hate speech too ?:laugh2:

You must feel guilty bro'.. I was careful not to use the word -hate-- instead to use the term -does not like-- a huge difference between the two. For example , I do not like a thief while I dearly hate a child molester. I've found no evidence that leads me to confidently call you an anti-semite . A simple lesson in the meanings of words, hope it helped ya . -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-03-2012, 08:30 AM
Actually that would be a good thing for them. They are both Shia. Iran would be on their side.

When and if you ever wake up and smell the coffee you'll find that Iran is only on the side of Iran. Iran plans on being the top dog . By the way , Iran plans on nuking Israel ,in case you missed that little tidbit.-;)-Tyr

Dilloduck
10-03-2012, 10:52 AM
and the Allies planned to invade France at Calais.

Drummond
10-03-2012, 11:57 AM
and the Allies planned to invade France at Calais.

Actually, Dilloduck, the Germans discovered differently, back in 1944 !!

Hasn't this news reached you yet ? :laugh2::lol:

jafar00
10-03-2012, 08:04 PM
When and if you ever wake up and smell the coffee you'll find that Iran is only on the side of Iran. Iran plans on being the top dog . By the way , Iran plans on nuking Israel ,in case you missed that little tidbit.-;)-Tyr

1) Iran doesn't have a nuke
2) There is no evidence of a nuke weapons program
3) Iran only threatened Israel with retaliation

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-03-2012, 08:19 PM
1) Iran doesn't have a nuke

Not yet, but they are close.. Do a google search dude..:laugh:--Tyr




2) There is no evidence of a nuke weapons program

Really, you can not be that gullible.. --Tyr




3) Iran only threatened Israel with retaliation

Sure, retaliation that utterly destroys them = nuke! Get real..-Tyr

Dilloduck
10-03-2012, 08:24 PM
Actually, Dilloduck, the Germans discovered differently, back in 1944 !!

Hasn't this news reached you yet ? :laugh2::lol:

no-It's still true. They had plans to attack at Calais-----swear to God. Check it out--learn something.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-04-2012, 09:07 AM
no-It's still true. They had plans to attack at Calais-----swear to God. Check it out--learn something.


You learn something . ok.




Operation Fortitude<!-- /firstHeading --><!-- bodyContent --><!-- tagline -->From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<!-- /tagline --><!-- subtitle -->
<!-- /subtitle --><!-- jumpto -->Jump to: navigation (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#mw-head), search (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#p-search)
<!-- /jumpto --><!-- bodycontent -->






<TBODY>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png

This article needs additional citations (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations) for verification (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Please help improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Fortitude&action=edit) by adding citations to reliable sources (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). Unsourced material may be challenged (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Template:Citation_needed) and removed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence). <SMALL>(January 2011)</SMALL>

</TBODY>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/DummyShermanTank.jpg/300px-DummyShermanTank.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/File:DummyShermanTank.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf12/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/File:DummyShermanTank.jpg)
An inflatable dummy tank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Dummy_tank), modelled after the M4 Sherman (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/M4_Sherman).


Operation Fortitude was the codename for a World War II (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/World_War_II) military deception (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Military_deception) employed by the Allied nations as part of an overall deception strategy (code named Bodyguard (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard)) during the build-up to the 1944 Normandy landings (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Normandy_landings). Fortitude was divided into two sections, North and South, with the aim of misleading the German high command as to the location of the imminent invasion.
Both Fortitude plans involved the creation of fake field armies (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Field_armies) (based in Edinburgh and the south of England) which threatened Norway (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Norway) (Fortitude North) and Pas de Calais (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Pas_de_Calais) (Fortitude South). The operation was intended to divert Axis attention away from Normandy and, after the invasion on June 6, 1944, to delay reinforcement by convincing the Germans that the landings were purely a diversionary attack.
The operation was one of the most successful military deceptions employed during the war and, arguably, the most important.

Dilloduck
10-04-2012, 09:14 AM
Jesus Christ---quit underestimating your opponent. I was the one who brought this "plan" up remember ?

