Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Yamato

The Threat of Israel's WMD Arsenals

243 posts in this topic

Based on Israel's history of ignoring chemical, biological, and nuclear treaties, of attacking its neighbors, of engaging in international assassinations, of human rights violations, of war crimes and crimes against humanity, of violations of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, is the world safe by tolerating Israel's extralegal, untested and uninspected arsenals?

Could Israeli nukes pose a threat to more than just Iran?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US and Britain will get in there and take down the leaders, and in this instance, no proof is needed , the weapons are there.

Well, they did it before, surely they would do it again, the countries religion should not stand in the way!,

OH WAIT.

Where are NATO.......keeping check on their bank accounts?

We live in a mad world and the leaders should be the ones in straight jackets.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Israel's history of ignoring chemical, biological, and nuclear treaties, of attacking its neighbors, of engaging in international assassinations, of human rights violations, of war crimes and crimes against humanity, of violations of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, is the world safe by tolerating Israel's extralegal, untested and uninspected arsenals?

Could Israeli nukes pose a threat to more than just Iran?

Way to go Yamato. :tu:. I was hoping someone would start a thread on this issue.

Lets not forget that Israel's policies are shaped by centuries old anti-gentile traditions in Judaism and those include "the worthlessness of a gentile's life". This is a must read: http://www.biblebeli...g.au/jewhis.htm because Shahak was a Jew himself and served in the Israeli military so it's an insider's account on Israel's support for anti-gentile views. I think, the worthlessness of a gentile's life in the eyes of Israeli leaders is a major factor worth considering here. Will Israel hesitate to destroy civilian lives of the rest of the world's population (not just Iran), in the event it is about to face attack from any hostile nation, or not?

Edited by XingWi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go Yamato. :tu:. I was hoping someone would start a thread on this issue.

Lets not forget that Israel's policies are shaped by centuries old anti-gentile traditions in Judaism and those include "the worthlessness of a gentile's life". This is a must read: http://www.biblebeli...g.au/jewhis.htm because Shahak was a Jew himself and served in the Israeli military so it's an insider's account on Israel's support for anti-gentile views. I think, the worthlessness of a gentile's life in the eyes of Israeli leaders is a major factor worth considering here. Will Israel hesitate to destroy civilian lives of the rest of the world's population (not just Iran), in the event it is about to face attack from any hostile nation, or not?

Thinking I'm better than everybody else (having a strong self esteem) is probably a great way to get ahead in the world.

We have to be careful with some of these sites supposedly interpreting the Talmud and professing supposed Jewish beliefs though. I did homework on one of them with a copy of the Talmud on-screen and found that every one of the claims I looked into turned out to be false.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking I'm better than everybody else (having a strong self esteem) is probably a great way to get ahead in the world.

We have to be careful with some of these sites supposedly interpreting the Talmud and professing supposed Jewish beliefs though. I did homework on one of them with a copy of the Talmud on-screen and found that every one of the claims I looked into turned out to be false.

I agree. Any religious scripture can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. "God's chosen people" have thier own interpretations. I think, like you said, some neutrality can be achieved by going to the original source, but those that are interpeting it in some other way will continue to do so. Articles on the internet that deliberately misquote something or quote it out of context should be ignored. Not sure if the one I gave link to is one of those. Anyway, here is the link to the original: Israel Shahak's book (if anyone is interested in verifying):

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/074530818X

Edited by XingWi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving religion out of it, I think it highly unlikely Israel doesn't have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are less likely, as the Israelis have much better judgment than the Syrians, as they also have than the Iranians as they seem able to keep quiet about it.

What conclusion can one draw from this? A fairly simple one, I think -- don't let the "destroy Israel" rhetoric get out of control or you will be destroyed.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered when the anti-Israel threads would start again. It's fun to play with the spinning wheel of suspicion.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving religion out of it, I think it highly unlikely Israel doesn't have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are less likely, as the Israelis have much better judgment than the Syrians, as they also have than the Iranians as they seem able to keep quiet about it.

What conclusion can one draw from this? A fairly simple one, I think -- don't let the "destroy Israel" rhetoric get out of control or you will be destroyed.

I don't think the rhetorics are as much about "destroy israel" as about "leave the palestinians alone". If the arab states were indeed hell bent on eliminating a country that is only as big as new jersey from the map it would have been destroyed by now.

Edited by XingWi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered when the anti-Israel threads would start again. It's fun to play with the spinning wheel of suspicion.

