Conflict Between Israel and Iran, a prelude to the 70th week of Daniel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DurbanDude

We are talking about countries here, so the analogy isn't quite perfect. If someone invades your country, like the person who breaks into your house , they are the aggressor and the more dangerous one, because they are the invader.

---

OK, so using your analogy, Israel must wait until an Iranian nuke is inbound before acting?

I'm still not grasping the logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenris

And all those nations calling for the Palestinians to have the right to vote- can their citizens vote? No, of course not.

They want to destroy Israel. "Democracy" is one tool they can use. Have the Palestinians vote Israel out of existence. As one member of Hamas said, "democracy" is like a bus. You ride it until you get to your stop, then you get off it.

---

I think with your focus on the word democracy you missed the main point, they feel the Palestinians right to govern themselves in their own land has been violated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenris

OK, so using your analogy, Israel must wait until an Iranian nuke is inbound before acting?

I'm still not grasping the logic.

---

Yes, you wait for a declaration of war or an act of war, or confirmed evidence of a definitely planned attack before you attack. The alternative is that you are the aggressor creating the war without sufficient evidence. A country should not attack another country because that country does not like its government and wishes its government to cease. That is aggressive and war-mongering. USA has often financed its allies because of a common cause of anti-Communism, however Russia never took that as a direct declaration of war, because it wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DurbanDude

I think with your focus on the word democracy you missed the main point, they feel the Palestinians right to govern themselves in their own land has been violated.

---

OK, so the Iranian government, who holds sham elections, feels that the Palestinians should have real elections? I guess I'm still missing your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DurbanDude

Yes, you wait for a declaration of war or an act of war, or confirmed evidence of a definitely planned attack before you attack. The alternative is that you are the aggressor creating the war without sufficient evidence.

---

You know, it's nice to be far away from such friction. We can hold subtle and enlightened discussions on" who the aggressor is" or "what constitutes sufficient evidence." In a place like Israel they're much more worried about things like nukes falling on their citizens.

I'm going to give you some quotes.

Quote:

---

"Nuclear weapons mustn't be allowed to fall into the hands of Iran's Ayatollah regime... it is the most morally corrupt regime in the world."

"no option should be ruled out in our dealing with the Iranian danger. This is an existential threat."

"It is the duty of the international community to prevent evil and nuclear [weapons] from coming together. That is the obligations of most of the leaders of the free world, one which they must meet,"

---

Who would say things like this? A real "right winger", right? George Bush? Dick Cheney? Maybe Ariel Sharon or Bibi Netanyahu?

Nope.

It's Shimon Peres. A lifelong leftist. One of the architects of the Oslo peace process. He even won a Nobel peace prize.

Why is he using such strong rhetoric against Iran?

Because in Israel, Iranian nukes aren't a left vs right issue. They're an existential issue.

I just saw something today that reminded me of what you said DurbanDude.
Allegedly som Iranian agents or something like that attacked an Israeli diplomat.

There are two versions of this story - one is that what happened was run of the mill intelligence work, and the fact that it was blown up shows that the propaganda war against Iran is being trapped up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RT

Israel has reportedly been mulling a preemptive strike against Iran, which it most recently blamed for the bombings in Tbilisi, New Delhi and Bangkok. Iran maintains its innocence and accuses Israel of trying to damage its relations with Thailand.

---

The other story, obviously is that evil Iranians attacked an innocent Israeli.
But killing Iranian scientists with families to support, for doing their jobs is apparently okay.

RT reported this:

Quote:

---

“The NYPD must assume that New York City could be targeted by Iran or Hezbollah.” Silber writes, saying the Big Apple’s large Jewish population could make it an attractive target. He also noted that Iran already has a history of “spying” in New York, recalling a 2004 incident when two security guards attached to Iran’s UN mission were expelled from the country for “conducting surveillance” of the city’s subways and landmarks. The two men had apparently been taking photos and videos of locations deemed “sensitive” by authorities.

---

Yeah right. And Iraq's non-existant nukes were a serious threat to... London. Really. But after a few years of stories like this, Americans might be ready to support a war in Iran.

I think the USA plans to be in this war, and that it's coming in the next few years unless something happens that throws the US off its course.O

OVER TO YOU, FENRIS!

Heya Hannah. From today's news:

Quote:

---

Three Iranians detained after accidentally setting off explosives in Bangkok were planning to attack Israeli diplomats, Thailand's top policeman said Thursday in the first confirmation by local officials that the group was plotting attacks in Thailand.

