backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by Chillin1248.. on Aug 16 at 2:50 AM


  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
The Israeli government will receive a first order of 20 JSF by the end of 2015, with

Israel is still considering whether or not it wants to purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter) aircraft, as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli government officials discuss the expensive investment.

Previous approval granted Israel the right to purchase 75 JSFs, but Israel initially only wants just 20 aircraft.  The country expects to pay more than $140 million for each F-35, and it's unknown if Israel will be able to install all of its own equipment into the aircraft.

Previously, the U.S. government said it would remove some of its own hardware and offer an alternative or allow the purchasing nation to make slight alternations.  Continued negotiations take place, but it's likely Israel will fulfill the rest of its order after the first 20 aircraft are accepted.

"We work according to the assumption that other countries will receive the jet, and that is why we need to be the first,” an IDF officer recently disclosed.  "The JSF not only provides unbelievable capabilities, but will also assist Israel in boosting its deterrence.”

After agreed upon configurations, Israel will begin to receive its new aircraft by the end of 2015, with future orders expected to arrive shortly after.  Although there are some early contract problems, Israel and the United States are expected to come to a fair agreement as quickly as possible.

Lockheed Martin has been given approval to sell the aircraft to select countries, but cannot offer certain electronics and hardware aboard the aircraft.

The Australian military is interested in purchasing up to 100 JSF, but want to see additional testing information before purchasing the costly aircraft.  If an agreement with Lockheed cannot be finalized, it's possible Australia will work with Russia.  Canada is expected to purchase up to 65 JSF -- negotiations are ongoing with other countries as well.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not dogging Israel
By NullSubroutine on 8/13/2010 10:15:32 AM , Rating: 5
But they really aren't buying the aircraft. The citizens of the United States are buying them, and the US government is giving them to the State of Israel. Our .gov gives them something like 2 billion a year in aid which they use to buy weapons from their own factories, as well as weapon systems from our country. It's like buying stuff with an allowance.




RE: Not dogging Israel
By seraphim1982 on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By heffeque on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By ClownPuncher on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By UzairH on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By aston12 on 8/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SLeeeper on 8/15/2010 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly even though the fact that the holocaust was obviously terrible there must be a reason why almost no country in the region supports israel.


Yes there is a good reason AND if you had ever opened a history book; you would have the answer...

You have every right to believe as you will; but please educate your self on the subject of the Jews and WWII before you rattle off an ignorant statement such as the one I quoted...or your whole post for that matter.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By AliShawkat on 8/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Paj on 8/14/2010 4:29:47 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, Palestine was split up by the UN, and Israel was created. The war followed shortly acter this.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/14/2010 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 4
The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... recommended the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the partition of the territory into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area being under special international protection, administered by the United Nations.
Prior to WWI, that area was part of the Ottoman empire, which lost. After WWI, it was controlled by the British. Shortly after WWII, Israel was created. Shortly after Israel was created, they were attacked and successfully defended themselves, taking territory in the process. They still hold that territory.

I don't know where, within that chain of events, justification for the whole "occupied Palestine" notion can be found. "Occupied British Mandate", maybe. "Occupied Ottoman Territory", sure. But one might as well call France "Occupied Gaul" for all the accuracy and relevancy it would bring.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By jmunjr on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Jeffk464 on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By poohbear on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 12:12:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
its the shadiest thing our government does

Abiding by the terms of a peace treaty is the shadiest thing our government does? What pills do you take?


RE: Not dogging Israel
By NullSubroutine on 8/13/2010 5:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
They don't just buy our products, as I said in my post, they also produce their own weapons out of their own factories with money part of the aid package we give them.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Barium on 8/14/2010 6:02:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
the defense industry is the biggest industry in America

Poohbear: Sorry, but government is the biggest industry in America.

And every problem it "solves" just makes the government bigger (and doesn't solve the problem). Take for example the illegal immigration "reform" just passed; their "solution" is to hire 1500 more border patrol agents, complete with pensions, etc. This has always been their solution, and it has never worked. You can't hire enough agents to secure the border. But you could end illegal immigration by just requiring employers to check immigration status before hiring (it's voluntary now). That would cost a fraction of what they are spending on border agents, and would actually work.

