Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raptor Witness

Israel's Nuclear Program - The Hard Evidence

102 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk

I'm not buying the argument that because Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors, they'll never use these weapons.

I guess that would be up to her neighbors.

Are they purely for defensive purposes? I have no doubt about that.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is a very effective diplomat.

Nuclear weapons are the rich man's terror tool, of choice.

Makes for a decent tool of deterrence too. Saves lives without firing a shot.

So we're all terrorists. Nuclear weapons are the stick that speaks for itself. You don't have to threaten anyone when you've got nuclear weapons in your arsenal.

And you don’t really have to worry about being threatened.

A surefire way to unite the Arab world under one banner, would be to force Israel to use at least one of their nuclear weapons.

If I were in charge of ISIS that would be my strategic objective.

That may indeed be on somebodies blackboard but it might also backfire and you’ll see an alliance between Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. A combined conventional Jordanian/Israeli force could be very formidable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

You single out Israel for having a Samson Option when in fact just about every nation has one to some effect.

That's not what Israel did. Israel has never threatened its neighbors with nuclear attack for the purpose of conquest or destruction...

And that was not the claim(s) I was rebutting, but the claim(s) that "Israel has never threatened to annihilate anyone." My post showed that claim to be false, irrespective of your attempt to reword that claim.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

And that was not the claim(s) I was rebutting, but the claim(s) that "Israel has never threatened to annihilate anyone." My post showed that claim to be false, irrespective of your attempt to reword that claim.

And Israel still hasn’t. You’re setting up a false premise. And you happily do so. When you try to state that Israel threatens someone when she is actually responding to a threat is setting up some kind of moral equivalence. And then once you do that, you can say that Israel is no better than her enemies. But see, it doesn’t work out that way. It’s not a matter of if Israel may or may not be better than her enemies. Israel is responding to a threat. Now if Israel went around trying to bully her neighbors unprovoked then I would say that you are right. But Israel doesn’t. Israel isn’t bent on conquest or spite like most Muslim nations are, and hence why it is different. But let’s say that Israel is no better than her enemies, then that would mean that her enemies should be admonished just as much as Israel. Do you think that would happen? It hasn’t yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

And Israel still hasn't.

Any country which has policy stating "if you attack us with WMD's we'll wipe you out with the same in retaliation" has made the threat of "annihiliating others".

A threat in response to a threat is still a threat. What part of this can you not understand?

As for neighbours being admonished, in the context of this thread, none of Israel's neighbours (enemies) have MAD capability. They don't have the capability to wipe out a nation in a WMD strike. Israel does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

They are not part of the NPT so how can they be hypocritical? So how can they defy the rules when the rules don't apply to Israel? Why shouldn't Israel expect that signatories of the NPT abide by the rules? Why shouldn't everybody expect that?

LOL, that's too easy. Israel lost the Right to EXPECT anything from the world community when they failed to come clean on their nuclear program and refused to join a Treaty, the only Treaty, orientated towards a level of control of nuclear weapons. Basically, they don't have a say in the matter. Sorry ;) On the other hand, nobody is or can stop Israel from attacking Iran if this is what they feel best for their security. But don't EXPECT the world community to agree on sanctions or actions against Iran when 1) there is no proof Iran are developing any, 2) Israel isn't a good example to follow to preach to others & 3) why doesn't Israel lead by example and show the world how concerned they are about nuclear weapons by dismantling their own sites?

And Iran does defy the requirements. Israel isn't threatening Iran to follow the rules, they are promising to act if Iran threatens Israel. Israel would be perfectly content if Iran stays within her borders as far as aggression toward Israel goes. But because Iran continues to violate the NPT, reduces the treaty to just more bureaucratic paperwork. Because of Iran and the lack of action by the other members, the treaty is now defunct. Was Israel the only one that foresaw that?

Hypocrisy at it's best!! It's all about Iran braking rules isn't it, not Israel? Who cares what Israel thinks. Never a member, no voice in the matter. Simple as that!

