Netanyahu says 9 chilling words as Iran's president vows to completely destroy Israel

[Gunny]

If Raisi doesn't want the situation to escalate, shutting the f- up would go a long way toward that.

Just my opinion, but I think Iran already has a nuclear weapon or two. Not enough to play on the World stage (yet, since no one's stopping them), but enough to destroy a tiny plot of land like Israel. Sure are acting balsy all of a sudden. Add Waffling Joe to the mix ...

Netanyahu says 9 chilling words as Iran's president vows to completely destroy Israel (msn.com)

[Kathianne]

If Raisi doesn't want the situation to escalate, shutting the f- up would go a long way toward that.

Just my opinion, but I think Iran already has a nuclear weapon or two. Not enough to play on the World stage (yet, since no one's stopping them), but enough to destroy a tiny plot of land like Israel. Sure are acting balsy all of a sudden. Add Waffling Joe to the mix ...

Netanyahu says 9 chilling words as Iran's president vows to completely destroy Israel (msn.com)

Isreal has a few of those weapons it is thought. 😆
They have little recourse if pushed to choose. Oh

[Gunny]

Isreal has a few of those weapons it is thought. 😆
They have little recourse if pushed to choose. Oh

If Israel's response is to nuke Iran, I'll get over it. Likely within the minute. My concern with this "response" it will be just another tit-for-tat that accomplishes nothing real more than ego-driven, obligatory response. Which is exactly what Iran's attack was.

While hard-liners "must save face", they appear to be overlooking a rather shaky coalition of Arab States that came together in Israel's defense and fall apart just as fast. As it is, it has been suggested and makes sense to me, that Iran fomented the Hamas attack on Israel to disrupt any military agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those talks got called off once Israel invaded Gaza. Jordan has been harshly critical of Israel's handling of Gaza but still came to its aid.

It isn't that I care about Iran one whit. It's that IMO Israel has more to lose by retaliating to a strike that did very little damage to anything more than ego than it's worth.

[Black Diamond]

If Israel's response is to nuke Iran, I'll get over it. Likely within the minute. My concern with this "response" it will be just another tit-for-tat that accomplishes nothing real more than ego-driven, obligatory response. Which is exactly what Iran's attack was.

While hard-liners "must save face", they appear to be overlooking a rather shaky coalition of Arab States that came together in Israel's defense and fall apart just as fast. As it is, it has been suggested and makes sense to me, that Iran fomented the Hamas attack on Israel to disrupt any military agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those talks got called off once Israel invaded Gaza. Jordan has been harshly critical of Israel's handling of Gaza but still came to its aid.

It isn't that I care about Iran one whit. It's that IMO Israel has more to lose by retaliating to a strike that did very little damage to anything more than ego than it's worth.

Im curious as to whether it would really turn it into glass.

[revelarts]

somethings to think about.. if you don't mind hearing a different view

[revelarts]

BTW didn't Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also help mislead us into war with Iraq?
Saying that Saddam had nuke weapons & facilities etc..
And like Lindsey Graham and other Neo-Cons, have been trying to egg the U.S. into war with Iran for like 20+ years?

I wonder how many Israelis died in Iraq and how much Israeli money was spent on Iraq compared to the U.S.?

[Gunny]

BTW didn't Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also help mislead us into war with Iraq?
Saying that Saddam had nuke weapons & facilities etc..
And like Lindsey Graham and other Neo-Cons, have been trying to egg the U.S. into war with Iran for like 20+ years?

I wonder how many Israelis died in Iraq and how much Israeli money was spent on Iraq compared to the U.S.?

You're not matching up your stories. Just using the ones that support your current rant.

Again (ad nauseum): One of your biggest bitches about Ukraine is that there are bio facilities with Western nation oversight and involvement that you lay all on the CIA; while,

You constantly rant there were no WMDs in Iraq when it is documented fact we sold the precursors to chemical weapons as "dual use" and the CIA helped Iraqi chemists refine the mustard gas it was using on Iran. Then there's the fact the Operation Northern and Southern Watch were the result of Saddam attacking Kurds with chemical weapons.

