U.S. to Israel: If You Attack, We Don't Have Your Back

[Sundowner47]

Roudy, who is onstreammedia.com? and how do they base their poll?
Onstream Media Corp, Pompano Beach FL 33069
They have NO reviews
you get a 0

Hello cocksucker Jihadist those two graphs are from GALLUP. If you'd like I can post you the links or you can go to Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World and type "Israel" in the search bar. That was a pathetic attempt at discrediting those results. You get a

Roudy...did you learn how to read and process simultaneously work-chimp??? Sayit's claim was that ( "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD SUPPORT AN INTERVENTION ON ISRAEL'S BEHALF WHERE IRAN IS CONCERNED ) ...THAT "AMERICANS HAVE ISRAEL'S BACK".....no one asked for numbers that correlate directly with media lies about Israel...fkg retard...

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Hello cocksucker Jihadist those two graphs are from GALLUP. If you'd like I can post you the links or you can go to Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World and type "Israel" in the search bar. That was a pathetic attempt at discrediting those results. You get a

so why not post the Gallup poll rather than the lame Onstream Media Corp one?

because roudy's an anti-goyim, Nazi, cocksucker.

He rolls on the islamophobe way of debating, which of course is speak all bullshit, random articles about Taliban than he lies to people and makes ignorant people believe palestinains are the ones who started the conflict , he sucks balls

 

[freedombecki]

obama would not have Israel's back. obama doesn't even have America's back.

You say the dumbest things, Obama protected America way better than bush

You're confused. Homeland Security protected America. The Bush administration created Homeland Security, and Obama benefitted by leaving well enough alone.

You wouldn't be giving credit that goes to Bush to Obama on purpose, would you.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

obama would not have Israel's back. obama doesn't even have America's back.

You say the dumbest things, Obama protected America way better than bush

You're confused. Homeland Security protected America. The Bush administration created Homeland Security, and Obama benefitted by leaving well enough alone.

You wouldn't be giving credit that goes to Bush to Obama on purpose, would you.

Credit to bush, but still Obama and the department of homeland security have prevented and kind of mass terror attack on our soil, and I was responding to her, Obama supported Israel more than any other president, he also supported their IRON DOME rocket defense systems twice and hit Iran with plenty of sanctions also Europe hitting them hard with sanctions, so she can eat shit, he is supporting their ass off

 

[SAYIT]

U.S. to Israel: We Don
How mad is donkey right now?
Israel should just take the U.S. military's advice also previous Mossad leaders advice

The fact is, I do not support anyone attacking Iran and I certainly do not support getting America involved in another ME war but considering the political fallout for an American administration which fails to cover Israel's back would be a disaster for the ruling party.
A strong majority of Americans want America to have Israel's back.

Who are these Americans?.. That is a lie, most Americans do not want to be involved in another war

I did not say that any Americans, including me, want to be involved in another war.
You really are a special ed kid, aren't you?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The fact is, I do not support anyone attacking Iran and I certainly do not support getting America involved in another ME war but considering the political fallout for an American administration which fails to cover Israel's back would be a disaster for the ruling party.
A strong majority of Americans want America to have Israel's back.

Who are these Americans?.. That is a lie, most Americans do not want to be involved in another war

I did not say that any Americans, including me, want to be involved in another war.
You really are a special ed kid, aren't you?

Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war

 

[SAYIT]

Roudy, who is onstreammedia.com? and how do they base their poll?
Onstream Media Corp, Pompano Beach FL 33069
They have NO reviews
you get a 0

Hello cocksucker Jihadist those two graphs are from GALLUP. If you'd like I can post you the links or you can go to Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World and type "Israel" in the search bar. That was a pathetic attempt at discrediting those results. You get a

so why not post the Gallup poll rather than the lame Onstream Media Corp one?

The friggin' poll has "Gallup" all over it. I believe a human can't be as dense as you now pretend to be (or are you not pretending).

 

[SAYIT]

Roudy, who is onstreammedia.com? and how do they base their poll?
Onstream Media Corp, Pompano Beach FL 33069
They have NO reviews
you get a 0

Hello cocksucker Jihadist those two graphs are from GALLUP. If you'd like I can post you the links or you can go to Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World and type "Israel" in the search bar. That was a pathetic attempt at discrediting those results. You get a

Roudy...did you learn how to read and process simultaneously work-chimp??? Sayit's claim was that ( "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD SUPPORT AN INTERVENTION ON ISRAEL'S BEHALF WHERE IRAN IS CONCERNED ) ...THAT "AMERICANS HAVE ISRAEL'S BACK".....no one asked for numbers that correlate directly with media lies about Israel...fkg retard...