Israel wants to take matters into their own hands, go ahead. But don't ask the rest of the community to ignore how Israel conducted itself and throw the book at Iran. That's unfair and biased.

Iran threats?? The only threats I've been hearing lately have been from Netanyahu.

And you've never wondered why? No one would ever try to disarm India, Pakistan or even NK. But the world would be pushed out of its way into disarming Israel. And Israel has been the most responsible nuclear state in the short history of the Nuclear Age. So where is this jealousy to harm Israel come from? We've seen world history where Jewish security is in the hands of someone else. Why should Israel allow that again?

No, it's Israel who is EXPECTING the rest of the world to follow rules they scoffed at. As far as I'm aware, India, Pakistan and North Korea aren't hypocritical making demands.

Non Sequitur. I certainly don't deny Israel has nukes and has been deceitful in protecting that. Why is it that when Israel is shown to be deceitful that that confirms that they have nukes and that makes them evil but if Iran is shown to be deceitful that they are just misunderstood and they don't have nukes? Sounds like a suspicious double standard.

It's a bit like a Catholic priest suspected of pedophilia telling his congregation not to sin. Everyone accepts it's wrong to sin but they wouldn't be interested in hearing it from a suspected pedophile.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Oh Stuff and Nonsense, BlackRedDevil. The ONLY people who where upset by Israel's development of nuclear weapons where the Arab Muslim states, who saw their dreams of a second Jewish Genocide go up in smoke. Gola Meir had it right when she said....

"If the Arabs give up their guns, their will be peace. If the Jews give up their guns, there will be no more Jews"

As for an Iranian nuke: it seems to me that such a weapons would be more likely to be used against Mecca than against Jerusalem. But make no mistake, it WILL be used. And THAT is the difference between Israel and Iran. Israel has proven to be a trustworthy custodian of nuclear weapons. Iran, on the other hand, has proven to be an untrustworthy custodian of a bowl of jelly, let alone a nuke.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

"If the Arabs give up their guns, their will be peace. If the Jews give up their guns, there will be no more Jews"

Well, you forget what was happening tru history of Israel's conflict with Arabs. Every once in a while Israel gets more land ( be it from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon... Don't even need to mention Palestine ). Maybe it's true, if Jews give up guns it would made them easy target but also, if Arabs would give up their guns - we would see Great Israel, and that would happen very soon after Arabs would give up on their guns.

[edit] sorry for focusing just on this part but i think it's important to mention it because Israel lost it's credibility in most of Arab world, and has lost it long time ago.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Oh Stuff and Nonsense, BlackRedDevil. The ONLY people who where upset by Israel's development of nuclear weapons where the Arab Muslim states, who saw their dreams of a second Jewish Genocide go up in smoke. Gola Meir had it right when she said....

"If the Arabs give up their guns, their will be peace. If the Jews give up their guns, there will be no more Jews"

As for an Iranian nuke: it seems to me that such a weapons would be more likely to be used against Mecca than against Jerusalem. But make no mistake, it WILL be used. And THAT is the difference between Israel and Iran. Israel has proven to be a trustworthy custodian of nuclear weapons. Iran, on the other hand, has proven to be an untrustworthy custodian of a bowl of jelly, let alone a nuke.

How funny and exactly the point I was making, thanks for supporting my theory. ONLY the Arabs were concerned and nobody said boo about Israel's illegal development of nuclear weapons. Quite biased that now everyone expects Iran to "do the right thing" for the region and the world community. In case you didn't notice, Arabs live in the region surrounding Israel so you would also have to presume they would be more worried about a little belligerent nation having nukes don't you think? Specially considering this little nation has shown no hesitation in pre-emptively attacking nations in the region in the past.