What goes around comes around? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered when the anti-Israel threads would start again. It's fun to play with the spinning wheel of suspicion.

Criticism of the policies of Israel's govt should not be considered "anti-Israel" any more than the criticism of the policies of any nation's govt are "anti-<that_nation>".

Hypocrisy, prejudice and belligerence deserve criticism no matter the source and if the policies of Israel's govt promote any of these it should not be held un-criticisable simply because of history.

Edited by Leonardo
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The criticism of Israel is indeed "anti-Israeli," and tends to be highly one-sided and irrational. I am by no means pro-Israeli -- I just see it as another country trying to make its way -- but I do understand their right to defend themselves. As far as I am concerned the Palestinians could have solved the issues ages ago and by now be prospering: they have brought their present situation onto themselves although even now if they were sensible they could back off and do fine.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Israel's history of ignoring chemical, biological, and nuclear treaties, of attacking its neighbors, of engaging in international assassinations, of human rights violations, of war crimes and crimes against humanity, of violations of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, is the world safe by tolerating Israel's extralegal, untested and uninspected arsenals?

Could Israeli nukes pose a threat to more than just Iran?

Man, do you just live in a bass ackwards world or what? Israel's neighbors attack Israel. The UN is a den of thieves. Meanwhile, Iran, the World's number one proprietor of Terrorism gets a pass? Please wake up Yamato. We are all doomed..but not because of Israel...mostly because of thought processes such as yours.

When has Israel ever attacked any country in the region that wasn't threatening her?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, do you just live in a bass ackwards world or what? Israel's neighbors attack Israel. The UN is a den of thieves. Meanwhile, Iran, the World's number one proprietor of Terrorism gets a pass? Please wake up Yamato. We are all doomed..but not because of Israel...mostly because of thought processes such as yours.

When has Israel ever attacked any country in the region that wasn't threatening her?

Nothing personal, joc, but this is a totally inane statement.

Attacking another nation which 'threatens' is an act of aggression and condemned in the UN Charter as a war crime. Nations can threaten, bluster and posture all they want but so long as they do not take direct aggressive actions against the security of the nation (or it's citizens) then military action against those nations constitutes a war of aggression (whether war is declared or not.)

There have been instances of conflict in the region where Israel has been defending itself. There have also been instances where Israel has been the aggressor. None of the nations involved in this are innocent, and it is only when those who fervently defend Israel's 'innocence' recognise this fact that concessions leading to an eventual peace may truly begin.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At above, sometimes (sadly) the best defence is a good affence. If you wait for your enemy to attack, you might be overwhelmed. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the rhetorics are as much about "destroy israel" as about "leave the palestinians alone". If the arab states were indeed hell bent on eliminating a country that is only as big as new jersey from the map it would have been destroyed by now.

With due respect, 1948, '56, '67 and '73 in your mind does not count as the Arabs TRYING? If not then I think it shows a definite bias and delegitimizes your pov.

Based on Israel's history of ignoring chemical, biological, and nuclear treaties, of attacking its neighbors, of engaging in international assassinations, of human rights violations, of war crimes and crimes against humanity, of violations of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, is the world safe by tolerating Israel's extralegal, untested and uninspected arsenals?

Could Israeli nukes pose a threat to more than just Iran?

Actually Yam, I think the world IS afraid and SHOULD be afraid of Israel's nukes. That's kind of the point. :)

Unless one believes it's all a bluff then Israel has been thought to have ever advancing nuke capacity since about 1968. Estimates from as low as 80 to as high as 300 warheads along with the delivery systems to use them effectively. AFAIK they have only mobilized them once in these 45 years -after the sneak attack in '73 when being over run was a real possibility. That in itself should educate a rational person about the mindset of the state. If Israel ever decides to give up their nuclear shield then the country would quickly be decimated - though never completely destroyed. And Israel may someday be pressured to do so but no one will ever have the cajones to TAKE them from them :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered when the anti-Israel threads would start again. It's fun to play with the spinning wheel of suspicion.

Okay if you want to overlook the negative stuff that was listed in the OP, and just answer the question, go ahead. Nothing need be inherently "anti" here, but I'll need some good answers as to why Israel's nukes aren't a threat and so far we don't have any.

Man, do you just live in a bass ackwards world or what? Israel's neighbors attack Israel. The UN is a den of thieves. Meanwhile, Iran, the World's number one proprietor of Terrorism gets a pass? Please wake up Yamato. We are all doomed..but not because of Israel...mostly because of thought processes such as yours.

