It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lucid eyes
Netanyahu seems to be very, very delusional.
reply to post by bigyin
When he whines about Iran being run by fanatics, to me it's pot calling kettle black.
reply to post by Drezden
The same type of fanaticism that compels Israelis to build on Palestinian land because their religious books tells them God promised them that land only for the Jews?
The excessively harsh language used by the top U.S. officer is both insulting and counterproductive. Obama should use his speech at Democratic Convention to change Israeli perceptions of isolation.
If I didn’t know any better I would assume that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey is trying to goad Israel into attacking Iran. Otherwise, why would he go to such great lengths to try and persuade them that Israel is on its own and can rely only on itself?
Because that is the net effect of Dempsey’s statements in London last week, especially his yet-to-be-properly-explained use of the word “complicit” as in "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.” Complicit? As in what – war crimes?
Even if one accepts the validity of Dempsey’s assertion that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would “delay and not destroy” Iran’s nuclear program, and even if one understands the need for him to spell out the Administration’s belief that such an attack would “thwart” the “international coalition” – whatever that means – his use of the word “complicit” is somewhere on the scale between unfortunate and way out of line. And to make matters worse, despite the days that have passed, it has yet to be explained or retracted or apologized for, as the Wall Street Journal correctly pointed out in its Friday editorial.
President Barack Obama’s national security team had every reason to believe they’d be spared a Bibi eruption before Election Day.
Earlier this year, U.S. and Israeli officials had informally agreed to stop airing their well-documented disagreements over how to halt Iran’s nuclear program, according to two people familiar with the situation.
But on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke the tacit détente. He accused the Obama administration, albeit not by name, of going squishy on Tehran by not creating concrete benchmarks — “red lines,” he called them — for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The latest flare-up in the tempestuous Obama-Netanyahu relationship was overshadowed Wednesday by the carnage at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But U.S. officials believe the intense debate over the allied response to Iran’s nuclear program — and the sharp personal, policy and political differences between the two leaders — rivals the perils posed by the excesses of the Arab Spring.
Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
reply to post by bigyin
When he whines about Iran being run by fanatics, to me it's pot calling kettle black.
You do know that gays, lesbians transexuals and every other 'fruit of the forest' are freely allowed to have parades throughout Israel, even in Jerusalem, the 'holy city'. Their government has Arab members of parliament who represent the arab/palestinian population, and are not shy in their vocal vitriolic hatred of Israel. But hey, Israel is a SECULAR DEMOCRACY. All people have a right to be represented by a voice and group.
Now lets see how free people are to be 'gay, out and proud' in Tehran without fear of instant hanging. I can be a Jew, a Moslem, a Christian, an Atheist in Israel. And I can chop and change my mind about that (except in Gaza,) because I have freedom of identity. The state does not dictate who I am. Now, try being a Christian in a country where you are considered Muslim by birth, and therefore apostate and deserving of death for choosing to believe Jesus over mohammed.
You have no idea what fanaticism is.
Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
reply to post by Drezden
The same type of fanaticism that compels Israelis to build on Palestinian land because their religious books tells them God promised them that land only for the Jews?
Funny, I seem to remember the state of Israel actively removing a few thousand Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 in the name of peace. The Jews are no longer there, peace is never came, and your argument, much like a bucket with a hole in it, holds no water.
Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
reply to post by Drezden
The same type of fanaticism that compels Israelis to build on Palestinian land because their religious books tells them God promised them that land only for the Jews?
Funny, I seem to remember the state of Israel actively removing a few thousand Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 in the name of peace. The Jews are no longer there, peace is never came, and your argument, much like a bucket with a hole in it, holds no water.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by damoney
"Put a sock in it Nuttyyahoo. This guy is something else. After a person like this keeps others down through oppression and such it is no wonder he would be paranoid of being attacked. You can only behave like this for so long before it comes back and bites you on your backside."
Who has he kept down? The Palestinians who have NO CLAIM to their land and fire rockets into Israel every day? What does that have to do with his plea to stop Iranian nukes?
Originally posted by bigyin
Will the channel give the Iranian leader the same opportunity to speak. I doubt it.
Dear guests, today after the passage of nearly six decades, the main values of the Non-Aligned Movement remain alive and steady: values such as anti-colonialism, political, economic and cultural independence, non-alignment with any power blocs, and improving solidarity and cooperation among the member states. The realities of today’s world fall short of those values, but the collective will and comprehensive efforts to change the existing realities and achieve these values, though full of challenges, are promising and rewarding.
In the recent past, we have been witness to the failure of the policies of the Cold War era and the unilateralism that followed it. Having learnt lessons from this historical experience, the world is in transition towards a new international order and the Non-Aligned Movement can and should play a new role. This new order should be based on the participation of all nations and equal rights for all of them. And as members of this movement, our solidarity is an obvious necessity in the current era for establishing this new order.
Current global conditions provide the Non-Aligned Movement with an opportunity that might never arise again. Our view is that the control room of the world should not be managed by the dictatorial will of a few Western countries. It should be possible to establish and ensure a participatory system for managing international affairs, one that is global and democratic. This is what is needed by all the countries that have been directly or indirectly harmed as a result of the transgression of a few bullying and hegemonic countries.
The UN Security Council has an illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism. This is a flagrant form of dictatorship, which is antiquated and obsolete and whose expiry date has passed.
It is through abusing this improper mechanism that America and its accomplices have managed to disguise their bullying as noble concepts and impose it on the world.
They protect the interests of the West in the name of “human rights”.
They interfere militarily in other countries in the name of “democracy”.
They target defenseless people in villages and cities with their bombs and weapons in the name of “combating terrorism”.
From their perspective, humanity is divided into first-, second- and third-class citizens
Human life is considered cheap in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and expensive in America and Western Europe.
The security of America and Europe is considered important, while the security of the rest of humanity is considered unimportant
Torture and assassination are permissible and completely ignored if they are carried out by America, the Zionists and their puppets. It does not trouble their conscience that they have secret prisons in various places on different continents, in which defenseless prisoners who have no legal representation and have not been tried in a court of law are treated in the most hideous and detestable way
Good and evil are defined in a completely one-sided and selective way.
They impose their interests on the nations of the world in the name of “international law”.
They impose their domineering and illegal demands in the name of “international community”.
Using their exclusive and organized media network, they disguise their lies as the truth, their falsehood as true, and their oppression as efforts to promote justice.
In contrast, they brand as lies every true statement that exposes their deceit and label every legitimate demand as roguish.
Honorable audience, international peace and security are among the critical issues of today’s world and the elimination of catastrophic weapons of mass destruction is an urgent necessity and a universal demand.
In today’s world, security is a shared need where there is no room for discrimination.
Those who stockpile their anti-human weapons in their arsenals do not have the right to declare themselves as standard-bearers of global security
It is most unfortunate to see that countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals have no serious and genuine intention of removing these deadly weapons from their military doctrines and they still consider such weapons as an instrument that dispels threats and as an important standard that defines their political and international position. This conception needs to be completely rejected and condemned.
Nuclear weapons neither ensure security, nor do they consolidate political power, rather they are a threat to both security and political power. The events that took place in the 1990s showed that the possession of such weapons could not even safeguard a regime like the former Soviet Union.