Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal

reply to post by DeadSeraph

So which is it? The word of the jews that have occupied this land for millenia (outside of military expulsion by the Arabs, Romans, Babylonians, etc) or the word of jews on the streets of London? This is a small look at the matter. What do you propose? That Jerusalem be handed over to the "Palestinians" and the Jews have no say over what was their holy city at least a thousand years before it was Muslim? Why does the Muslim agenda take precedence?

Look at how many centuries Jerusalem had been in the hands of the Muslims they didn't stop anyone from coming there and practicing their faith. And there was no fighting until the Zionist showed up on the scene. Half of Jerusalem belongs to Palestine already so why shouldn't all of it belong to them? What happened a thousand years ago is the past and that is where that type of thinking belongs in the past. Jerusalem existed long before the Jewish faith ever began so they really have no claim to the city. If the Sumerians were to suddenly show back up would all the people in Israel agree to leave seeing how the land belonged to them first? This the land belonged to us in ages past so it should belong to us now is only for ignorant people. And I would trust what that Jew in London says before I would trust anything a Zionist says because Zionist are nothing but liars and thieves and this going by their actions shows to be true.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

What the antisemitic crowds on ATS will argue, is that they are against "Zionism" and not the Jewish people. What they don't often admit is that "Zionism" means THE NATION OF ISRAEL.

Normally I will ready all the way through a thread, but I had to stop right here. Are you saying THESE men are expressing anti-semetic beliefs? Please, do go on....

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Not trying to pick sides in your side debate but the picture says all that needs to be said.

Fair enough, but Iran are not Isolated like we are led to believe.. Those bases could be leveled very quickly in co-ordinated strikes from other regional players in a conflict who support the Iranian stance.

edit on 30-8-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)

You have no argument from me there that's for sure.

I think this is one of the main factors stopping Israel and the United States from following through with their planned agenda at the pace that they would prefer. My guess is that they would have rather had completed their Middle Eastern agenda a decade ago but unfortunately for them it's not working out as well as they wished because the regional players can cause some damage to Israel and American military bases.

Due to the slow pace of this agenda's advancement we have constant finger pointing coming from Israel and it's allies while refusing to acknowledge their own faults in the situation.

edit on 30-8-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

I can't argue there because I mostly agree with the both of you. I just know if I were a nation and I had that much force aligned up along my borders including all the talk of "strikes" against me, I would be a bit nervous and for damned good reason. I just wanted to illustrate that the Iranians do have a good reason and it just isn't paranoia. There are great and very real forces being built up which is the reason I pointed to maps in the first place.

I remember awhile back when there was talk of Iranian advisers going to Venezuela and trade relations grew warm between the two... and the US about blew a vessel in their forehead over that. I remember thinking at the time that if Iraq wound down and the ME calmed down, Venezuela would be the next country in the US sights.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Those bases could be leveled very quickly in co-ordinated strikes from other regional players in a conflict who support the Iranian stance.

edit on 30-8-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)

But WHAT IF the Iranian stance is actually (wait for it!)....PEACE?!?! *gasp*

I think it can be agreed upon that any country's leadership must be first and foremost about protecting the safety and well-being of their people in international affairs as well as domestically.

So...given that premise, and the strategic positions that the map reveals...combined with the fact that SO FAR, Iran has not even threatened overtly any kind of defensive military action at all...makes me think that perhaps...JUST PERHAPS...not everyone in the middle east or the world, for that matter, is a foaming at the mouth rabid war-dog.

And in fact, Iran has NO history of starting wars...participation in war being limited to just once when Iraq took advantage of a weakened Iran and invaded and Iran defended their borders as was their right to do. The only reason they were weakened was through the revolution going on at the time...which the US in large part instigated and promoted...

And so maybe the other countries that would seem to side with Iran are not doing it simply because of religious affiliations and Muslim cohesiveness but rather because everyone in the ME wants peace...except the State of Israel. I mean, really...anyone with any kind of desire to actually enjoy life surely has got to be sick and fed up with the perpetual unrest over there.