You're theory of Israel being the good guys and Iran the bad guys is just pure hogwash. Iran hasn't attacked anyone, that "trustworthy" little nation Israel has. Actually, Israel have declared their will to attack Iran, more than once lately. Such a trustworthy custodian and a good example to follow. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

How funny and exactly the point I was making, thanks for supporting my theory. ONLY the Arabs were concerned and nobody said boo about Israel's illegal development of nuclear weapons. Quite biased that now everyone expects Iran to "do the right thing" for the region and the world community. In case you didn't notice, Arabs live in the region surrounding Israel so you would also have to presume they would be more worried about a little belligerent nation having nukes don't you think? Specially considering this little nation has shown no hesitation in pre-emptively attacking nations in the region in the past.

You're theory of Israel being the good guys and Iran the bad guys is just pure hogwash. Iran hasn't attacked anyone, that "trustworthy" little nation Israel has. Actually, Israel have declared their will to attack Iran, more than once lately. Such a trustworthy custodian and a good example to follow. LOL.

Saying Iran has "attacked" no one is a damnable lie and I think you are aware of it. Without Iran, Hezballah wouldn't exist, Hamas would be dramatically weaker and Syria would have fallen a couple years ago. Keep spreading it but don't expect anyone not to see bs for what it IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Oh really? LOL Let's talk about BS. There's obviously personal motivations which make all your posts on the subject biased and untrustworthy. Only the genuine and naive fail to see your cunning efforts in trying to make out Israel to be always the victim yet Zionist have been on the front foot since they decided they had a God given Right to the promised Land of Israel. Iran has NEVER attacked another nation, unlike Israel.

You should know all about providing support to insurgents and rebel groups since various US Govts made an art out of it over the decades. To name a few, the Contras in Nicaragua, Al Queda in Lybia, ISIS in Syria. On top of that, how about the coup d'etat's in Guatemala and Iran. How about the support for Saddam Hussein against Iran, how about the US invasions of Granada, Panama (where they even kidnapped the elected President) and Iraq, how about the War in Vietnam.

There's a lot more which I won't mention because they could be seen as speculative although, keeping to the subject on Iran, I like the one about the US Govt training an anti-Iranian terrorist group inside the US called the People Mujahedin of Iran and also the one where the CIA conducted covert operations together with other Sunni terrorist groups supporting them to conduct acts against the Govt of Iran. Finally, the support they provided minority groups inside Iran, such as the Azeri's and Kurd's, to conduct guerrilia operations. All around 2007-2008.

link

link

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

How funny and exactly the point I was making, thanks for supporting my theory. ONLY the Arabs were concerned and nobody said boo about Israel's illegal development of nuclear weapons.

Well GOSH I wonder why THAT is ? Perhaps because it was only the Arabs (actually, the Islamic world) who WANTED to eliminate Israel, and where prevented from doing so by the threat of Israels nuclear deterrent ? Nobody ELSE had genocidal intentions, so nobody ELSE cared one way or the other. Anyway, what's with this "illegal development of nuclear weapons" .?.. precisely WHICH "law" are you implying that Israel broke ? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to using the word "Israel" .... e.g. they have to be guilty of SOMETHING in EVERY sentence.

Quite biased that now everyone expects Iran to "do the right thing" for the region and the world community. In case you didn't notice, Arabs live in the region surrounding Israel so you would also have to presume they would be more worried about a little belligerent nation having nukes don't you think? Specially considering this little nation has shown no hesitation in pre-emptively attacking nations in the region in the past.

This little nation has shown no hesitation in attacking when threatened, no less, no more.

Is your objection based on the fact that Israel ATTEMPTED to defended itself ? Or is your objection based on the fact that Israel SUCESFULLY defended itself ?

You're theory of Israel being the good guys and Iran the bad guys is just pure hogwash.

How DARE you ? It took me AGES to build that theory. And all of the buttons are hand-sewn, I'll have you know ! Show more respect, bi-chromatic bumpkin ! :P

Iran hasn't attacked anyone, that "trustworthy" little nation Israel has. Actually, Israel have declared their will to attack Iran, more than once lately. Such a trustworthy custodian and a good example to follow. LOL.

Remind me again, how many nuclear weapons have Israel used ? So... a good custodian, then.

Now, as for Iran... are you TRULY going to stand there and ascribe any kind of stability for that theocratic loony bin ?

