Sunday Times ran similar "Israel to attack Iran" story over a year ago

[oberliner]

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

That's from Dec 11, 2005. Same paper.

[Redstone]

1. Just going to beat this thing to death tonight, aren't y'all?

Redstone

[oberliner]

2. I'm just saying I think it's a BS story

Not sure what that newspaper is up to by running it.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

12. Same reporter claimed that Israel was developing an "Ethnic Bomb"

He wrote an article in 1998 where he claimed that Israel was developing an "Ethnic Bomb" that would have the capability to kill Arabs but not harm Jews.

[Lurking Dem]

34. Awww the famous EthnoBomb!

This is all so much bullshit and I can't believe so many are so easily duped.

If a story like this had come out that Iran had nukes and was, in fact, planning an offensive against some country or another, posters here would look at it with a very skeptical eye.

But since the story is about Israel......

Gives one pause for thought.

[breakaleg]

15. So if someone disagrees with a possible Nuclear attack they are Jew-haters? That's quite

an accusation.

[aquart]

18. So is the accusation of starting a nuclear war, don't you think?

QUITE an accusation. So many nuclear powers, and only Israel concerns you. Why?

[breakaleg]

22. Another leap. These threads are about Israel because it's in the news right now.

If it were another country threatening nuclear war, you'd likely see the same reaction.

[oberliner]

23. Israel has not threatened nuclear war

An article in a Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper citing unnamed military sources claims that Israel has drawn up plans to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facilities using tactical nuclear weapons.

That is what we are talking about here.

[breakaleg]

26. splitting hairs?

The many reports linked tonight claim Israel is planning to use nuclear weapons to take out certain sites in Iran in a preemptive strike. I guess it wouldn't be a nuclear war if they were either successful or if Iran didn't actually have any nuclear weapons with which to retaliate. But if Israel were to fire nuclear weapons, then I'd say my choice of words is fairly accurate.

[oberliner]

29. It's all the same report

Every one of the links is in reference to the same story. There is one single news report, printed in The Sunday Times of London, which claims to have this information from unnamed sources. All of the linked articles are stories about that story.

The question that I wonder about is why is this newspaper publishing this story at this time?

Twice in 2005 stories were printed in that same newspaper written by the same reporter describing plans of an imminent attack on Iran by Israel.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

11. Maybe its from the information they got?

Maybe it was leaked by Israel to scare Iran. Maybe it was leaked to indice the US to take its own action. Maybe Israel is prepping world opinion for this action. This is not good.

[oberliner]

13. Maybe it was planted by Iran?

Or some other elements who wish to present Israel in an unflattering light in the press?

This same reporter published two stories in 2005 claiming that Israel was preparing to attack Iran.

[babylonsister]

5. Redstone, you think it's b.s.? All of it? nt

[Redstone]

7. I'm not interested in antisemitic threads or or opinons. Thank you for refraining

from personal attacks.

Redstone

[babylonsister]

9. Personal attacks? HUH? Not from me, not to anyone that I know of.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.
And anti-semitic? Not me either. Really. I say my piece, and I don't think
I have a bone in my body that is anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-Mexican. I
don't see it.

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks. Is this another form of "terror"?

At this point, I don't know what to think.

[Erika]

4. Israel could benefit from talking to its neighbors

rather than adopting W's position of "bring it on" to anyone who disagrees with his position as world king.

[Nutmegger]

8. Yup you said it.

This attitude isn't getting us anywhere. :-(

[Tom Joad]

10. It could come clean about its own nuclear weapon arsenal, that would help.

[aquart]

17. Really? Why?

Perhaps paint a bullseye on it for satellite photos? As long as it isn't admitted, it does not have to be dealt with.

[Poll_Blind]

19. "As long as it isn't admitted, it does not have to be dealt with."

denial: di-'nI(-&)l, dE- 6 : a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality

PB

[Erika]

21. No one can deny the U.S. didn't give Israel nukes

in good conscience.

[ellisonz]

32. But we didn't "give" them nukes...

There may have been some CIA informational assistance in the 1950's, sure, but the Israelis did the work on their own mostly. If you want to scapegoat somebody for giving the Israelis nukes it is the French who built the reactor for them.

The OP is correct, the story is bull.

[cubs4life]

14. Israel talking to its neighbors?

That's pretty hard to do when your neighbors don't even recognize your country and continue to call into question your right to exist.

[Erika]

20. The Egypt/Israeli accords

were a work of art.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Creating the scapegoat.

That is all we are seeing here. I find it sickly amusing that anything out of Iran is "mistranslation" and "anti-Iranian propaganda" but "secret" documents from "unidentified sources in Israel" is gospel. It shows where the real bias and, in some cases, bigotry really is! "Southern bashing" is supposed to be a 'no-no' on this board because it involves broad generalizations and demonstrates bigotry against a region of people. Why is the same standard not applied to threads where Israel is concerned?

[Erika]

25. How did Israel get nukes?

Maybe if that question was answered there could be more trust? Thanks.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. How is that relevant to what I said?

But, as far as getting nukes, it would involve the French, British, and Americans.

[Erika]

28. Because you talk of misinformation by the Iranians

But fail to address the fact that Israel has nukes. It appears we go around invading and threatening countries for nuclear capabilities but have never addressed why Israel has them and why they were allowed to bypass the U.N. and any restrictions.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. What?

I didn't say anything about misinformation by the Iranians. I have no clue where you got that information. As for the UN, Israel is not a member of the NPT and therefore, not beholden to it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

31. They're running out of ways to sell Iran as the next bad guy?

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Cab you tell the difference between "readies forces" for "possible strikes"

and "to attack"? I hope you can, because it's basic comprehension of English. Would you like a refresher?

[Lurking Dem]

35. kick for reality

[Lurking Dem]

36. Apparently, not too many think THIS

is important information.

[Lurking Dem]

37. .

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Same paper. Same authors.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Now that you mention it

you are right... good catch

[LeftCoast]

40. I'm not a big supporter of Israel's foreign policy, but this story just doesn't pass the smell test

If Israel were to use a nuke - any nuke - it would become a full-blown international pariah. They know this. Why then, would they choose to use a nuke, unprovoked? It makes no sense.

[salin]

42. this and related items from mooniepress - meant to distract

keep folks off balanced and worried (and thus... maybe transfer that fear into supporting bushco's current wish of surge and escalate) - and distracted (from paying attention to what the new congress might be doing). just my suspicion.

[LeftCoast]

43. I just think it's meant to help the Sunday Times sell papers

All the attention has certainly given them a lot of publicity. I'm sure the paper has sold well and lots of people have seen the ads on the web-site.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Saber Rattling

saber rattling
n.
A flamboyant display of military power.
A threat or implied threat to use military force.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3059594&mesg_id=3059594

[frogcycle]

41. Which should be an object lesson to all...

The story sure stirred up a shitstorm here yesterday. People debating fallout distribution, throw weight, blah, blah blah. I got into a quibbling match with someone over semantics of their highly indignant post over belittling the concept of nuclear weapons.

This story popped in the Times is just exactly what trolls do in these forums. Put out an outrageous assertion, then sit back and watch the fur fly.

It's the Miller Light commercial:

Less Filling!
Great Taste!

And yet we all take the bait so easily. The whole world was spinning in circles debating "Israel's outrageous plans" which were nothing more than John Madden saying "he says its less filling!"

Antisemitism got dragged in to it, probably somewhere there was debate over the residual effects from Fat Boy and Little Man, maybe a few people came to blows over nuances of Three Mile Island...


As if we didn't have enough to argue over...