What do we care, generally speaking? We don't have to suffer that unrest even though we are largely responsible for keeping it going by our continued military presence over there. As they say in the UFC...America has an unbelievable reach advantage. We should still fight fair...better yet...not fight at all.

reply to post by queenannie38


They might have no history of starting wars, but the rhetoric of some people in a position of power there when it comes to Israel is unmistakable. Even if you feel the jews occupy Palestine illegally, you dont throw rethoric of that kind around. You either take over the country with force or you dont.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by queenannie38

 

They might have no history of starting wars, but the rhetoric of some people in a position of power there when it comes to Israel is unmistakable. Even if you feel the jews occupy Palestine illegally, you dont throw rethoric of that kind around. You either take over the country with force or you dont.

So am I understanding correctly that you propose that because the Iranian President does not agree with the way that the State of Israel was formed and authorized....that his only two choices are to either take Israel back by force or otherwise just STFU?



And why are his comments on that issue deemed rhetoric? Other than their continual misrepresentation/mistranslation as used by the opposition media?

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

WTF? Double standards! What have these Arab/Muslim yahoos done to stop Pakistan from producing a nuclear stockpile way beyond its requirements? It has now the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world!!!

Is it that they think it is OK for a Muslim country to have nukes? Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today. Its nukes could be taken over by terrorists supported by extremist elements within the Army/ISI sooner than later which poses a clear and present danger to the entire world due to nuclear blackmail.

Israel is certainly a more responsible nation than Pakistan. So the Arabs should start with Pakistan first.

Well, to be clear, Pakistan is not in the habit of threatening it's neighbors with attack, other than the odd border squirmish with India in the disputed Kashmir region. Pakistan's nuclear program was created as a deterrent for it's neighbor India who already were a nuclear power. India and Pakistan both took separate paths about how they pursued and developped their programs but that is a whole other thread topic.

So in essence it's not a double standard. Pakistan is not in the habit of threatening the whole region as Israel quite often does. If the nations of the region felt Pakistan was a threat, they would surely mention this, in fact it has been mentioned various times and Pakistan has for the most part proven that it can be trusted and that their nukes are secure. I'm not saying that they are 100% guilt free, but they are a whole lot more transparent than Israel.

What are your thoughts of a nation like Pakistan which you consider to be full of extremists showing more transparency than the "only democracy in the ME" AKA Israel?

There is always the chance that Pakistan could have an "uprising" where the nukes could "fall into the wrong hands" but this would only happen if the United States allowed it to happen as Pakistan is another US stooge, and does what it is told.

The fact that you imply Muslim countries should not have nukes proves to me that you might have some bias in this situation. Are you saying Israel should be allowed to have nukes because they are primarily a non Muslim country?

Israel is also ran by extremists, and the extremist element in Israel is very extreme and the fact that these nut jobs have nukes frightens me. Look up the Samson option and you might be a little scared too.

I wonder if israel flouridates there populations water supply too

Maybe someone out there would like to define an infadell to me and let me know how they are treated by muslims and then and only then will you understand why they shouldnt be allowed to ever have any weapons of any kind

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Yeah yeah whatever. For starters PressTV as a reliable and credible source? You must be joking! PressTV has less (way less) credibility than the BBC, Fox and CNN. Yeah, and that's not saying much and nothing to be proud of. If you like PressTV you support terrorism ..... fact.

Who cares! This will all blow over and business will be back to normal soon. Just because the little Terrorist runt in Iran stamps his foot? Aw Jeez! He's just not that important a person.

To all the left wing terrorist sympathisers get over yourselves.

The facts are:

1) Iran is a terrorist nation who are striving to build a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel & their allies.

2) Israel is allowed to have Nukes and Iran are not, simple. Iran cannot be trusted.