If we are to criticise Israel for bombing Iran (and Syria, for that matter), then I would suggest that the critique should be that they haven't bombed often enough !

Now, hei ye off to the corner, and put your nose against the wall until end of class !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Well, you forget what was happening tru history of Israel's conflict with Arabs. Every once in a while Israel gets more land ( be it from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon... Don't even need to mention Palestine ). Maybe it's true, if Jews give up guns it would made them easy target but also, if Arabs would give up their guns - we would see Great Israel, and that would happen very soon after Arabs would give up on their guns.

And yet curiously, Israel only ever gains territory from its Arab/Islamic neighbours as a result of THEM attacking Israel (or threateing to do so). Boo Hoo Crocodile Tears.

[edit] sorry for focusing just on this part but i think it's important to mention it because Israel lost it's credibility in most of Arab world, and has lost it long time ago.

And I think its worth noting that the "Arab" world hated Israel from before Israel (in the modern sense) even existed. So your comment about "lost credibility" is a tad jejune, to say nothing of being arbitrary floccinaucinihilipilification of the Jewish state.

Oh really? LOL Let's talk about BS. There's obviously personal motivations which make all your posts on the subject biased and untrustworthy. Only the genuine and naive fail to see your cunning efforts in trying to make out Israel to be always the victim .......

Is that REALLY what And Then was doing ? It seemed to me he was just listing Iran's attempts at asymetrical warfare and subversion. As it happens, I disagree with some of what he says - partiuclarly in regard HAMAS - but I didn't see him playing any "victim card" ?

You should know all about providing support to insurgents and rebel groups since various US Govts made an art out of it over the decades. To name a few, the Contras in Nicaragua, Al Queda in Lybia, ISIS in Syria. On top of that, how about the coup d'etat's in Guatemala and Iran. How about the support for Saddam Hussein against Iran, how about the US invasions of Granada, Panama (where they even kidnapped the elected President) and Iraq, how about the War in Vietnam.

There's a lot more which I won't mention because they could be seen as speculative although, keeping to the subject on Iran, I like the one about the US Govt training an anti-Iranian terrorist group inside the US called the People Mujahedin of Iran and also the one where the CIA conducted covert operations together with other Sunni terrorist groups supporting them to conduct acts against the Govt of Iran. Finally, the support they provided minority groups inside Iran, such as the Azeri's and Kurd's, to conduct guerrilia operations. All around 2007-2008.

Yeeeeeessssss..... ummm.... just a TEENY bit of "bait and switch" there, BiColoured Bealzebub ? You start talking about Israel and then - to support your position - give us a list of crimes commited by the USA ?

Is this a new game, and can anyone join ?

Hey... how about those fascist Israeli's, murdering the entire Romanov royal family, invading Checkoslovakia and Tibet, virtually blockading Cuba, and massacring all of the Tutu's in Rwanda ? SHAME on them. :w00t:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Well GOSH I wonder why THAT is ? Perhaps because it was only the Arabs (actually, the Islamic world) who WANTED to eliminate Israel, and where prevented from doing so by the threat of Israels nuclear deterrent ? Nobody ELSE had genocidal intentions, so nobody ELSE cared one way or the other. Anyway, what's with this "illegal development of nuclear weapons" .?.. precisely WHICH "law" are you implying that Israel broke ? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to using the word "Israel" .... e.g. they have to be guilty of SOMETHING in EVERY sentence.

"And were prevented by the threat of Israels nuclear deterrent" WOW. Obviously it's a powerful thing to be able to dictate terms and bully the region under the threat that whoever doesn't tow the line will get nuked.

So they aren't illegal?? And there's no Law preventing the development of nukes? So why is Iran being sanctioned and threatened for doing the same Israel did?? If there is no Law why does UN Resolution 1929 declare that Iran needs to undertake the following (amongst many other undertakings),

  • Inspect all cargo to and from Iran in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea and civil aviation agreements for prohibited items and report within five days explanations for the search and the findings from such inspections;

Does it sound pretty odd to you that the IAEA expected Iran comply and respect the NPT, YET, they were completely oblivious of Israel's nuclear program development and reluctance to even consider joing the NPT??!! :w00t:

This little nation has shown no hesitation in attacking when threatened, no less, no more.