Gaffer
10-04-2012, 10:03 AM
You learn something . ok.




Operation Fortitude

<!-- /firstHeading --><!-- bodyContent --><!-- tagline -->From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<!-- /tagline --><!-- subtitle -->
<!-- /subtitle --><!-- jumpto -->Jump to: navigation (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#mw-head), search (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#p-search)
<!-- /jumpto --><!-- bodycontent -->






<tbody>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
This article needs additional citations (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations) for verification (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Please help improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Fortitude&action=edit) by adding citations to reliable sources (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). Unsourced material may be challenged (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Template:Citation_needed) and removed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence). <small>(January 2011)</small>

</tbody>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/DummyShermanTank.jpg/300px-DummyShermanTank.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/File:DummyShermanTank.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf12/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/File:DummyShermanTank.jpg)
An inflatable dummy tank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Dummy_tank), modelled after the M4 Sherman (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/M4_Sherman).


Operation Fortitude was the codename for a World War II (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/World_War_II) military deception (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Military_deception) employed by the Allied nations as part of an overall deception strategy (code named Bodyguard (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard)) during the build-up to the 1944 Normandy landings (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Normandy_landings). Fortitude was divided into two sections, North and South, with the aim of misleading the German high command as to the location of the imminent invasion.
Both Fortitude plans involved the creation of fake field armies (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Field_armies) (based in Edinburgh and the south of England) which threatened Norway (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Norway) (Fortitude North) and Pas de Calais (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Pas_de_Calais) (Fortitude South). The operation was intended to divert Axis attention away from Normandy and, after the invasion on June 6, 1944, to delay reinforcement by convincing the Germans that the landings were purely a diversionary attack.
The operation was one of the most successful military deceptions employed during the war and, arguably, the most important.

The operation was headed by Patton who the Germans expected to lead the invasion. He sat poised with his paper army and rubber tanks, his punishment for the slapping incident. And then there was the body carrying plans for the invasion that was planted in the channel for he Germans to pick up. All a very elaborate deception.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-04-2012, 07:04 PM
Hand-in-hand with the tricky art of large scale camouflage goes wholesale deception of the enemy with dummy tanks and guns, fake towns and wharves and railways. Even non-existent fighter pilots have done their bit. Efforts of the “deception officer” specialist in make believe, can have rich and sometimes spectacular results...

One of the most ingenious tricks of the war, resulting in two fighter planes being shot down by a "ghost" pilot, was revealed in the official story of the air battles of Malta. It was in April 1942, when the Luftwaffe in strength was making its most determined efforts to finish off that "unsinkable aircraft-carrier." Ammunition and planes were short. Sometimes the handful of planes went up without ammunition and bluffed the Messerschmitts, which showed great respect for the few Spitfires and never knew whether these were armed or not.

One day German bombers came over with a fighter escort when no British planes could be sent up. Group Captain A. B. Woodhall, in charge of the Operations Room, had a happy inspiration. He created an imaginary "Pilot Officer Humgufery" and started giving him orders over the radio. The orders were "received" by a Canadian pilot with an unmistakable voice who happened to be in the Operations Room at the time. He replied in the name of Humgufery as if he were in the air.

The Germans intercepted the messages, and soon came the cry "Achtung! Spitfeuer !" The enemy had picked up the "ghost plane," which presumably they imagined was above them and coming out of the sun. Just what they thought we shall probably never know, but their confusion was such that they proceeded to shoot down two of their Messerschmitts. Those two planes were credited to the imaginary "Pilot Officer Humgufery."
:laugh::laugh:--Tyr

jimnyc
10-04-2012, 08:33 PM
1) Iran doesn't have a nuke
2) There is no evidence of a nuke weapons program
3) Iran only threatened Israel with retaliation