And all the left wing bitching, moaning, protest, forum and blog writing gets you no where. The people "running the show" just don't care about you or your opinion and will defend the more responsible nation of Israel's right to have nukes and stop the terrorist nation of Iran having them. Drive them into the ground and turn them into glass if required.

These are facts of life

edit on Wed Aug 29 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

I can't speak for all the left wingers, but I certainly reject ANY NATION that is emphatically non-secular. That includes both iran and israel. I tend to despise israel MORE because they are the ones pushing for free trade globalism with NO RESPECT for local cultures and the hardships people must endure.

Jews are into predatory finance and have a monopoly of jewelry.

Plenty of reasons to despise those folks. BTW I am not a racist since my dislike is focused only on them. I have lots of tolerance for most ethnic backgrounds. Going back to the time of christ they crucified him and bear the curse of greed.

This family single-handedly build israel from all the money they stole from the nations in terms of DEBT!

The federal reserve also belongs to them. Ron Paul wants to expose it and that is why he will NEVER win.

Private central banking continously funds multinational corporations, who in turn then DICTATE to governments what they should do.

Try the bilderberger group. Council on foreign relations, the right wing think tanks, cia and other covert groups inlcuding the illuminati.

Jews lead the corruption!

John F Kennedy did try to do the inspection of the Dimona Nuclear facility, and we all know what happen.
Since then not one American President did even attempt to do so.

rense.com...

The second item below is a letter from JFK to Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol which
makes it crystal clear JFK did NOT want the Jewish state to develop nuclear weapons and
that he was demanding regular US inspections of the Dimona Nuclear facility...which, as we
now know, was/is used to develop Israel's enormous inventory of atomic and thermonuclear
weapons. The US Air Force white paper regarding past and ongoing Israeli thermonuclear
blackmail of the US is a stunning look at how Zionism has exerted such staggering domination
over the US for decades. -

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Yeah yeah whatever. For starters PressTV as a reliable and credible source? You must be joking! PressTV has less (way less) credibility than the BBC, Fox and CNN. Yeah, and that's not saying much and nothing to be proud of. If you like PressTV you support terrorism ..... fact.

Who cares! This will all blow over and business will be back to normal soon. Just because the little Terrorist runt in Iran stamps his foot? Aw Jeez! He's just not that important a person.

To all the left wing terrorist sympathisers get over yourselves.

The facts are:

1) Iran is a terrorist nation who are striving to build a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel & their allies.

2) Israel is allowed to have Nukes and Iran are not, simple. Iran cannot be trusted.

And all the left wing bitching, moaning, protest, forum and blog writing gets you no where. The people "running the show" just don't care about you or your opinion and will defend the more responsible nation of Israel's right to have nukes and stop the terrorist nation of Iran having them. Drive them into the ground and turn them into glass if required.

These are facts of life

edit on Wed Aug 29 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

I can't speak for all the left wingers, but I certainly reject ANY NATION that is emphatically non-secular. That includes both iran and israel. I tend to despise israel MORE because they are the ones pushing for free trade globalism with NO RESPECT for local cultures and the hardships people must endure.

Jews are into predatory finance and have a monopoly of jewelry.

Plenty of reasons to despise those folks. BTW I am not a racist since my dislike is focused only on them. I have lots of tolerance for most ethnic backgrounds. Going back to the time of christ they crucified him and bear the curse of greed.

Unbelievable nonsense! Where did you get your education in the International Nazi school?

Jews are predatory (GREEDY) finance: So no Christian works in finance??? Really? Proof?

Jews have a monopoly on Jewellery? Care to provide any proof on that nonsense????

So ALL JEWS work in finance or Jewellery??? There are no Jewish factory workers? Shoe makers? Tailors? Road Sweepers (I know one)? Waiters? Cooks? Maids? Builders? Shop workers? Really? Are you that STUPID?

Israel is pushing for free trade??? No, sorry that is the USA, if you had ever been to Israel you would know they are protectionist and levy high import taxes, so again BS!