Is your objection based on the fact that Israel ATTEMPTED to defended itself ? Or is your objection based on the fact that Israel SUCESFULLY defended itself ?

Not sure what english language you've been taught but I'm preeety sure that pre-emptive attack has nothing to do with defense.

Remind me again, how many nuclear weapons have Israel used ? So... a good custodian, then.

Now, as for Iran... are you TRULY going to stand there and ascribe any kind of stability for that theocratic loony bin ?

If we are to criticise Israel for bombing Iran (and Syria, for that matter), then I would suggest that the critique should be that they haven't bombed often enough !

Now, hei ye off to the corner, and put your nose against the wall until end of class !

Oh dear, this guy is either a troll or lost his marbles. LOL, I don't even know where to start with this abominable claptrap. Dissecting this, you go from glorifying trustworthy Israel for not turning the region into a huge microwave furnace despite them having a record of attacking their neighbors (per-emptively), then you go on a spree against Iran although they're the ones being threatened and you finish off by suggesting Israel should annihilate them for being unstable. :blink::wacko:

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Is that REALLY what And Then was doing ? It seemed to me he was just listing Iran's attempts at asymetrical warfare and subversion. As it happens, I disagree with some of what he says - partiuclarly in regard HAMAS - but I didn't see him playing any "victim card" ?

But of course you wouldn't see any of the above. That would go against your beliefs right? In fact, although I disagree with 99% of what he has to say, I understand his views which are consistent with his beliefs and he's had no problems in disclosing them, unlike you. ;) Nobody's a fool mate, you can tell us!

Yeeeeeessssss..... ummm.... just a TEENY bit of "bait and switch" there, BiColoured Bealzebub ? You start talking about Israel and then - to support your position - give us a list of crimes commited by the USA ?

Is this a new game, and can anyone join ?

Hey... how about those fascist Israeli's, murdering the entire Romanov royal family, invading Checkoslovakia and Tibet, virtually blockading Cuba, and massacring all of the Tutu's in Rwanda ? SHAME on them. :w00t:

Oh Gawd, the buffoonery starts again. Settle down, don't get agitated and try to keep up. :o

The accusation was against Iran for supporting Hamas, Hezbolah etc. My response showed they're not the only ones providing support. If you paid attention instead of going into hysterics, I was also pinpointing the fact that they've been interfered with far more times than the support they've provided these "terrorist" groups. Furthermore, the US has done deals with those animals from ISIS and Al Queda yet he has the hide to look into Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbolah. Now, unless you're obtuse, it's easy to understand why. I'll give you a hint, it's because they're a shot-put away from Israel, hence they're the immediate danger in conjunction with Iran's support. Hence, Israel's big push to eliminate Iran, via the US, with Western approval and involvement.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

"And were prevented by the threat of Israels nuclear deterrent" WOW. Obviously it's a powerful thing to be able to dictate terms and bully the region under the threat that whoever doesn't tow the line will get nuked.

And if Israel was guilty of that, they should be roundly condemned. But they AREN'T guilty of it. They have never used nuclear weapons as a lever to force their neighbours to "tow the line". Or can you give a specific example of this ? (naming the country involved, and the issue on which Israel was seeking to gain leverage over ? )

So they aren't illegal?? And there's no Law preventing the development of nukes? So why is Iran being sanctioned and threatened for doing the same Israel did??