When has Israel ever attacked any country in the region that wasn't threatening her?

Iran doesn't even come close in the terrorism department to Israel. What terror? Some guy you can't even name allegedly said something you didn't even hear? And that puts Iran over the top pushing Israel down to the #2 spot? If you don't think that Israel terrorizes Palestinians every day of the week, you're the one that needs to wake up. I know you're a partisan republican on the US politics board and quite shamelessly so, so I now have to suspect you're bathing in the neocon bath salts of Fox News Channel and AM radio. I'm not blinded by the Neocon BS that you listen to and believe in. So you just ignore Israel's criminality and go right to telling me to wake up? I can ask you the exact same question: When has Egypt ever attacked any country in the region that wasn't threatening her? When has Jordan? When has Lebanon? When has Syria? So that doesn't make any difference in how we view this issue at all.

With due respect, 1948, '56, '67 and '73 in your mind does not count as the Arabs TRYING? If not then I think it shows a definite bias and delegitimizes your pov. Actually Yam, I think the world IS afraid and SHOULD be afraid of Israel's nukes. That's kind of the point. :)

Unless one believes it's all a bluff then Israel has been thought to have ever advancing nuke capacity since about 1968. Estimates from as low as 80 to as high as 300 warheads along with the delivery systems to use them effectively. AFAIK they have only mobilized them once in these 45 years -after the sneak attack in '73 when being over run was a real possibility. That in itself should educate a rational person about the mindset of the state. If Israel ever decides to give up their nuclear shield then the country would quickly be decimated - though never completely destroyed. And Israel may someday be pressured to do so but no one will ever have the cajones to TAKE them from them :)

I hoped you would say something to this effect unlike others who I figured would be far more predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What goes around comes around? ;)

Yeah I'm pro hyper-militancy and massive-police states that treat people of the wrong ethnicity like animals, ignore international laws, commit more terrorism and more UNSC violations than any other state in the Middle East, and I think I'm going to have a shred of credibility left after making that announcement. If someone isn't anti-Israel what is wrong with them? How can anybody with a heart, with a soul or a conscience, in their right minds, as a fellow human being, be pro-Israel?

Nothing personal, joc, but this is a totally inane statement.

And what does "threatened" even mean and why is it always painted up one-sided? Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors or something? To joc, it means whatever the Israeli bureaucrat wants him to think it means. Beyond that, he doesn't even think. He's told what to think, and so he does.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing personal, joc, but this is a totally inane statement.

Attacking another nation which 'threatens' is an act of aggression and condemned in the UN Charter as a war crime. Nations can threaten, bluster and posture all they want but so long as they do not take direct aggressive actions against the security of the nation (or it's citizens) then military action against those nations constitutes a war of aggression (whether war is declared or not.)

There have been instances of conflict in the region where Israel has been defending itself. There have also been instances where Israel has been the aggressor. None of the nations involved in this are innocent, and it is only when those who fervently defend Israel's 'innocence' recognise this fact that concessions leading to an eventual peace may truly begin.

This is legally accurate and is applicable to the 1967 war ONLY. In every other instance the Arabs have initiated hostilities. Further, by these rules a country is required to absorb a blow before it can counter the second. When that means watching from a postage stamp sized piece of territory while MULTIPLE armies are massing troops and weapons on the borders it is insane. We're not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan or any country that the US pre emptively struck. We're talking about a tiny country that might well be defeated in a massive onslaught (especially back in '48 or '67).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is legally accurate and is applicable to the 1967 war ONLY. In every other instance the Arabs have initiated hostilities.

False as all hell. You have no knowledge if you actually believe that BS.

"The Arabs" again, too. <-- Racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False as all hell. You have no knowledge if you actually believe that BS.

"The Arabs" again, too. <-- Racist

It is not racist to name the enemy Yam, in fact it is foolish NOT to. Who were they fighting? This conflict isn't about states and you know it. It is about ethnic hatred. Arab Muslim against Jew PRIMARILY. But Muslims in general. Their Qur'an tells them the hoped for renewal with all it's blessings CANNOT happen until the Muslims fight the Jews and KILL them. Israel did nothing but defend itself against an open and stupidly proclaimed in advance war of annihilation against their country on the other occasions. But then, Israel defending itself is the same as aggression to many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Arabs" again, too. <-- Racist

No its not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not.