The Romans crucified Jesus (as you know him) NOT the Jews, a Roman Soldier then threw a spear in Yeshua ben Yosef (a Jew) to finish off the job! 300 years later Constantine Emporer of Rome decides to invent a new religion to subjugate his people and invented a fairy tale based on Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) he then blamed the Jews for killing Jesus (by misdirection) and since then jews have suffered this curse! There were no Christians then, Jesus/Yeshua was Jewish and so were most of his followers!

I know most people are ignoring his obvious Jew Hating rhetoric, but I could not as this ignorance just makes my blood boil! Whatever happened to DENY IGNORANCE on ATS?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
There was not enough evidence/proof to justify an attack on the Syrian facility.,

That we know of.. We seem to ignore intelligence operations and yes I understand peoples mindset towards those groups. Not all intelligence is wrong / faulty nor is it complete when relased to the public. Its possible there is information that was obtained that was not disclosed to the public for various reasons. We also have a tendency to jump to conclusions when the news does come out by only seeing US involvement. We ignore the possibility that intelligence info can come from other countries intelligence agencies.

Question - If there is no evidence / proof coupled with Syrian denial about the function of the facility then why did they wait a few years to allow inspectors in? Would it not make more sense for Syria to bring inspectors in right away to confirm the facility was not nuclear / clandestine in nature?

Originally posted by Corruption ExposedThe reason Syria didn't retaliate is because they know better. A Syrian attack on Israel would result in a massive land theft and a certain end to the current regime, which probably won't be there much longer anyways but that is beside the point.

This goes back to my post above. Why not get the inspectors in to prove its not what the claims are? That would allow Syria to take the issue to the UN / be justified in lauinching their own strikes in self defense.

Over the last 50 years Syria has not shied away from Israel, participating in several wars against Israel. Why would it be any different today? What has changed?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
The only thing that Syria was accused of was denying access, which does look suspicious..

If I remeber right the lag time between destruction and an IAEA visit was almost 3 years. It brings me back to my argument that if the facilities were not nuclear then why not prove it by having inspectors visit the site? The results could easily put Israel on the defensive.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
but bad things happen when UN contingents visit, scientists and political rivals get assassinated possibly assisted with help from these reports and documents

I can appreciate that position but only up to a point.
In order to determine who is responsible for those assasinations Iran would need to use their intelligence services. That again brings us back to Syria and Iran and their programs and western intelligence agencies assesments.

My other issue is a country citing assasinations as an excuse to not comply with treaty obligations.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
so I don't blame Syria for not wanting to bow down to ridiculous demands of allowing foreign enemies into their country.

UN teams are not foreign enemies however if Syria / Iran views them as such then why are they UN members? IAEA / NPT signatories? Syria / Iran knew full well what was required when they signed those 2 treaties.

To me its kind of coming across as a double standard (no offense intended and please feel free to point out the opposing double standard). It seems ok to accept Syrian / Iranian inteliligence in order to justify an action while at the same time dismissing other intelligence reports.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
As you said, Iran and Syria have denied inspections of certain facilities for various reasons which does add some substance to your argument,

Even more so, imo, simply because they are required to allow inspections. If they dont want to comply with the agreement they signed and ratified then why did they sign it in the first place? Why not withdraw from them?


** broke my response into 2 separate posts **

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
but the fact of the matter is that Israel has around 300 war heads and have this thing called the samson option.

Israel has never declared they have nuclear weapons and that declaration must come from their government. If we are going to use intelligence sources / people involved then can we not do the same for Syria / Iran? (I think this might become a circular point for both of us).

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
I'm not saying you say this, but there is a common "Israel can have nukes, they never used them" mentality but they have made it known they would and have threatened to do so via more veiled threats...such as "all options are on the table" which could be interpreted any way you want.

No worries, although I do think some countries are more responsible than others. Using your position above why is a veiled threat more reliable than a direct threat?

All options are on the table is drastically different than stating Israel / Zionist state should be removed from the map. The threats being made against Iran deal solely with their nuke program where as the threats against Israel deals solely with their existence. People have consistently stated that Iran is referring only to the Israeli government and not Israeili citizens.