If there is no Law why does UN Resolution 1929 declare that Iran needs to undertake the following (amongst many other undertakings),

  • Inspect all cargo to and from Iran in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea and civil aviation agreements for prohibited items and report within five days explanations for the search and the findings from such inspections;

Does it sound pretty odd to you that the IAEA expected Iran comply and respect the NPT, YET, they were completely oblivious of Israel's nuclear program development and reluctance to even consider joing the NPT??!! :w00t:

Well, your question actually touches upon the answer. Iran chose to sign up to the NPT. Then it breached the terms thereof, hence some of the sanctions. In addition, and relating purely to the UN Security Council; that organisation has a remit to take all action necessary to maintain world peace. A nuclear-armed Iran would NOT be conducive to world peace, as the Iranian theocracy couldn't be trusted NOT to launch them as part of an aggressive campaign. (as opposed to the Jewish Theocracy, which has a proven track record of responsible custodianship, even when attacked).

We have to be a TAD careful, though, because a lot of the sanctions are NOT necessarily to do with Nuclear bombs. The USA has imposed sanctions on Iran every since Iran's invasion of the USA in 1979.

Not sure what english language you've been taught but I'm preeety sure that pre-emptive attack has nothing to do with defense.

Most of these people disagree with you

Pentagon-Building-in-Wash-007.jpg

General Sir John Nicholas Reynolds Houghton, Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces,

has GRAVE reservations about your statement

130420775_377119c.jpg

Field Marshall Lieutenant General Bernard Montgomery is aghast that anyone could be SO mistaken,

90px-Bernard_Law_Montgomery.jpg

Meanwhile, this ancient military strategist thinks that your Kung Fu is weak !

sun_tzu_strategy.jpeg

To paraphrase Sun Tzu above: "The best defense is a good offense"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

And yet curiously, Israel only ever gains territory from its Arab/Islamic neighbours as a result of THEM attacking Israel (or threateing to do so). Boo Hoo Crocodile Tears.

Illegal occupation is illegal occupation, who attacked first won't change that.

And I think its worth noting that the "Arab" world hated Israel from before Israel (in the modern sense) even existed. So your comment about "lost credibility" is a tad jejune, to say nothing of being arbitrary floccinaucinihilipilification of the Jewish state.

Sure, since first Palestinian villages in 'God promised land' were burned - hate started. When enough land was stolen and enough of territory was ethnically cleansed only then was Israel formed.

Israel has lost it's credibility not only among Arab population ;) What are you saying - that Israel has high credibility around the world? Well then, you know better then me i guess, br.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Illegal occupation is illegal occupation, who attacked first won't change that.

Very true. But somewhat irrelevant, as the Israeli occupation of the territory is NOT illegal under international law. (except for the tiny bit around East Jerusalem, which might be illegal. However, as nobody has actually brought a 'test case' over it, the question of legality remains in abeyance).

Sure, since first Palestinian villages in 'God promised land' were burned - hate started.

The hatred and oppression of Jews started LONG before that, Sir Smokealot, as I'm sure you're aware. The Arabs where intermittently slaughtering Jews since around AD650. This went on up to the 1920's, when suddenly the Jews broke the rules of dhiimmitude by starting to fight back !

When enough land was stolen and enough of territory was ethnically cleansed only then was Israel formed.

Yawn. Israel was formed in 1948, with a significant Arab population.The surrounding Arab states invaded, and triggered the bulk (though not ALL ) of the Arab civlian exodus. The only systematic "ethnic cleansing" that went on was the large-scale expulsion of Jews from Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Syria, Saudi and so forth.

Are you aware that there are more Arab citizens of Israel than there are Jews in the entire muslim world ? By this, I include the entire Arabia peninsula, Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. And when I say "more than...", I mean by a FACTOR of several hundred. (approx 20,000 jews in the Islamic world - mostly in Turkey - but 1.3 MILLION Arab Israeli's in Israel). So by all means lets talk about expulsions and ethnic cleansing shall we ?

Israel has lost it's credibility not only among Arab population ;) What are you saying - that Israel has high credibility around the world? Well then, you know better then me i guess, br.

You can say that. I couldn't possibly comment :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

Very true. But somewhat irrelevant, as the Israeli occupation of the territory is NOT illegal under international law. (except for the tiny bit around East Jerusalem, which might be illegal. However, as nobody has actually brought a 'test case' over it, the question of legality remains in abeyance).