Another of your seemingly endless supply of baseless claims.
While the poll does not pertain to my opinion - "that failure to have Israel's back would be disasterous for the political party in power" - your charge that Gallup lied for Israel is completely bogus and predictably you provide absolutely nothing which proves that charge.

BTW, I neither said nor implied that "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD SUPPORT AN INTERVENTION ON ISRAEL'S BEHALF WHERE IRAN IS CONCERNED." Those are absolutely your words and your thoughts.

Now get back to what you do best, Princess ... "sucking off goats."

 

[SAYIT]

so why not post the Gallup poll rather than the lame Onstream Media Corp one?

because roudy's an anti-goyim, Nazi, cocksucker.

He rolls on the islamophobe way of debating, which of course is speak all bullshit, random articles about Taliban than he lies to people and makes ignorant people believe palestinains are the ones who started the conflict , he sucks balls

In the midst of internicine fighting which both preceeded and followed the UN's Resolution 181in 1947, Israel declared its independence and her "peaceful" Arab neighbors attacked. These are irrefutable facts but you go ahead and try.
Special ed people like you should make the extra effort to actually know something about the subject before they post here, Princess.

 

[Sundowner47]

SPRAYIT:

Another of your seemingly endless supply of baseless claims.
While the poll does not pertain to my opinion - "that failure to have Israel's back would be disasterous for the political party in power" - your charge that Gallup lied for Israel is completely bogus and predictably you provide absolutely nothing which proves that charge.

BTW, I neither said nor implied that "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD SUPPORT AN INTERVENTION ON ISRAEL'S BEHALF WHERE IRAN IS CONCERNED." Those are absolutely your words and your thoughts.

Now get back to what you do best, Princess ... "sucking off goats."



Really?----you mean to tell me that you didn't say "the majority of Americans want us to have Israel's back"??? Those were your words in verbatim form putz....the thread is still fresh if you'd care for me to re-post it slime-wad....please show us your proof for this reckless claim hypocrite....yet another "baseless" spit-ball from the master of bullshit, and goat-juice....

 

[SAYIT]

Who are these Americans?.. That is a lie, most Americans do not want to be involved in another war

I did not say that any Americans, including me, want to be involved in another war.
You really are a special ed kid, aren't you?

Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war

Not necessarily.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

U.S. to Israel: We Don

How mad is donkey right now?

Israel should just take the U.S. military's advice also previous Mossad leaders advice

That's the good cop bad cop game the US has been playing to confuse Iranians, you idiot. You symbolize the typical retard mindset of a Pali supporter.

Obama Plays Hawk-in-Chief on Iran - Michael Hirsh - NationalJournal.com

Obama Plays Hawk-in-Chief on Iran

In a rousing election-year speech to the powerful Jewish lobby in Washington, President Obama on Sunday sought to eliminate any remaining daylight between the United States and Israel, especially on the threat from Iran. In so doing he may have succeeded both at firing up Jewish voter support—and at bringing America closer to another war.

Directly confronting the threat from Tehran in a more aggressive way than he ever has before, Obama declared that a nuclear-armed Iran equally violates Israel’s interests and “the national security interests of the United States.” He tried to remove any remaining doubts about his willingness to use force himself and to green-light, under the right circumstances, Israel’s own right to use it, even while urging Israeli leaders to observe a timetable that would delay action until after the U.S. election in November.* Deploying important code words familiar to AIPAC and its supporters, Obama said Iran’s leaders* “should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.”

Toward the end of his speech, which drew several standing ovations, Obama also once again addressed perhaps the central doubt in the mind of visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will meet the president at the White House on Monday: whether America will act militarily if Israel cannot seriously damage or destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.
Obama delivered something close to the guarantee that Israelis and many American Jewish supporters of Israel were looking for: a pledge that if diplomacy, sanctions and pressure don’t work, he will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power,” Obama said. “A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Another great spin story by the so-called national review.

Obama declared that a nuclear-armed Iran equally violates Israel’s interests and “the national security interests of the United States.”

The direct quote didn't even explicitly state it violated our interests; just claimed. 'Oh man, I just feel so violated.' w/e that means

“I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power,” Obama said.

In other words, he'll do whatever politically suits him and he plans to keep his back turned to Israel and continue sharing secrets with their enemies.