The massive flaw in that position is Irans (and Syria) position towards Israel, which is to say Iran / Syria does not recognize Israel as a country and does not recognize the Israeli government. If they hold that view point towards Israel then what would Iran be attacking?

People like to post a picture showing Iran and all the American bases around it (actually if they researched they would find that map is not correct at all). I can create the same type of map using Israel and her surrounding neighbors.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
I have no problem with inspectors in Iran or Syria, but it would only be logical if Israel allowed inspectors in too since they want the world community to take their word,

It would only be logical if Israel was a signatory to the treaties and since they are not they dont have to comply with those treaties. If we were to force inspections then it would also need to be done for North Korea, India, Pakistan. One could then argue, since Israel has not confirmed a nuclear weapons program, that we should force inspections on Iran and Syria.

As for convincing the world its a 2 way street. Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) should allow inspections to convince the world their nuclear program is in compliance.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
when they can't even admit their arsenals that they are accusing other nations of developing,

Since they are not signatories there is nothing to declare and there is no confirmation / denial they have a nuclear weapons program (I apologize for using this position as much as I have). Again, and no offense is intended, its coming across as a double standard. The Israeli government has not confirmed or denied a nuke program and Iran has denied their program has military elements to it.

Why is one position (israel nuke program) accepted as valid / real while the other position (Iran) is ignored?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
even though Panetta and Israeli sources has gone as far as saying that Iran is not currently seeking the bomb, that has changed lately though.

It has never been the position of the US that Iran has to create a bomb and the US has stated many times that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear programs. The concern is the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has consistently twisted the US / West position, stating those countries are trying to stop their civilian power program.


Question -
Why is it ok to accept the information provided by Panetta / Israeli sources relating to Iran and their not currently seeking nukes while at the saem time ignoring / dismissing reports from those same sources when it goes against Iran?

Going back to a question you asked -

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
I'm not saying you say this, but there is a common "Israel can have nukes, they never used them" mentality but

This goes back to responsibility of the respective nations and where that Israel can but Iran cant mentality. Possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, if its ever confirmed, is legal since they are not signatories. Iran on the other hand is a signatory, making nukes illegal.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
I hope I answered all your questions, even they weren't in the right order. I can elaborate more if you wish.

You answered them all and I have asked a few more questions in my response. Some of the questions are identical.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
I would like to know if you officially acknowledge Israel's arsenal, regardless of their ambiguity on the subject.

I dont offically acknowledge it because I am not privy to information that confirms it. Its the same position with some minor exceptions, I have towards Iran and their program.

To acknowledge Israels arsenal would require an acknowledgement that Irans program is clandestine. I come to that conclusion because in order to accuse Israel we must rely on intelligence / other sources while ignoring the Israeli governments position on the matter. In order to accuse Iran we must rely on intelligence / other sources while ignoring the Iranian governments position on the matter.



Israel and Iran are ambiguous...
Israel and Iran most likely have nuclear weapons prorams.
In the case of Israel, if they have nukes, its lawful.
In the case of Iran, if they have nukes, its unlawful.

Thats based solely on just the treaties.

Thanks for your responses and insight. I have learned some things I was not familiar with while researching the topic.

reply to post by YUKYUKFOO


LOL sorry to go out of context but in 2012

EPA and HHS Admit That Water Fluoridation Is Bad

source
Fox news

In a surprising reversal, last month EPA’s announced that it intends to lower the maximum amount of fluoride in drinking water because of growing evidence supporting the chemical’s possible deleterious effects to children’s health.

For sure they do not the Jews, But the Zionist regime for sure fluoride the Jews water

PLZ don't reply to that out of context post thx

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey

Unbelievable nonsense! Where did you get your education in the International Nazi school?

You prove to me 6 million jews were gassed to death rather than that supplies were short due to the war blockade of the allies.