Well, many things to discuss there but it would lead usfar from topic here. Anyways, West Bank and Gaza have their taxes collected by Israel ( maybe not completely true but you know that Israel denied tax money because of ICC's application by Palestine, among other things this point out that both Gaza and West Bank are occupied in a way, even if troops are moved out ), part of Syrian land ( for which Syrian government accepted Lebanon claims over it - '' Golan Heights '' ) - so it's not only a tiny bit around East Jerusalem.

The hatred and oppression of Jews started LONG before that, Sir Smokealot, as I'm sure you're aware. The Arabs where intermittently slaughtering Jews since around AD650. This went on up to the 1920's, when suddenly the Jews broke the rules of dhiimmitude by starting to fight back !

There were numerous events from history which would point out that there were problems among different groups of people everywhere in the world and usually with chatastrophic results.

Yawn. Israel was formed in 1948, with a significant Arab population.The surrounding Arab states invaded, and triggered the bulk (though not ALL ) of the Arab civlian exodus. The only systematic "ethnic cleansing" that went on was the large-scale expulsion of Jews from Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Syria, Saudi and so forth.

Are you aware that there are more Arab citizens of Israel than there are Jews in the entire muslim world ? By this, I include the entire Arabia peninsula, Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. And when I say "more than...", I mean by a FACTOR of several hundred. (approx 20,000 jews in the Islamic world - mostly in Turkey - but 1.3 MILLION Arab Israeli's in Israel). So by all means lets talk about expulsions and ethnic cleansing shall we ?

Arabs in Israel have the same rights as Jews in Turkey have... Oh, wait, that is not really true because Arabs position in Jewish state society is becoming worse as we speak and most of Arab population is living in East Jerusalem ( surrounded by walls ) or in occupied Golan Heights. Discrimination is part of Arab population daily lives in Israel.

You can say that. I couldn't possibly comment :D

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

And if Israel was guilty of that, they should be roundly condemned. But they AREN'T guilty of it. They have never used nuclear weapons as a lever to force their neighbours to "tow the line". Or can you give a specific example of this ? (naming the country involved, and the issue on which Israel was seeking to gain leverage over ? )

Actually they have, at least in the POV of those like BRD. They’ve forced their neighbors not to attack them.

Most of these people disagree with you

Here are a few more that would disagree:

wayne.jpg

general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg

patton1.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

And if Israel was guilty of that, they should be roundly condemned. But they AREN'T guilty of it. They have never used nuclear weapons as a lever to force their neighbours to "tow the line". Or can you give a specific example of this ? (naming the country involved, and the issue on which Israel was seeking to gain leverage over ? )

Oh well, let's thank God that Israel is in a position to never have to use them. The West will just have to make sure Israel is always kept powerful enough to ensure their little turf never get's overrun by hordes of fanatic Islamists otherwise those safe little hands might just have to push the button and go baboom. Because that was the reason they developed nukes wasn't it? For defense, so they could send a few confetti's towards Teheran, for example, when things got messy.

Phew, I feel safer already, although I'm a bit confused and for the life of me I just can't get my head around this part. Remind me why Iran, who is constantly getting threatened by Israel and who has nukes for defensive purposes, can't do the same for defensive purposes? Because they're unstable I hear you say. Yet, they've never attacked anyone and have had constant foreign interference since 1953. Who is declaring their instability? The UN I hear you say because of their enrichment program. That same UN who completely ignored to send their IAEA to Dimona to verify Israel's enrichment program. Well fair enough, I wouldn't have taken the risk in going to Dimona either if I was them since Israel never agreed to join the Non Proliferation Treaty. :lol: Totally laughable and biased.

Well, your question actually touches upon the answer. Iran chose to sign up to the NPT. Then it breached the terms thereof, hence some of the sanctions. In addition, and relating purely to the UN Security Council; that organisation has a remit to take all action necessary to maintain world peace. A nuclear-armed Iran would NOT be conducive to world peace, as the Iranian theocracy couldn't be trusted NOT to launch them as part of an aggressive campaign. (as opposed to the Jewish Theocracy, which has a proven track record of responsible custodianship, even when attacked).