So your fast and loose gripe about the bio labs in Ukraine is gospel but the fact the same dastardly, evil CIA was involved in the Iran-Iraq War and the chemical weapons used is not, as either/or suits your "the US is the bad guy no matter what" narrative.

Seriously ...

[fj1200]

Im curious as to whether it would really turn it into glass.

No chance. At least not first. My only caveat would be to use one as a bunker buster.

[revelarts]

You're not matching up your stories. Just using the ones that support your current rant.

Again (ad nauseum): One of your biggest bitches about Ukraine is that there are bio facilities with Western nation oversight and involvement that you lay all on the CIA; while,

You constantly rant there were no WMDs in Iraq when it is documented fact we sold the precursors to chemical weapons as "dual use" and the CIA helped Iraqi chemists refine the mustard gas it was using on Iran. Then there's the fact the Operation Northern and Southern Watch were the result of Saddam attacking Kurds with chemical weapons.

So your fast and loose gripe about the bio labs in Ukraine is gospel but the fact the same dastardly, evil CIA was involved in the Iran-Iraq War and the chemical weapons used is not, as either/or suits your "the US is the bad guy no matter what" narrative.

Seriously ...

Yes, Ukraine had/has Bio-weapons facilities controlled by the U.S..
So maybe we should attack Ukraine? maybe?

OK you're right, Yes, Ukraine had/has Bio-weapons facilities controlled by the U.S..
And Yes the U.S. CIA, Pentagon, State Dept sold Saddam Chemical Weapons. But here's the thing, as you say, we have the DATED Receipts.
We also have the dated receipts of what had been destroyed since the Iran-Iraq war. Lt (Or Col?) Doug Rokke, Medical Chemical weapons specialist, has the receipts for destroying many of them after Gulf War 1 under Bush senior. And he and many of his team fell sick from doing the job. Chemical weapons and Depleted Uranium waste. Along with the train of U.S. & UN wepons inspectors.
The remaining items, based on the dates of purchase, had long expired their useful life by gulf war II. And a handful of those expired canisters were found during the war. But there were no major chemical or nuclear WMDs found. Which both Bush & Blair admitted after the fact, while claiming it was an intel mistake. "oopps!"
But several whistle blowers from the pentagon and the intel community testify to the FACT that the Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair crew all KNEW there weren't any WMDs to speak of. Colin Powell said it himself in 2001 at one point. But sometime after 911 it seems he got on board with the train of lies about WMDs, mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubes, mobile Anthrax units etc etc.
Like the network of fantasy Afghanistan caves diagrams, the WMD info we were fed was propaganda to lead us into war.


so anyway, I do try to be consistent with my understanding of the facts.

Saddam did NOT have any WMDs to be concerned about. Or any ongoing nuke program.
Plus he never attacked the U.S.. It was an illegal BS "Bush Doctrine" of Preemptive war. You know, like Hitler, make up excuses & attack nations before they think about attacking you.

But we don't want to rehash all that again do we?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...h+intelligence

And we don't want to forget (or white wash) history, so we dont repeat it.

[Black Diamond]

No chance. At least not first. My only caveat would be to use one as a bunker buster.

Tactical?

[fj1200]

Tactical?

And they better have irrefutable evidence.

[Kathianne]

I'm hoping that Israel did the right thing, sort of a 'we can hit you wherever we want, with drones. Imagine if it were manned?' Iran too, 'Hey, nothing happened, just our air defenses. No harm, no foul."

Hope it's the end for now between these two directly.

[Black Diamond]

And they better have irrefutable evidence.

Not sure we'd see irrefutable evidence even if it's there.