Jews are predatory (GREEDY) finance: So no Christian works in finance??? Really? Proof?

Everyone is involved with global "free trade" capitalism, BUT people of jewish background LEAD the effort.

Jews have a monopoly on Jewellery? care to provide any proof on that nonsense????

What kind of proof are you looking for? The proof is all around you. Just look! (unless you live on a different planet).

So ALL JEWS work in finance or Jewellery??? There are no Jewish factory workers? Shoe makers? Tailors? Road Sweepers (I know one)? Waiters? Cooks? Maids? Builders? Shop workers? Really? Are you that STUPID?

Calm down. Why are you so nervous? Are you jewish and cannot see the forest from all the trees?

Israel is pushing for free trade??? No, sorry that is the USA, if you had ever been to Israel you would know they are protectionist and levy high import taxes, so again BS!

Israel and the USA are bed buddies. They speak WITH ONE VOICE!

The Romans crucified Jesus (as you know him) NOT the Jews, a Roman Soldier then threw a spear in Yeshua ben Yosef (a Jew) to finish off the job! 300 years later Constantine Emporer of Rome decides to invent a new religion to subjugate his people and inveted a fairy tale based on Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) he then blamed the Jews for killing Jesus (by misdirection) and since then jews have suffered this curse! There were no Christians then, Jesus/Yeshua was Jewish and so were most of his followers!

Judea was a roman province and the governor of the land washed his hands clean. That means all the responsibility fell to the high jewish priests who WANTED him DEAD because he was stealing the show from them. He performed miracles but was treated as dirt. His occupation was a carpenter and that made him a target for hate and ridicule, much like today where if you are not a doctor or lawyer people look down upon you.

Jews are still awaiting for the "real messiah" while christians are awaiting for the second coming of christ.

I know most people are ignoring his obvious Jew Hating rhetoric, but I could not as this ignorance just makes my blood boil! Whatever happened to DENY IGNORANCE on ATS?

Stop trying to school someone who knows more than you.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by queenannie38

 

They might have no history of starting wars, but the rhetoric of some people in a position of power there when it comes to Israel is unmistakable. Even if you feel the jews occupy Palestine illegally, you dont throw rethoric of that kind around. You either take over the country with force or you dont.

So am I understanding correctly that you propose that because the Iranian President does not agree with the way that the State of Israel was formed and authorized....that his only two choices are to either take Israel back by force or otherwise just STFU?



And why are his comments on that issue deemed rhetoric? Other than their continual misrepresentation/mistranslation as used by the opposition media?

Pretty much, yes. Imagine if Bush would have talked of wiping Iraq off the map. If you dont have the muscle stfu. If you do have it, use force in a controlled manner, not to wipe something off the map. However I am fairly certain Iran does not want to have to deal with whatever is going on in Israel either.

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

What the antisemitic crowds on ATS will argue, is that they are against "Zionism" and not the Jewish people. What they don't often admit is that "Zionism" means THE NATION OF ISRAEL.

Normally I will ready all the way through a thread, but I had to stop right here. Are you saying THESE men are expressing anti-semetic beliefs? Please, do go on....

Zionism is the creation of A NON-SECULAR JEWISH NATION called israel!

It also means ONLY people of jewish background can run israel.

That is why christians and muslims have a problem with zionism.

They also have a problem with the great wall of china within israel, to seperate it from palestine. In effect the palestinians are BOXED-IN and isolated. much like caged animals!

Even iran which is also non-secular allows christians and jews trouble-free transit.

So Christians and Muslims can have their own religious country but Israel can't have one? Or they can't have their own religiously run state?

Jews aren't allowed to discriminate against non-Jews but Muslims can discriminate against non-Muslims?

WTF?

Boy, all kinds of double standards when it comes to Jews.

In other words, it's okay for one group of people to discriminate against people who don't match their beliefs, but it's not okay for Zionist Jews because they have the wrong kind of beliefs and must be either Christian or Muslim.

Typical, Just typical.