I'm curious how you know this definitively? Has Iran given you secret access to facilities, like in Parchin, where they won't allow investigators to go? The more they claim they will allow access, the more they deny access, the more they are stalling. And when they allow inspectors into one area, they deny access to another. Then the struggle to get to that other one begins, and when they finally get in, they deny access to others. So while I will concede I haven't seen concrete proof of a weapon yet, YOU can't definitively say they don't. Furthermore, Achminishithead the animal just claimed at the UN that Israel will be eliminated, not in response to anything, he claimed this unprovoked. You claim to dislike Iran, the Shia's, the Khomeini and all the other garbage over there - but you'll defend them to the death if it's against Jews!! Probably why there's thousands of videos on the internet of children from 3-10 years old talking about their hatred of Jews. It's taught at a young age and made a way of life. Support ANY enemy before the Jews, right, Jafar? Well, at least the world doesn't see ANIMALS rioting, killing, abusing and maiming people on almost a daily basis as they do see in so many Islamic countries. I think I'll lend my support to the civilized nation, the one not chanting "death to america" "to hell with freedom" and teaching 8 year olds, like in your country of Australia, to wish for jihad and uprisings and how it's never too young. Brainwash them, poor kids never had a chance.

jafar00
10-05-2012, 01:40 AM
I've said it before. Until someone presents evidence to the contrary, I will believe that Iran doesn't have a nuke weapons program. I simply refuse to make false accusations based purely on not liking someone very much.

jimnyc
10-05-2012, 07:04 AM
I've said it before. Until someone presents evidence to the contrary, I will believe that Iran doesn't have a nuke weapons program. I simply refuse to make false accusations based purely on not liking someone very much.

Sure, and they never threaten first either right? These Muslim animals are making these statements in an unprovoked manner. It's one thing for a country to proclaim they would like to go into another to take out their nuclear capabilities - but absolute filth is what talks about destroying an entire country. And you continually defend them. And I see you can't even respond to what Islam teaches children, even in your home country.


Top Iranian Official: Iran Needs “24 Hours And An Excuse” To Annihilate Israel
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — A top Iranian official says that Iran will be able to annihilate Israel within a day.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Hojjat al-Eslam Ali Shirazi, representative to Iran’s Qods Force for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claims that all they need is “24 hours and an excuse” to attack the Jewish state.

“If such a war does happen, it would not be a long war, and it would benefit the entire Islamic umma [the global community of Muslims],” Shirazi said, according to the Post. “We have expertise in fighting wars of attrition and Israel cannot fight a war of attrition.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/04/top-iranian-official-iran-needs-24-hours-and-an-excuse-to-annihilate-israel/

jimnyc
10-05-2012, 07:09 AM
I've said it before. Until someone presents evidence to the contrary, I will believe that Iran doesn't have a nuke weapons program. I simply refuse to make false accusations based purely on not liking someone very much.

Also, why would Iran have nuclear detonators if not used for a potential bomb? You certainly don't need them for peaceful reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9130082/Iran-trying-to-remove-evidence-that-it-tested-detonators-for-nuclear-weapons.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iaea-says-foreign-expertise-has-brought-iran-to-threshold-of-nuclear-capability/2011/11/05/gIQAc6hjtM_story.html
http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/2351
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/iran-tested-nuclear-bomb-detonator-sueddeutsche-zeitung-reports.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059462/UN-report-Iran-IS-trying-build-nuclear-bomb-warns-William-Hague.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc4_1331185567

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-05-2012, 08:29 AM
Also, why would Iran have nuclear detonators if not used for a potential bomb? You certainly don't need them for peaceful reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9130082/Iran-trying-to-remove-evidence-that-it-tested-detonators-for-nuclear-weapons.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iaea-says-foreign-expertise-has-brought-iran-to-threshold-of-nuclear-capability/2011/11/05/gIQAc6hjtM_story.html
http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/2351
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/iran-tested-nuclear-bomb-detonator-sueddeutsche-zeitung-reports.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059462/UN-report-Iran-IS-trying-build-nuclear-bomb-warns-William-Hague.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc4_1331185567

^^^ I got to see what spin Jafar attempts to put on this. :laugh:

jimnyc
10-05-2012, 08:46 AM
^^^ I got to see what spin Jafar attempts to put on this. :laugh:

Probably no spin, he'll just deny it, like he denies everything else negative about Islam.