Yes, it is. That's as bad as blaming "the Blacks" for black-white relations in the US. The vast majority of "the Arabs" had nothing to do with it. How dare he slander an entire ethnic group like that!? THAT is the real anti-Semitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is legally accurate and is applicable to the 1967 war ONLY. In every other instance the Arabs have initiated hostilities.

C'mon buddy, stop the porky's.

Only in the Yom Kippur war in '73 were Arabs the aggressors (and for a reason).

The 1948–49 War

From 1945 to 1948 Zionists waged guerrilla war against British troops and against Palestinian Arabs supported by the Arab League.

The 1956 War

On Oct. 29, 1956, Israeli forces, directed by Moshe Dayan, launched a combined air and ground assault into Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

& finally correct

The 1967 War (The Six-Day War)

The escalation of threats and provocations continued until June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a massive air assault that crippled Arab air capability.

Link

Further, by these rules a country is required to absorb a blow before it can counter the second. When that means watching from a postage stamp sized piece of territory while MULTIPLE armies are massing troops and weapons on the borders it is insane. We're not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan or any country that the US pre emptively struck. We're talking about a tiny country that might well be defeated in a massive onslaught (especially back in '48 or '67).

In every instance, Jews & mainly Zionist were just as active (if not more) in the provocation department. Supported by welfare and military aid from the US together with joint UN protection from the UK and France, this postage stamp sized territory had enough power to blast the whole of Africa and Middle East into orbit.

History shows they struck first in every single early war and through the power of their weaponry they gained most of their current promised land. Not bad if you consider they started off with smidgens of territory over-proportionally gifted to their small population.

It was a cleverly masterminded plan by Zionists well before the Partition agreement by the UN.

Edited by Black Red Devil
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon buddy, stop the porky's.

Only in the Yom Kippur war in '73 were Arabs the aggressors (and for a reason).

The 1948–49 War

From 1945 to 1948 Zionists waged guerrilla war against British troops and against Palestinian Arabs supported by the Arab League.

The 1956 War

On Oct. 29, 1956, Israeli forces, directed by Moshe Dayan, launched a combined air and ground assault into Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

& finally correct

The 1967 War (The Six-Day War)

The escalation of threats and provocations continued until June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a massive air assault that crippled Arab air capability.

Link

In every instance, Jews & mainly Zionist were just as active (if not more) in the provocation department. Supported by welfare and military aid from the US together with joint UN protection from the UK and France, this postage stamp sized territory had enough power to blast the whole of Africa and Middle East into orbit.

History shows they struck first in every single early war and through the power of their weaponry they gained most of their current promised land. Not bad if you consider they started off with smidgens of territory over-proportionally gifted to their small population.

It was a cleverly masterminded plan by Zionists well before the Partition agreement by the UN.

Notwithstanding your other statements - even that "smidgen" of territory was vehemently denied to them and has been continually fought since that time. The enemies of Israel (and they can be found everywhere) want nothing more than to slander and denigrate them and usurp the land they hold. It simply ISN'T ever going to be successful - and it twists in the gut like a knife to those that hate them. I'm cool with that. Hate has it's costs. The Israelis who break the law - both man's and God's - will be well and truly punished for their transgressions BUT so will those who deny God and His sovereignty in choosing who he will. About 6 million - and the world treats them like the bane of humanity's existence - and almost no one here even finds that unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With due respect, 1948, '56, '67 and '73 in your mind does not count as the Arabs TRYING? If not then I think it shows a definite bias and delegitimizes your pov. Actually Yam, I think the world IS afraid and SHOULD be afraid of Israel's nukes. That's kind of the point. :)

You and your usual strawmen. Read my post again, it was in reply to the claim of any ongoing "destroy israel" agendas. What wars were fought in the past were either in defence of the neighboring arab states or to reclaim the territories they had lost. People have come to terms after that. If Israel restricted itself to its 1967 borders it wouldn't have faced so much criticism it is facing now. The zionist expansionist policies and the continuous displacement of the Palestinians from their homes.

This whole "innocent victim on the verge of extinction" card played by Israel is one of the biggest lies propagated by the western media.

The enemies of Israel (and they can be found everywhere) want nothing more than to slander and denigrate them and usurp the land they hold.

That's more of your lies while you are well aware who is usurping whose land, who is displacing whom from their lands and expanding illegal settlements there.

Edited by XingWi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.