[Kathianne]

Sums up my thinking:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024...trike-n3786820

Iran: An Israeli Strike? What Strike? Hamas: Come on, Man!ED MORRISSEY 11:20 AM | April 19, 2024



Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP
Message delivered. Message received? It certainly appears that way ... for now.


Last night, Israel defied Joe Biden's "Don't II: Craven Boogaloo" advice and hit an airbase near Isfahan, as Jazz wrote a short time ago. Initial reports made it appear that Israel had opted for the nuclear option, as in 'hitting all the identified nuclear sites in Iran.' Instead, Israel opted for a 'proof of concept' model, demonstrating that they could penetrate Iranian air defenses at will.


That demonstration has apparently convinced the Iranians to back down. Not only are they signaling that they won't respond, they're claiming that the Israelis weren't there in the first place:


Iranian media and officials described a small number of explosions, which they said resulted from Iran's air defenses hitting three drones over the city of Isfahan. Notably, they referred to the incident as an attack by "infiltrators," rather than by Israel, obviating the need for retaliation.


An Iranian official told Reuters there were no plans to respond against Israel for the incident.


"The foreign source of the incident has not been confirmed. We have not received any external attack, and the discussion leans more towards infiltration than attack," the official said.


Uh ... sure, pal. Even if that were the case, it would be a humiliation to the mullahs. They launched well over 300 missiles and drones in their first-ever attack on Israel and only a handful made it through regional defenses, doing minimal damage. A couple of "infiltrators" managed to surprise Iran badly enough to damage their key air base and frighten the regime enough to ground all air traffic?


Well ... that's better than admitting that they're vulnerable to even a casual Israeli military attack. But even if they're not admitting it, they certainly know it now -- and know how bad it could have been:


Sources have confirmed to the Jerusalem Post that the attack on Iran at Isfahan, attributed by sources in the New York Times to Israel, hit Iranian air force assets at Isfahan, almost right next door to the Islamic Republic's nuclear site in the same area.


The message was unmistakable, 'we chose not to hit your nuclear sites this time, but we could have done worse right here,' sources told the Post.


In other words, the attack at Isfahan was designed not only to hurt Iran but also to make it eminently clear how vulnerable to attack its nuclear sites are.


Long-range missiles from aircraft were used to avoid Tehran's radar detection capabilities.


Did the Iranians miss the aircraft in targeting range of Isfahan, which is almost at the dead center of their country? Hmmm.


Of course, they can afford to present the 'infiltrator' narrative because the small scale of this 'proof of concept' attack makes that possible. If Israel had chosen a large-scale attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and military infrastructure, there would have been no hiding it, not even in a tightly controlled society like Iran. And given the current mood of the suffering Iranians, it would not have likely produced a patriotic rally effect for the mullahs, but demands to overthrow the regime before they start a war that would kill many of them.


Better to run with the "infiltrators" excuse than to admit that the IRGC isn't omnipotent. That narrative allows Iran to back out of this staredown with Israel without losing too much face. It might even give them a pretext to roll up dissenters as part of the supposed "infiltration."


But what this also means is that Iran will go back to its previous doctrine: using proxies rather than challenging Israel directly. The next attempt to do the latter will get met with a much less limited response, and the mullahs know it. Given the quality of Israeli intelligence targeting IRGC commanders working with their proxies, the Iranians will probably pull back that level of coordination for a while, too.


That won't be good news for Hamas and Hezbollah, groups currently tangling with Israel and not faring well for it in either theater. Hezbollah isn't faring as badly as Hamas, however, who are desperate for some way to force Israel into retreat. They're so desperate that they are contradicting the mullahs' narrative, calling the Israeli strikes an "escalation" -- the very word that the Iranians are trying to avoid today:


Israel’s “aggression” on Iran is an escalation against the region, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri tells Reuters amid reports of an Israeli drone strike at an Iranian military site.


Ixnay on the escalation-ay, Tehran may be saying at this point, but Hamas needs that threat of escalation to survive.