So, if Iran does as North Korea did, then the UN wouldn't have a say in the matter, correct?

We have to be a TAD careful, though, because a lot of the sanctions are NOT necessarily to do with Nuclear bombs. The USA has imposed sanctions on Iran every since Iran's invasion of the USA in 1979.

What, when, where, who?? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Very true. But somewhat irrelevant, as the Israeli occupation of the territory is NOT illegal under international law. (except for the tiny bit around East Jerusalem, which might be illegal. However, as nobody has actually brought a 'test case' over it, the question of legality remains in abeyance).

She would disagree with you,

MTE4MDAzNDEwMDU4NTc3NDIy.jpg

And he,

ban_ki-moon_portrait.jpg

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

And them,

l_424-International-Red-Cross.jpg

md_p0206-geneva-conventions-4.jpg

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Well, your question actually touches upon the answer. Iran chose to sign up to the NPT. Then it breached the terms thereof, hence some of the sanctions.

This is true. Iran claimed it resumed enrichment because "the international community backtracked on its promises to help Tehran develop a civilian nuclear energy program and to remove Iran as a “special case” at the IAEA."

source

Such a claim is credible, considering the USA's hostility to Iran having a nuclear program of any sort, and the isolation of Iran - if true - would lead to them having to "go it alone" in defiance of IAEA regulations. If Tehran's claim is true, then you can argue all you want regarding whether the "international community" was right to deny Iran the help promised, but the subsequent resumption of enrichment by Iran would be completely understandable and not be necessarily suggestive of a "secret nuclear weapons program."

That's not to be so naive to consider such a program isn't in place, just that the fact that Iran was sanctioned by the IAEA does not show it to be so.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Oh well, let's thank God that Israel is in a position to never have to use them. The West will just have to make sure Israel is always kept powerful enough to ensure their little turf never get's overrun by hordes of fanatic Islamists otherwise those safe little hands might just have to push the button and go baboom. Because that was the reason they developed nukes wasn't it? For defense, so they could send a few confetti's towards Teheran, for example, when things got messy.

Phew, I feel safer already, although I'm a bit confused and for the life of me I just can't get my head around this part. Remind me why Iran, who is constantly getting threatened by Israel and who has nukes for defensive purposes, can't do the same for defensive purposes? Because they're unstable I hear you say. Yet, they've never attacked anyone and have had constant foreign interference since 1953. Who is declaring their instability? The UN I hear you say because of their enrichment program. That same UN who completely ignored to send their IAEA to Dimona to verify Israel's enrichment program. Well fair enough, I wouldn't have taken the risk in going to Dimona either if I was them since Israel never agreed to join the Non Proliferation Treaty. :lol: Totally laughable and biased.

So, if Iran does as North Korea did, then the UN wouldn't have a say in the matter, correct?

What, when, where, who?? :huh:

You don'r remember the invasion at Tampa Bay and and how we routed and destroyed the Iranian Expeditonary Force outside Clearwater? How two squadrons of A10s sank their fleet of Sanpans and now they call Tampa Bay Bamboo Bottom? :yes:
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

Fear of genocide is a powerful motive for using nuclear weapons.

Fear makes people do crazy things but when nuclear weapons are in question i just don't know.

Germany is responsible for this.

So why were German manufactures allowed to help Syria construct its chemical weapons program?

Who allowed that to happen?

It's like Adolf Hitler never died.

Its the world, everyone who should be blamed.

I think that many countries still produce and still help other countries to produce all kinds of harmful gases and who knows what not. It's fight for profit and such deals are everyday things, its business. Now, after Assad has been labeled almost as a devil - such deals come in public. Not relevant by my humble opinion. I hope to see new laws being made, new goals in politics and only then, with changes, could we expect to see better future. The way things are now is just a shame to everyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.