Another example is 9/11, which could have been prevented simply by not training the terrorists how to fly commercial airliners, and/or by keeping people whose visas have expired from boarding planes without being searched. That wouldn't have cost anything. Instead, their "solution" was to create a new bloated gov't bureaucracy (Homeland Security) and to invade two countries, at a cost of about $1.5 trillion (so far).

No wonder this country is going bankrupt: we have idiots running it (not to mention the clueless people who keep voting for them).


RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2010 12:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Both of your solutions are racist. /sarcasm


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By DougF on 8/13/2010 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's SOP that U.S. aid funds must be spent on U.S. equipment, no matter the country the money is given to. This benefits lots of people, those in the U.S. building whatever is being bought, those receiving that which is being bought, and helps to reinforce international goodwill. Egypt too, gets several billion dollars every year as well, though it's about 2/3 of the aid to Israel.
On average over the past two decades, the U.S. spent about 50% of funds on humanitarian aid with economic and military aid splitting the remaining half.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By chick0n on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 7:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wait, Because Israel is our friend?

Because we brokered a Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our .gov gives them something like 2 billion a year in aid

And another billion to Egypt. And why? Because Israel and Egypt aren't fighting each other. Holy crap, three billion dollars a year to NOT have a vicious war going on. It's probably the cheapest peace we've ever accomplished, and you begrudge this? That's insane.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2010 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that Israel is one of the most vibrant economies on the planet right now?

Do you know that the whole Core and Core 2 series of processors derived from designs at Intel's plant in Israel?

Israel is not Haiti. They don't just live off money that other countries give them. Yes the US does give them money to fund their defense. But that's due to a treaty. Not that I expect those who hate Israel to understand that.

Do you hate Haiti as much? How about pretty much every African nation which we give aid to? What about Mexico? South Korea?

Israel is just one of many countries the US gives billions in aid to. Now yes, personally I'd like to see the amount of aid we give reduced considering we have to borrow money to give it to them right now.

This "military industrial complex" BS got old in the 90s.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By chick0n on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2010 1:48:37 PM , Rating: 5
You're a f*cking idiot. Yes us giving money to Israel caused a 1.4 trillion DEFICIT.

And yes, working there costs less. What does that tell you about the US? That we tax too much. So what do you think the answer is?

Businesses aren't expanding here because businesses are either performing horribly or, even if they're doing well, they're terrified of what the next added cost of doing business will be when its thrown at them. They're already facing massive tax increases Jan. 1st.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 4:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Fallacious implication of exclusivity; there's no reason "returning to previous tax level increases" can't be "massive tax increases".

And I don't know how you can spend money you didn't collect.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By mrkun on 8/13/2010 4:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
He wasn't making a deductive argument.

You can spend money you don't have by borrowing it, which the US government can do for 1% interest or so.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He wasn't making a deductive argument.

I know! It was fallacious.

quote:
You can spend money you don't have by borrowing it, which the US government can do for 1% interest or so.

Borrowed on anticipated future collections, yes. If the money isn't to be collected, you can't anticipate it.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/13/2010 8:22:43 PM , Rating: 1
Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.

So while that 2.3 trillion may not have been directly borrowed to pay for cutting taxes it was borrowed to pay for other things that that 2.3 trillion could have payed for were it collected.

We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush, so obviously the majority of that 2.3 trillion that fell between 01 and 08 (the cuts don't expire until end of '10) could have been spent in full to pay for things instead of borrowing that whole 4 trillion.

So no, you can't just say "oh, tax cuts weren't spent they just weren't collected, hehehe"

As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because". Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded, allowing pseudo-intelligent people like you to pick over every individual word instead of looking at the overall meaning of my message which was brief and made while I was "working"

So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms. The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts, is a lot faster than describing the overall fiscal outlay situation of the United States over 8 years and how not collecting 2.3 trillion dollars meant it was essentially borrowed instead.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/13/2010 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
err, it was closer to 4.8 trillion added to the debt


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 8:57:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.