Don't be surprised if Hamas suddenly tries to signal small concessions in the cease-fire talks to stall a little more. But that ploy has just about exhausted itself, too. This week, Qatar openly threatened to end its mediation over stall tactics; while they didn't identify the party employing them, no one really doubts who they mean. The Iranian attack was meant to break that deadlock in Hamas' favor, but that tactic has actually backfired, leaving Hamas in worse position than ever.


If Israel has put Iran back in its box for the duration of this war, then no one will be riding to Hamas' rescue in Rafah. And if Israel ignored Joe Biden on rolling the dice with Tehran, then Biden's leverage with Israel is all but tapped out, especially in relation to Hamas and Rafah.


The Israelis now have a clear path to finish off Hamas; let's see if they take it.

[Gunny]

Yes, Ukraine had/has Bio-weapons facilities controlled by the U.S..
So maybe we should attack Ukraine? maybe?

OK you're right, Yes, Ukraine had/has Bio-weapons facilities controlled by the U.S..
And Yes the U.S. CIA, Pentagon, State Dept sold Saddam Chemical Weapons. But here's the thing, as you say, we have the DATED Receipts.
We also have the dated receipts of what had been destroyed since the Iran-Iraq war. Lt (Or Col?) Doug Rokke, Medical Chemical weapons specialist, has the receipts for destroying many of them after Gulf War 1 under Bush senior. And he and many of his team fell sick from doing the job. Chemical weapons and Depleted Uranium waste. Along with the train of U.S. & UN wepons inspectors.
The remaining items, based on the dates of purchase, had long expired their useful life by gulf war II. And a handful of those expired canisters were found during the war. But there were no major chemical or nuclear WMDs found. Which both Bush & Blair admitted after the fact, while claiming it was an intel mistake. "oopps!"
But several whistle blowers from the pentagon and the intel community testify to the FACT that the Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair crew all KNEW there weren't any WMDs to speak of. Colin Powell said it himself in 2001 at one point. But sometime after 911 it seems he got on board with the train of lies about WMDs, mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubes, mobile Anthrax units etc etc.
Like the network of fantasy Afghanistan caves diagrams, the WMD info we were fed was propaganda to lead us into war.


so anyway, I do try to be consistent with my understanding of the facts.

Saddam did NOT have any WMDs to be concerned about. Or any ongoing nuke program.
Plus he never attacked the U.S.. It was an illegal BS "Bush Doctrine" of Preemptive war. You know, like Hitler, make up excuses & attack nations before they think about attacking you.

But we don't want to rehash all that again do we?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...h+intelligence

And we don't want to forget (or white wash) history, so we dont repeat it.

Hogwash.

Viral social media posts: The Pentagon "finally comes clean" and "admits...that there are 46 U.S. military-funded biolabs in Ukraine"
PolitiFact's ruling: False
Here's why: The Pentagon released a new fact sheet about the government’s efforts to lessen the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine, Russia and other former Soviet countries — and internet conspiracy theorists took off running.
While the document largely repeats information about the programs’ accomplishments and efforts over the last several years, that didn’t stop some internet users from claiming that it contained a bombshell admission.
"US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine," a June 12 Gateway Pundit headline read.

US asked to explain after Pentagon admits to operating 46 biolabs in Ukraine after months of denial," read another June 12 headline by the Morning Star, a socialist newspaper published in Great Britain.
But these are mischaracterizations. The document doesn’t contain any evidence — new or otherwise — of U.S. biolabs in Ukraine.
The 46 facilities referenced in the articles and in the government’s fact sheet are owned and operated by Ukraine, and information about the facilities’ existence has been made publicly available by the Pentagon for some time.

The stories were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.
When Russia first invaded Ukraine in February, false claims took hold online that Russian President Vladimir Putin was targeting the country over its alleged abundance of U.S.-run biological weapons laboratories. At one point, the claims took on a new twist as some alleged that President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, had funded the supposed labs.