 

[SAYIT]

SPRAYIT:

Another of your seemingly endless supply of baseless claims.
While the poll does not pertain to my opinion - "that failure to have Israel's back would be disasterous for the political party in power" - your charge that Gallup lied for Israel is completely bogus and predictably you provide absolutely nothing which proves that charge.

BTW, I neither said nor implied that "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD SUPPORT AN INTERVENTION ON ISRAEL'S BEHALF WHERE IRAN IS CONCERNED." Those are absolutely your words and your thoughts.

Now get back to what you do best, Princess ... "sucking off goats."

Really?----you mean to tell me that you didn't say "the majority of Americans want us to have Israel's back"??? Those were your words in verbatim form putz....the thread is still fresh if you'd care for me to re-post it slime-wad....please show us your proof for this reckless claim hypocrite....yet another "baseless" spit-ball from the master of bullshit, and goat-juice....

I did not nor do I deny posting my opinion in the matter, however aving Israel's back does not require our intervention as you claim but that isn't the issue you are avoiding here.
Your response to Roudy claimed that Gallup's poll is a media lie for Israel, a bogus charge you "proved" with typically noisy bluster and nothing more.

Now back to your goat, Princess.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

I did not say that any Americans, including me, want to be involved in another war.
You really are a special ed kid, aren't you?

Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war

Not necessarily.

Maybe? What do you see it as?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

U.S. to Israel: We Don

How mad is donkey right now?

Israel should just take the U.S. military's advice also previous Mossad leaders advice

That's the good cop bad cop game the US has been playing to confuse Iranians, you idiot. You symbolize the typical retard mindset of a Pali supporter.

Obama Plays Hawk-in-Chief on Iran - Michael Hirsh - NationalJournal.com

Obama Plays Hawk-in-Chief on Iran

In a rousing election-year speech to the powerful Jewish lobby in Washington, President Obama on Sunday sought to eliminate any remaining daylight between the United States and Israel, especially on the threat from Iran. In so doing he may have succeeded both at firing up Jewish voter support—and at bringing America closer to another war.

Directly confronting the threat from Tehran in a more aggressive way than he ever has before, Obama declared that a nuclear-armed Iran equally violates Israel’s interests and “the national security interests of the United States.” He tried to remove any remaining doubts about his willingness to use force himself and to green-light, under the right circumstances, Israel’s own right to use it, even while urging Israeli leaders to observe a timetable that would delay action until after the U.S. election in November.* Deploying important code words familiar to AIPAC and its supporters, Obama said Iran’s leaders* “should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.”

Toward the end of his speech, which drew several standing ovations, Obama also once again addressed perhaps the central doubt in the mind of visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will meet the president at the White House on Monday: whether America will act militarily if Israel cannot seriously damage or destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.
Obama delivered something close to the guarantee that Israelis and many American Jewish supporters of Israel were looking for: a pledge that if diplomacy, sanctions and pressure don’t work, he will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power,” Obama said. “A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Another great spin story by the so-called national review.

Obama declared that a nuclear-armed Iran equally violates Israel’s interests and “the national security interests of the United States.”

The direct quote didn't even explicitly state it violated our interests; just claimed. 'Oh man, I just feel so violated.' w/e that means

“I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power,” Obama said.

In other words, he'll do whatever politically suits him and he plans to keep his back turned to Israel and continue sharing secrets with their enemies.

Israel national news is one of the most pro Israel websites what are you talking about? They spinned the title a bit to make Obama look like shit.

 

[SAYIT]

Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war

Not necessarily.

Maybe? What do you see it as?

See, you're already getting smarter.
Ask that question before you open your ignorant, hateful mouth and say something like "Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war."
We could position American military power in a way that is threatening.
We could lean on our regional allies to lean on Iran to use discretion.
We could do any number of things which would demonstrate our support for Israel short of getting into war.

 

[SAYIT]

That's the good cop bad cop game the US has been playing to confuse Iranians, you idiot. You symbolize the typical retard mindset of a Pali supporter.

Obama Plays Hawk-in-Chief on Iran - Michael Hirsh - NationalJournal.com

Obama Plays Hawk-in-Chief on Iran

In a rousing election-year speech to the powerful Jewish lobby in Washington, President Obama on Sunday sought to eliminate any remaining daylight between the United States and Israel, especially on the threat from Iran. In so doing he may have succeeded both at firing up Jewish voter support—and at bringing America closer to another war.

Directly confronting the threat from Tehran in a more aggressive way than he ever has before, Obama declared that a nuclear-armed Iran equally violates Israel’s interests and “the national security interests of the United States.” He tried to remove any remaining doubts about his willingness to use force himself and to green-light, under the right circumstances, Israel’s own right to use it, even while urging Israeli leaders to observe a timetable that would delay action until after the U.S. election in November.* Deploying important code words familiar to AIPAC and its supporters, Obama said Iran’s leaders* “should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.”

Toward the end of his speech, which drew several standing ovations, Obama also once again addressed perhaps the central doubt in the mind of visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will meet the president at the White House on Monday: whether America will act militarily if Israel cannot seriously damage or destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.
Obama delivered something close to the guarantee that Israelis and many American Jewish supporters of Israel were looking for: a pledge that if diplomacy, sanctions and pressure don’t work, he will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power,” Obama said. “A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Another great spin story by the so-called national review.



The direct quote didn't even explicitly state it violated our interests; just claimed. 'Oh man, I just feel so violated.' w/e that means

“I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power,” Obama said.

In other words, he'll do whatever politically suits him and he plans to keep his back turned to Israel and continue sharing secrets with their enemies.

Israel national news is one of the most pro Israel websites what are you talking about? They spinned the title a bit to make Obama look like shit.

That is just your opinion, Princess, and your claim - that they "spinned the title a bit to make Obama look like shit" is, as usual, baseless.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Not necessarily.

Maybe? What do you see it as?

See, you're already getting smarter.
Ask that question before you open your ignorant, hateful mouth and say something like "Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war."
We could position American military power in a way that is threatening.
We could lean on our regional allies to lean on Iran to use discretion.
We could do any number of things which would demonstrate our support for Israel short of getting into war.

I was thinking of the first one as well, but a strike will only delay their nuclear facilities so the world is confused at what to do, I think Iran will just got what they want...
Btw, a lot of your buddies or Israeli supporters here all have ignorant and hateful mouths. You are the only one who is actually willing to discuss unlike Ghook, Roudy, irosie...

 

[SAYIT]

Maybe? What do you see it as?

See, you're already getting smarter.
Ask that question before you open your ignorant, hateful mouth and say something like "Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war."
We could position American military power in a way that is threatening.
We could lean on our regional allies to lean on Iran to use discretion.
We could do any number of things which would demonstrate our support for Israel short of getting into war.

I was thinking of the first one as well, but a strike will only delay their nuclear facilities so the world is confused at what to do, I think Iran will just got what they want...
Btw, a lot of your buddies or Israeli supporters here all have ignorant and hateful mouths. You are the only one who is actually willing to discuss unlike Ghook, Roudy, irosie...

This is an anonymous and very obscure message board. Posters have different agendas and most don't want to slow down long enough to carry on a conversation. You seem sincere enough but badly misguided and not particularly knowledgeable. It doesn't seem worth the time or effort to bring you up to speed but take my word for it ... ElectricIntifada is not your friend.
BTW, I agree with your assessment regarding Iran and the bomb. The trick may be to slow their progress until the people of Iran throw off their Mullah gov't and become trustworthy members of the international community. Mullahs and nukes just don't mix.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

See, you're already getting smarter.
Ask that question before you open your ignorant, hateful mouth and say something like "Getting Israel's back would mean getting into a war."
We could position American military power in a way that is threatening.
We could lean on our regional allies to lean on Iran to use discretion.
We could do any number of things which would demonstrate our support for Israel short of getting into war.

I was thinking of the first one as well, but a strike will only delay their nuclear facilities so the world is confused at what to do, I think Iran will just got what they want...
Btw, a lot of your buddies or Israeli supporters here all have ignorant and hateful mouths. You are the only one who is actually willing to discuss unlike Ghook, Roudy, irosie...

This is an anonymous and very obscure message board. Posters have different agendas and most don't want to slow down long enough to carry on a conversation. You seem sincere enough but badly misguided and not particularly knowledgeable. It doesn't seem worth the time or effort to bring you up to speed but take my word for it ... ElectricIntifada is not your friend.
BTW, I agree with your assessment regarding Iran and the bomb. The trick may be to slow their progress until the people of Iran throw off their Mullah gov't and become trustworthy members of the international community. Mullahs and nukes just don't mix.

Nope I'm not misguided, I personally know a lot about the conflict and I had 4 cousins killed in the war, and I could care less about Khomeni he is just there for the name