But it is NOT "spending 2.3 trillion". Moving the goalposts fallacy.

quote:
We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush

With deficits that got smaller as we got closer to '08 while the tax cuts remained static. Further, Obama's tax increases STILL forecast (according to the WH's own numbers, independent results are higher) greater increases to the debt than what we've seen during the Bush years. Conclusion: Tax cuts do NOT cause debt. Overspending causes debt.

quote:
So no, you can't just say "oh, tax cuts weren't spent they just weren't collected, hehehe"

Actually, I can. And I did. And will continue to. And, coincidentally, it will continue to be an accurate assessment. Even with your immature "hehehe" added on the end there.

quote:
As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because".

Because of what? Because of your grossly inaccurate claim that Bush "spent" $2.3 trillion in tax money that was never collected. Further, your use of the word "but" connotates a negation of the assertion that the tax cuts are massive; the implication was the opposite of what you now claim. Perhaps you are not as familiar with reality as your earlier post suggests you think you are?

quote:
Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded

You suggested that the assertion of Obama's tax increases being "massive" was outside reality.

quote:
So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms.

Instead of wanking over a former President, you should instead say "Our Congress has a problem controlling spending." That would be the most accurate - and, coincidentally, the least politically "hot-button" - means of describing our debt.

quote:
The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts

You spent the first three paragraphs of the very post I'm responding to trying to explain how that money WAS spent. Cognitive dissonance, much?


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/2010 1:53:42 PM , Rating: 1
On the first comment, you are stuck on the tax cuts only. Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have. You know what, you are so literal and tunnel-visioned.. let me make it real simple for you

I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2. How many lollipops do I owe now?

Our Congress has a problem controlling spending, and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.

I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/14/2010 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the first comment, you are stuck on the tax cuts only

As far as this exchange is concerned, yes, because the fallacious comment I wished to address was about tax cuts.

quote:
Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have.

So you recognize that we spent money we didn't have. That doesn't seem like the source of the problem to you?

quote:
I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2.

I thought you were going to make it real simple. Why are you using lollipops as currency? That's just stupid.

quote:
Our Congress has a problem controlling spending

Yes. That is the source of the problem.

quote:
and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.

I'm not seeing where anything I said is being refuted. Are you sure you don't actually agree with me?

quote:
I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I would offer instead that if you're owing lollipops all over town, you should be the last person to suggest to anyone that they "don't get it".


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/2010 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agreed with you that I didn't mean to say/sound like we literally spent money on tax cuts in my 2nd comment, and yet that is what you continue to needlessly rail on. Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement, your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/14/2010 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and yet that is what you continue to needlessly rail on.

Then stop trying to defend the comment.

quote:
Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement

Nothing you have said has been clear, especially if you think you're agreeing.

quote:
your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.

I think you're just projecting your own behavior onto me. What "whole of the argument" am I missing? Abstaining from collecting taxes is demonstrably not the same as spending taxes. There is no "whole of the argument" to miss. The fact is that the initial comment was wrong, and you've been wasting time trying to obfuscate that fact - perhaps to salve a wounded ego, I suspect - with nonsensical drivel. I'm sorry you're gripped by such crippling insecurity, but here and now is your opportunity to overcome such a disability and grow into a better, smarter person. You're welcome.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2010 9:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
So what happens when the interest goes to 2%? 3%? 4%?

Even a rise from 1% to 2% makes the interest we pay on the debt come close to what spend on defense. If it gets to 4%, then it will likely eclipse $1 trillion (given how we're still borrowing).

Read the news. We just started buying our own debt. That's how much and fast we're spending. Other countries aren't buying it fast enough.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By mackintire on 8/13/2010 5:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
Redistribution of the wealth can be a net increase in the effective tax one pays. Aka my money is worth less, what money I did get is now redistributed to those that did not earn it.....so I am now effectively poorer.