---

Obviously the Thai government is in on this anti-Iranian plot. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenris

You know, it's nice to be far away from such friction. We can hold subtle and enlightened discussions on" who the aggressor is" or "what constitutes sufficient evidence." In a place like Israel they're much more worried about things like nukes falling on their citizens.

I'm going to give you some quotes.

Who would say things like this? A real "right winger", right? George Bush? Dick Cheney? Maybe Ariel Sharon or Bibi Netanyahu?

Nope.

It's Shimon Peres. A lifelong leftist. One of the architects of the Oslo peace process. He even won a Nobel peace prize.

Why is he using such strong rhetoric against Iran?

Because in Israel, Iranian nukes aren't a left vs right issue. They're an existential issue.

---

I get you on this, Israelis are scared of Iranian nukes. But to develop a nuclear warhead program is the last line of defense of a country that is vulnerable to invasion by the West, so its a logical defense system from an Iranian point of view. Its necessary. So for the Iranians a nuclear program is absolutely essential to defend itself from the more powerful West, from a Jewish perspective a nuclear armed Iran is absolutely untenable because of their concerns about a sudden attack. Both parties have a clear point of view, but the result is the west will be the aggressor because they are the stronger power and therefore able to win the war. And just like Iraq, they will find reasons to attack that justify themselves. Sure these bombers are Iranians, just like KKK murderers are Americans. But can they be proven to be sent by the Iranian government? I am sure under "interrogation" they will all admit that, and then you will have your strong case for an Iranian invasion. But I believe western media will end up with a lot stronger case than a few Iranians admitting under interrogation that they are agents of the Iranian government. The media campaign is underway and is unstoppable until the invasion occurs, you will end up with all the evidence you need, and maybe in about a year you can point a finger at me and confidently say that its been "proved" that Iran was the obvious aggressor the whole time and deserved what they got. I have no doubts that will be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenris

OK, so the Iranian government, who holds sham elections, feels that the Palestinians should have real elections? I guess I'm still missing your point.

---

You are................

There is a much bigger picture here. Over the course of the last few years the middle east has gone through a sort of Islamic transformation. The failed American invasions of Libya and Iraq have transformed these countries from dictatorships into theocratic governments with a vaneer of democracy. While militarily there may be an appearance of American victory after the American armies pull out the void is quickly filled by these Islamic theocracies. Egypt is the most recent country to dispose of its dictator propped up by the west and "demacratically" elect an Islamic theocratic type of government albeit without American millitary assistance it did have a lot of moral support by the dunderhead president Obama who cluelessly cheered on the "Arab spring". That makes three countries that have disposed of their dictators and instuted sharia complient governments. Back to Iran. As was discussed here on this thread world opinion will notably sour upon the one who does the first strike. Its not the nukes that has folks worried its the INTENT and over the last thirty some odd years since Iran disposed of thier dictator the shaw Iran has been beating on the same distror Isreal drum. Should Iran get a nuke Isreal would cease to exist. As a matter of survival Isreal must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran can use this to its advantage to goad Isreal into a first strike. Even if Iran didnt have a nuclear bomb but put on aires that would lead Isreal to beleave they did and thus causing Isreal to strike first the result would be as such to galvinize support in the muslim world to rally around a multi-Islamic nation colation to distroy Isreal. When Isreal needs America to back her Obama will abandon her. In the eyes of the world Isreal will look to be the bad guy. Such a firefight in the region will cause the Iranians to make the Straights of Hormuz impassable to oil tanker shipping causing oil prices to imediatly to skyrocket. The resulting fall out of ultra high oil prices could crash the fragile economies of the US and EU. Much of the focus of the blame would come to rest upon Isreal. In the wake of such an economic crash in the west would clear the financial field once dominated by the dollar and the euro thus opening up the opprotunity for a global currency. This has the potential of setting into motion two key prophetic events. (1.) Isreal being surrounded on all sides by her enemies as she stands alone to face them and (2.) provides an economic environment for a one world currency and the emergence of the Antichrist. - - - - Dravenhawk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dravenhawk