But fabricated stories from Russia proclaiming bioweapon use by the U.S. aren’t new, and allegations of a network of such labs along Russia’s border were shared in its state-run media before the invasion.
PolitiFact reached out to the Pentagon for comment but did not hear back.

The Pentagon’s program

Since 2005, the U.S. has partnered with Ukraine through the Pentagon’s Biological Threat Reduction Program. The purpose is "to support peaceful and safe biological detection and diagnostic capabilities and to reduce the threats posed by pathogens," according to a March 2022 government fact sheet.
Andy Weber, a member of the Arms Control Association Board of Directors and a former assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, previously told us there are no U.S. military-run labs in Ukraine but rather health labs to help detect, prevent and mitigate infectious disease.
The Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program "has provided technical support to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health since 2005 to improve public health laboratories, whose mission is analogous to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," Weber said.

Also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, the initiative began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 as a project aimed at dismantling and securing leftover weapons of mass destruction programs in former Soviet countries.
The facilities in Ukraine

The Pentagon hasn’t said anything new about the 46 facilities — we reported about them in April. In fact, the June 9 release at the center of these claims specifically states that Ukraine "has no nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs."
With regard to the 46 facilities, the government fact sheet said the U.S. has:
"Worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health, providing support to 46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades. The collaborative programs have focused on improving public health and agricultural safety measures at the nexus of nonproliferation."

In March, the Pentagon said much of the same, adding that the program has invested about $200 million in Ukraine, "supporting 46 laboratories, health facilities and diagnostic sites" and that it has "improved Ukraine’s biological safety, security and surveillance for both human and animal health."
More:Fact-check: Was Joe Biden a full professor for four years?
While the U.S. is providing support for Ukraine, the labs are owned and operated by the Ukrainian government, Robert Pope, director of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Department, previously told PolitiFact.
"Specifically, we make the labs more secure from accidental or intentional release, provide diagnostic equipment, train personnel on the use of the equipment, and train them how to detect potential outbreaks," Pope said. "DTRA not only does this with Ukraine, but also with partners in over 30 countries, at their request, to assist with safe disease detection and diagnosis."
Our ruling

A Gateway Pundit article said, "US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine."

There was no "coming clean" — and the government made no such admission.
The document referenced in the stories repeated known information about 46 Ukrainian-owned and -operated laboratories, health facilities and diagnostic sites that have received support from the U.S. The document specifically states that Ukraine "has no nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs."
We rate this claim False.
Our Sources

• Gateway Pundit, US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine, June 12, 2022
• U.S. Department of Defense, Fact Sheet on WMD Threat Reduction Efforts with Ukraine, Russia and Other Former Soviet Union Countries, June 9, 2022
• PolitiFact, There are no US-run biolabs in Ukraine, contrary to social media posts, Feb. 25, 2022
• PolitiFact, The facts behind the Russian, right-wing narratives claiming Hunter Biden funded biolabs in Ukraine, April 1, 2022
• PolitiFact, The facts behind the Russian, right-wing narratives claiming Hunter Biden funded biolabs in Ukraine, April 1, 2022
• U.S. Department of Defense, The Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program - Biological Threat Reduction Program Activities in Ukraine, March 11, 2022
• Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Fact Sheet: The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, Accessed June 15, 2022

And Yes the U.S. CIA, Pentagon, State Dept sold Saddam Chemical Weapons. But here's the thing, as you say, we have the DATED Receipts.

You willing to bet YOUR life on it? Of course not. I did. I was in the First Gulf War. I'd loved to have seen your candy ass running around without MOPP gear on telling everyone what-all Sadam doesn't have. And "to speak of" doesn't cut any ice here.

I supported winning the Iraq War because we were in it. I did not agree with invading and/or deposing Saddam. For REAL reasons. I don't need to make any up.