Redistribution may work when we are creating wealth, but the US is NOT doing that as the moment thanks to Pelosi, Reed and the Collective-Salvation Socialist President we've elected.

Change...the only thing left in my pockets :(


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cingkrab on 8/13/2010 3:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
The Israel design center basically bailed Intel out from the NetBurst/P4 fiasco with their work on the Pentium M architecture, which is the predecessor to the Core series of processors. I'm sure this had a big influence on Intel's funding decision.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2010 7:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im pretty sure if Intel open a new lab here, they can design the same if not better than Core series processor.


LOL wow, that's really your argument? Well uhhh hey, my dad could beat up your dad, so there!!!


RE: Not dogging Israel
By thurston on 8/15/2010 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Your dad loves to gag on big fat cocks.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/15/2010 10:50:17 PM , Rating: 1
I think your mom is calling you.

Now that my dick is out of her mouth.

Go back to playing WoW kid.


For consideration
By Chillin1248 on 8/13/2010 9:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
Just a point of note, the IDF will only accept the F-35 if the source code is delivered with the aircraft.

The reason is two-fold:

1) - Integration - All Israeli warplanes are outfitted with native electronic suites and weapons. The source code is a must to fully integrate these.

2) - Back doors - The code must be checked to make sure there are no back doors that can be accessed that might disable or inhibit the F-35.

Without these conditions being met and the exorbitant price, I cannot see the IDF purchasing the F-35.

And to be fair, most other potential purchasers of the F-35 have also requested the source code for the same reasons.

-------
Chillin




RE: For consideration
By inperfectdarkness on 8/13/2010 11:51:29 AM , Rating: 2
i'm not saying you're wrong, but if said code was provided--how do we known we won't end up with another lavi/j-10 debacle & a new chinese f-35 clone within 10 years?


RE: For consideration
By Chillin1248 on 8/13/2010 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair you can say the same thing about Israel giving Arrow 3's to the U.S., as well as the following for example:

quote:

-ADM-141 TALD (Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy)- device used to protect U.S. warplanes from enemy fire.

-AGM-142 Have Nap "The Popeye" - a precise bomb which hits specific coordinates

-Several Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

-Python missile - A major air to air missile..

-Cardom - A 120mm Recoil mortar system using modern electronic navigation, self-positioning, and target acquisition.

-Gabriel missile - A sea skimming Anti-ship missile.

-LITENING targeting pod - A precision targeting pod designed to increase combat effectiveness of aircraft.

-Samson Remote Controlled Weapon Station - A Remote weapon system.


All these have been shared with the U.S.. However the U.S. also supplies Israeli opponents Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan with advanced weapon systems, some of them ironically using Israeli designs.

-------
Chillin


RE: For consideration
By inperfectdarkness on 8/13/2010 8:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
blue air/gray air systems don't count. sharing technology happens all the time between allies. leaking it to threat countries resulting in clones and new hostile systems is crossing the line.

the lavi/j-10 was blue air tech which resulted in a red air threat.

the next closest thing to that would probably be the cf-105 being leaked to the soviets.

if you're going to do a comparison--at least make it apples to apples.


RE: For consideration
By Chillin1248 on 8/13/2010 8:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
The J-10 was already proven not to be developed from the Lavi, but from the canceled J-9 project.

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/news/568/20070105/...

quote:
"Our nation's new fighter's external design and aerodynamics configuration are completely made by us and did not receive foreign assistance, this made me very proud. Our nation developed J-9 in the 1960s, this adopted the canard configuration. So, those statements that said J-10 is a copy of Israeli Lavi are just laughable." - General designer of J-10, Mr. Song Wencong


I personally find these type of accusations ridiculous, considering that whatever technology Israel might give to China would find its way into the hands of Israel's opponents; Iran being a foremost example. The C-802 missile that hit an Israeli frigate in 2006 was delivered to Iran from China.

So unless anyone can present definitive proof, this are just nothing more than hearsay.