There is a much bigger picture here. Over the course of the last few years the middle east has gone through a sort of Islamic transformation. The failed American invasions of Libya and Iraq have transformed these countries from dictatorships into theocratic governments with a vaneer of democracy. While militarily there may be an appearance of American victory after the American armies pull out the void is quickly filled by these Islamic theocracies. Egypt is the most recent country to dispose of its dictator propped up by the west and "demacratically" elect an Islamic theocratic type of government albeit without American millitary assistance it did have a lot of moral support by the dunderhead president Obama who cluelessly cheered on the "Arab spring". That makes three countries that have disposed of their dictators and instuted sharia complient governments. Back to Iran. As was discussed here on this thread world opinion will notably sour upon the one who does the first strike. Its not the nukes that has folks worried its the INTENT and over the last thirty some odd years since Iran disposed of thier dictator the shaw Iran has been beating on the same distror Isreal drum. Should Iran get a nuke Isreal would cease to exist. As a matter of survival Isreal must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran can use this to its advantage to goad Isreal into a first strike. Even if Iran didnt have a nuclear bomb but put on aires that would lead Isreal to beleave they did and thus causing Isreal to strike first the result would be as such to galvinize support in the muslim world to rally around a multi-Islamic nation colation to distroy Isreal. When Isreal needs America to back her Obama will abandon her. In the eyes of the world Isreal will look to be the bad guy. Such a firefight in the region will cause the Iranians to make the Straights of Hormuz impassable to oil tanker shipping causing oil prices to imediatly to skyrocket. The resulting fall out of ultra high oil prices could crash the fragile economies of the US and EU. Much of the focus of the blame would come to rest upon Isreal. In the wake of such an economic crash in the west would clear the financial field once dominated by the dollar and the euro thus opening up the opprotunity for a global currency. This has the potential of setting into motion two key prophetic events. (1.) Isreal being surrounded on all sides by her enemies as she stands alone to face them and (2.) provides an economic environment for a one world currency and the emergence of the Antichrist. - - - - Dravenhawk

---

Thank you, you summed it all up quite well imho!

war and rumors of war, not prelude.

me i live in america, but its not my homeland, its just where i am till my homeland comes.

i dont defend the country i live in now much because to me a nation is a nation and all have fornicated with the whore.


Rev_18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

that being said, when you look at iran and you see their government saying we want to wipe israel of map and mass people chanting it and saying death to this and death to that. it shows a big divide to me.

cant believe some think its a good idea that a government that openly claims that and denies holocaust, would be a good idea if they have nuke.

oh and dont worry about waiting for antichrist, his spirit is flowing strong, there are many.

Good news story on the Iran situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99uDP...feature=relmfu

Quote:

---

A number of people have commented that Germany failed twice to dominate using its military so now it's trying again using economics.

---

The war is old news. Germans are the biggest pacifists in Europe. The reason they are dominating now is that they are the largest country/language in the EU (Russia is the largest country/language in Europe, but they are on the outside...) and they are hard working and well organised so it is inevitable that they will lead. Fortunately the EU is set up in such a way that the smaller countries get more representation per inhabitant than the larger countries, so Germany can not dominate as much as it otherwise could.
Also, the UK usually does everything it can to put the brakes on Germany's ideas in the EU. The new best friend of Germany is France and that was exactly the objective of the predecessor organisation of the EU when it was first set up. It means that another war is virtually impossible since no EU country can attack another without hurting itself.

Everyone realised that the re-united Germany would eventually rise to dominate. But nobody wanted to stop their re-unification since the idea of a split country was so tragic. The only way it can be contained is as part of the EU and fortunately it is the very heart of the EU - what's good for Germany is nominally good for everyone else in Europe too, and vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dravenhawk

There is a much bigger picture here.

---

What you are describing reflects the sentiment of the current popular dispensational view combined with the current western media campaign. It is with these "tinted glasses" that you are looking at the entire Middle Eastern scenario.

Christians in the USA will be against the evil Islam trying to unite to destroy their traditional ally Israel, Christians in Russia will be against the western bankers meddling in world politics to create a west-friendly Middle Eastern superstate. I believe the Russians are more correct in their political analysis, the West is creating a peaceful united Middle-Eastern superstate because their agents can easily influence democracies but cannot easily influence dictators. This is the trend I see, and its not evil yet , just western self-preservation, but it will end up evil when this superstate is created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannah

Good news story on the Iran situation

---

Nice video. They mention it all casually but that is a heavy allegation against the IAEA's Yukiya Amano of exagerrated reports and incorrect information being presented. This is the kind of deliberate false presentation of facts that can lead to war.