-------
Chillin


RE: For consideration
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2010 12:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well honestly there's not much more danger from that happening if a country like Israel has the code than if they don't. An employee at Lockheed or one of the various subcontractors working on the jet is just as likely to give the code to someone who shouldn't have it as those in Israel who might have access to it.

Honestly I don't see how they could go through all the code that is going to be on the jet in order to be certain there are no such back doors.

But most countries who will be getting the F35 are just getting the jet. They aren't getting all the critical electronics that the US will have. So while I guess there could be back doors to say, shut off the fuel system, Israel and other countries being worried that we're going to be able to disarm their weapons is unfounded.


RE: For consideration
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 7:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly I don't see how they could go through all the code that is going to be on the jet in order to be certain there are no such back doors.

Maybe add some backdoors of their own, in the event that the tech is stolen from them specifically?


RE: For consideration
By Chillin1248 on 8/16/2010 2:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
Also another note of interest.

The flyaway cost of each F-35A purchased here is $96 million. The expenses including the preparation of the new squadron, initial infrastructure, logistical and support package is expected eventually to exceed $150 million per plane.

quote:
How Much it Really Costs?

In July this year Canada has ordered 65 F-35As fora total amount of C$9 billion, reflecting a flyaway cost of $138 million. According to Lockheed Martin, the Canadian F-35A is configured as the least costly version of the aircraft offered at a cost of US$60 million per aircraft. The remaining amount reflect training, logistics and support costs. Israel is expected to opt for one of the more expensive versions of the stealth fighter, therefore it was priced slightly above the average cost of the F-35A (US$92.5 million). The manufacturer Lockheed Martin is offering the new fighter with turnkey life cycle support program. Although the cost and specific details of these support packages has not been announced yet, given the high readiness level required by the IAF, U.S. analysts have determined the estimated life cycle cost of the aircraft could reach up to $380 million.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/august...


-------
Chillin


Israel should get these ASAP
By sorry dog on 8/13/2010 5:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
We should send them a few of the first runs of these in the next year or two, so that when they go bomb Iran we can see how they perform and make design tweaks to subsequent production models.




RE: Israel should get these ASAP
By BZDTemp on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Israel should get these ASAP
By NanoTube1 on 8/13/2010 7:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, we use them to drink the blood of babies. We need the stealth so the parents won't see us when we snatch their kids.

Capish?


RE: Israel should get these ASAP
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 7:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Only their blood?


RE: Israel should get these ASAP
By NanoTube1 on 8/15/2010 5:52:16 PM , Rating: 1
Depends on the situation.

In Haiti's earthquake for example, our Doctors in the field hospital we sent were hungry after harvesting all the organs from the poor Haitians that they "treated" so they indulged themselves on some baby livers shake. It's actually based on an old Jewish recipe from Europe, way back when we used to drink a similar shake during passover... where do you think the "will it blend?" guy got his idea from? hmmmm?!

Ok, all this baby shake talk made me hungry, I'm gonna fry me some palestinian nipples. Will be back soon.


RE: Israel should get these ASAP
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2010 9:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Civilians....with guns...and mortars....and rockets....


RE: Israel should get these ASAP
By gilboa on 8/14/2010 6:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
You got it all wrong.

<SARCASM>
We use them to bomb **innocent** civilians, mostly babies.
And puppies.
Especially the cute ones.
</SARCASM>

Hopefully the *civilians* that surround *you*, will lob >10,000 rockets on *your* house and send hurds of suicide bombers to visit *your* favorite shopping mall, and then we'll sit down on what used to be your house and talk about what should and should not be done to fight terrorism.

- Gilboa


Article thumbnail
By Azsen on 8/15/2010 3:35:01 AM , Rating: 1
Is the article thumbnail a real pic or CGI? Can't find it on af.mil however I did find this. Quite a sleek looking fighter.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/1005...




NWO
By seraphim1982 on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: NWO
By Divide Overflow on 8/13/2010 1:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
It began thousands and thousands of years ago for humanity. It just continues in new and more expensive ways.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki