Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

hangon

davoxx wrote: »

so what you are saying is that they also pre-emptively attacked for 1973 as well in 1967? what crystal ball do they use?

I have stated that i consider Israel a Terrorist state with a terrorist leader now

Yes the Arab World very certainly did try to destroy modern Israel.
read the full article.
it is not for one-upmanship,merely for all the facts to come out.

Cause and effect always has to be taken into account,i would argue that without attempts to annihilate Israel it would not have the occupied territories.
America is glad to have it in the region but it only needed a friendly beach there really.

Israel now thinks it is above all or any law.

davoxx

hangon wrote: »

I have stated that i consider Israel a Terrorist state with a terrorist leader now

Yes the Arab World very certainly did try to destroy modern Israel.
read the full article.
it is not for one-upmanship,merely for all the facts to come out.

Cause and effect always has to be taken into account,i would argue that without attempts to annihilate Israel it would not have the occupied territories.
America is glad to have it in the region but it only needed a friendly beach there really.

Israel now thinks it is above all or any law.

i agree with you present assessment, though it seems to me that they were always the first aggressor.

i agree with the facts, but they way it was presented seemed to imply that they had an excuse, which in my opinion, they did not.

alanmcqueen

hangon wrote: »

.
America is glad to have it in the region but it only needed a friendly beach there really.
.

To be fair, the US' relationship with Israel extends to a little bit more than just a 'friendly beach'. For example, there are joint exercises:

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000695184&fid=1725

and pre-positioned storage facilities:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/site-51.htm

hangon

davoxx wrote: »

though it seems to me that they were always the first aggressor..

Honestly davoxx i do not how you can say that about the Yom Kipur war whatever doubts i have now about the six day war having had a good read of wes's links which i admit are making me rethink that one.
only read up on this quite a lot a few years ago,seems new revelations are mudddying the facts as believed then.
that is history for you!

hangon

alanmcqueen wrote: »

To be fair, the US' relationship with Israel extends to a little bit more than just a 'friendly beach'. For example, there are joint exercises:

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000695184&fid=1725

and pre-positioned storage facilities:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/site-51.htm

very interesting reading alanmcqueen i was aware of how closely tied the US and Israel are, but in monetary terms the figures are astonishing,how long can the US afford this if its economy does not recover soon i wonder!

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Sorry, but the facts don't back up the assertion that Israel was engaged in a pre-emptive war at all, but rather engage in a war of there own choosing. What we see with the 6 day war is a lie that has been repeated again and again, until people just accept it at face value

No, what we see is selective quoting and incessant ignorance of the rhetoric from Nasser and his allies at the time.
All so easy in hindsight, of course. The country was just to sit on its own hands and take whatever threats were thrown at it or whatever border-skirmishes and attacks occurred.

wes

hangon wrote: »

not to Me but to Wiki

Look at quotes from Israeli leader from back then, and they clearly admit that they chose to attack in 1967. Wikipedia is a great source of information, but they are missing some info on 1967.

The Yom Kippur war is a whole other story however.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

No, what we see is selective quoting and incessant ignorance of the rhetoric from Nasser and his allies at the time.

No, I am well aware of what he said, but you are choosing to ignore that his public rhetoric, wasn't quite the same as his back channel efforts.

As for my "selective" quotes, there far too damning to ignore, as we have Israeli leaders of the time admitting that they chose to start the war in 1967. You have cleary chosen to accept a version of events that doesn't stand up to any sustained scrutiny.

JustinDee wrote: »

All so easy in hindsight, of course. The country was just to sit on its own hands and take whatever threats were thrown at it or whatever border-skirmishes and attacks occurred.

Oh please, Israel are hardly innocent in this whole thing. They themselves engaged in nasty threats and there own fair share of attacks, at the time. The simple fact is that Israel's narrative is hopelessly one sided, and that they have never been innocent in this conflict, and from day 1 have been just as bad as anyone else involved in the conflict.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

No, I am well aware of what he said, but you are choosing to ignore that his public rhetoric, wasn't quite the same as his back channel efforts.

As for my "selective" quotes, there far too damning to ignore, as we have Israeli leaders of the time admitting that they chose to start the war in 1967. You have cleary chosen to accept a version of events that doesn't stand up to any sustained scrutiny

I'm not ignoring anything. There was a lot more behind Nasser's movement than simple anti-Jewish tosh, pro-Arab populist tosh. The entire region was a Cold War theatre.

wes wrote: »

Oh please, Israel are hardly innocent in this whole thing. They themselves engaged in nasty threats and there own fair share of attacks, at the time. The simple fact is that Israel's narrative is hopelessly one sided, and that they have never been innocent in this conflict, and from day 1 have been just as bad as anyone else involved in the conflict.

As monocular as ever...
What you claim is neither "simple" nor a "fact". It is your opinion based on cherry-picked articles from the internet.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything. There was a lot more behind Nasser's movement than simple anti-Jewish tosh, pro-Arab populist tosh. The entire region was a Cold War theatre.

Yes, there was a lot going on at the time.

JustinDee wrote: »

As monocular as ever...
What you claim is neither "simple" nor a "fact". It is your opinion based on cherry-picked articles from the internet.

The article gave facts that are pretty damning to Israels current version of events. When you have leaders from the time, stating clearly that they chose to go to war, it certainly changes the entire view, that Israel was facing imminent destruction in 1967.

Sorry, but the facts I presented make that claim pretty at best farcical, and you know what at least I presented something to back up my claims, as opposed to just stating that I am correct, and then refusing to address the point brought up.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Yes, there was a lot going on at the time.
The article gave facts that are pretty damning to Israels current version of events. When you have leaders from the time, stating clearly that they chose to go to war, it certainly changes the entire view, that Israel was facing imminent destruction in 1967

Sorry, but the facts I presented make that claim pretty at best farcical, and you know what at least I presented something to back up my claims, as opposed to just stating that I am correct, and then refusing to address the point brought up.

This is an internet chat forum. Anyone can regurgitate carefully selected 'facts' from the internet and link them as gospel's own.
Twisting how things were in the mid-60s in that particular region won't change how it actually went. For every Pilger-disciple, there is an equivalent using the same background material, in Heikal, Hedges or Benn.
Hit the library, chum.

karma_

JustinDee wrote: »

This is an internet chat forum. Anyone can regurgitate carefully selected 'facts' from the internet and link them as gospel's own.
Twisting how things were in the mid-60s in that particular region won't change how it actually went. For every Pilger-disciple, there is an equivalent using the same background material, in Heikal, Hedges or Benn.
Hit the library, chum.

Maybe you should look up 'Fact' in a dictionary.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

This is an internet chat forum. Anyone can regurgitate carefully selected 'facts' from the internet and link them as gospel's own.

You clearly don't understand what a fact is.....

Also, the entire purpose of this forum is to back up what you say, and I have done exactly that, and you response is that I am wrong and nothing more.

JustinDee wrote: »

Twisting how things were in the mid-60s in that particular region won't change how it actually went. For every Pilger-disciple, there is an equivalent using the same background material, in Heikal, Hedges or Benn.
Hit the library, chum.

You haven't disputed any of the facts I presented, you are just saying there wrong, end of story. So if anyone needs to hit a library its you, as you refuse to actually present anything to dispute anything mentioned in those articles.

Simply put, I pointed out that other sides version of events (as well as information from Israel), which you are dismissing for no good reason imho. Surely, to understand an event you need to look at both sides, and all the avaliable information, including information that has recently become avaliable. That kind of things happens with historical events all the time, and the 1967 war is not unique in that matter.

old_aussie

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

No one is going to sit back and allow Israel to do this, Russia and Europe will pitch a fit.

And exactly how will Russia and Europe stop Israel pushing the button to launch missiles?

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what a fact is.....

No need to be so childish.

wes wrote: »

Also, the entire purpose of this forum is to back up what you say, and I have done exactly that, and you response is that I am wrong and nothing more

The "entire purpose" of this forum is to chat. Some anonymously and a few others not so. We all do this and most, subjectively so. The internet links you post paint a tiny part of the bigger picture.
To claim Israel was never in danger during Nasser's pan-Arabi populist movement is naive. To 'back this up' with one or two subjective quotes is either lazy or purposely narrow.

wes wrote: »

You haven't disputed any of the facts I presented, you are just saying there wrong, end of story. So if anyone needs to hit a library its you, as you refuse to actually present anything to dispute anything mentioned in those articles.

Three very well known authors I mentioned on the subject of the region would be a starting point for you. You haven't come across any of them in your internet searching??
Sitting on one's keyster at a keyboard isn't really going to cut it with such a large subject.

JustinDee

old_aussie wrote: »

And exactly how will Russia and Europe stop Israel pushing the button to launch missiles?

Russia's involvement is via Syria and Iran so any number of ways really with the preferential being the diplomatic route.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

No need to be so childish.

Hardly childish, when you so easily dismiss facts that don't suit you out of hand.

JustinDee wrote: »

The "entire purpose" of this forum is to chat. Some anonymously and a few others not so. We all do this and most, subjectively so. The internet links you post paint a tiny part of the bigger picture.

They give additional information that call into question the claims made by Israel now, and I will point out, at least I provided some links to back up what I was claiming, as opposed to just saying your wrong, end of.

Also, I fail to see how an Israeli leader clearly stating that the 1967 war, was one of choice can be disputed. That quote on its own is damning, and ignoring all the other information that is happily ignored by yourself.

JustinDee wrote: »

To claim Israel was never in danger during Nasser's pan-Arabi populist movement is naive. To 'back this up' with one or two subjective quotes is either lazy or purposely narrow.

No, I never claimed there was no danger at all, just that Israels claim that Israel was about to be destroyed by Nasser was simply false, and the facts I presented backed that up. Now, why you continue to ignore these facts is beyond me, but the facts are pretty daming to Israel's version of event.

JustinDee wrote: »

Three very well known authors I mentioned on the subject of the region would be a starting point for you. You haven't come across any of them in your internet searching??

How about you actually provide quotes that dispute the information provided in those articles, from those authors. I hardly have the time to do your work for you. Also, some of the information from those articles are pretty recent finds, so I doubt that those authors would have had that information at hand, unless there texts are themselves recent.

As it stands you have been unable to dispute any of information from those articles, and apparently expect me to take you at your word and read multiple text suggested by someone who dismisses information they don't like. Sorry, but any suggestions from yourself will be ignored, as you are more than happy to ignore information that doesn't suit your world view, and you simply refuse to actually provide any information to dispute anything in those articles.

Also, the articles do quote Israeli authors btw:
Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.

Also here is a speech from the Israeli government web site:

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Original link here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National

So, when you have some actual information, get back to me. As it stand, I am done wasting my time, with some one who clearly wishes to ignore the facts.

JustinDee wrote: »

Sitting on one's keyster at a keyboard isn't really going to cut it with such a large subject.

Weren't you telling me not to be childish earlier. Surely, you should take your own advice.

Border-Rat

I can't believe people are treating this nuclear-armed menace as the victim. They're threatening to nuke a sovereign nation and trigger WWIII. Exactly why was Iraq invaded?

Shock and awe Tel Aviv.

davoxx

Border-Rat wrote: »

I can't believe people are treating this nuclear-armed menace as the victim. They're threatening to nuke a sovereign nation and trigger WWIII. Exactly why was Iraq invaded?

Shock and awe Tel Aviv.

coz of
al-qaeda
WMD
humanitarian reasons
war crimes
saddam was going to sell oil in euro ... and war contracts ...

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Hardly childish, when you so easily dismiss facts that don't suit you out of hand.

They give additional information that call into question the claims made by Israel now, and I will point out, at least I provided some links to back up what I was claiming, as opposed to just saying your wrong, end of.

Also, I fail to see how an Israeli leader clearly stating that the 1967 war, was one of choice can be disputed. That quote on its own is damning, and ignoring all the other information that is happily ignored by yourself

The context is important.
When attempting to justify an invasion of Lebanon, Begin was replying to his detractors who said that 1967 was necessary and Lebanon was not, that it was the other way round. Forcing a regime-change was never admitted by Begin (or Sharon) as the motive yet as anyone who knows anything about the region in those decades knows, was the primary reason for the invasion in the first place.
Why? The proxy Cold War again.

wes wrote: »

Weren't you telling me not to be childish earlier. Surely, you should take your own advice.

I'm not being childish. Wiki-wagging cherry-picked 'cold' quotes is hardly experience-bound proof-conclusive.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

The context is important.

Yes, it is, but then an Israeli leader saying something like that is just damning, when there version of events some are stating was that they launched a pre-emptive strike, because they were facing certain attack.

The context doesn't change the meaning in this case at all, and you are simply stating the same thing over and over again, and also far be if for me to point out that for some accusing me of cherry picking quotes, it rather odd that you are doing exactly that by only addressing Begin, as opposed to various other quotes raised in both of those articles.......

So again get back to me, when you can actually back up your claims, which I doubt you will bother to do, and insist on being right, due to your saying so. Also, at least I linked to some stuff to back myself up, which is far far superior to the nothing you have provided, so its a bit rich of you to call other posts "Wiki-wagging", when your proof consists of exactly nothing at all.

swordofislam

gbee wrote: »

If I said the Jewish nation actually increased after the holocaust, I'd be accused of being a denier and jailed.

I don't understand what you mean.
Do you mean that the numbers of self identified Jewish people in the world increased after the holocaust?
Do you mean that the number of people who practise the Jewish faith increased after the holocaust?
If so do you mean relative to numbers in 1945 or numbers in 1939?
In what year did the number of self identified Jewish people exceed the base year.

gbee wrote: »

If I showed that the Jews were the minority @ you've guessed it, a denier and I'm now facing nuclear bombs.

Minority at where?
What do you mean?

gbee wrote: »

Go for it. I'm tired of lies, I was brought up a Catholic, so I'm well used to this,

Well used to what?

gbee wrote: »

No One Cares ANY MORE

How right you are.

nacho libre

davoxx wrote: »

coz of
al-qaeda
WMD
humanitarian reasons
war crimes
saddam was going to sell oil in euro ... and war contracts ...

Prior to the invasion Iraq was selling oil in Euros. Shortly after Saddam was toppled, Iraq was back trading oil in Dollars.

Iran has recently announced plans to reopen its bourse, with a view to trading oil in the rial and euro. I'm sure this confrontation is all about the stated reasons- after all the west doesn't have a history of launching military action against other countries under a pretext

Yahew

nacho libre wrote: »

Prior to the invasion Iraq was selling oil in Euros. Shortly after Saddam was toppled, Iraq was back trading oil in Dollars.

The effect on the dollar was over-rated don't you think?

Iran has recently announced plans to reopen its bourse, with a view to trading oil in the rial and euro. I'm sure this confrontation is all about the stated reasons- after all the west doesn't have a history of launching military action against other countries under a pretext

Thats a broad definition of the West - the whole Euro-dollar thing is tin foil hat territory ( and the idea that the Euro is in any position to become a reserve current is lunacy).

nacho libre

Yahew wrote: »

The effect on the dollar was over-rated don't you think?



Thats a broad definition of the West - the whole Euro-dollar thing is tin foil hat territory ( and the idea that the Euro is in any position to become a reserve current is lunacy).

Well given it's current state yes, but, at the time of the Iraq war this was not the case.
Your attempt to portray oil being traded in euros or any other currency as a tin-foil hat territory seems disingenuous, given you know well the importance to the American economy of oil being traded in dollars, so any country that looks to move away from the dollar can be classed as going against US interests.



if the kish exchange is successful, with China as main trading partner, this will impact adversely on the US.

the FT seems to agree: China has decided to commence an barter system in which Iranian oil is exchanged directly for Chinese exports. The net result: not only a slap for the US Dollar, but implicitly for all fiat intermediaries, as Iran and China are about to prove that when it comes to exchanging hard resources for critical Chinese goods and services, the world's so called reserve currency is completely irrelevant. The implications of this are momentous, especially for US debt, whose indomitability is only predicated upon the continued acceptance of the currency it backs as a global reserve. If China is now openly admitting to the world that it does not need US monetary intermediation, and by implication, the "debt" backing said intermediation, what then? And who will follow China next?

With this in mind powerful nations will go to war to defend their interests.

Given the US has a track record of invading other countries under false pretenses, it's wise to be cautious of their officially stated reasons for military action

Border-Rat

Anyone care to speculate the effect of the cessation of 40% of the Worlds oil transit? I'll tell you thing - petrol stations will be busy within an hour or two. I already have an isolated petrol station in mind to take a few containers to when this happens.

**** you, Israel.

The Outside Agency

I don't think it will happen and certainly not without US providing support.
The US don't necessarily want to attack Iran but they are under pressure from Israeli lobbyists and right wing nutcases.

I'm quite sure any attack on Iran would only hurt the EU as it would become more dependent on Russia for energy.

During the 1979 Iranian revolution when the US backed Shah Of Iran was removed from power, a barrel of oil went from $15 to $39 within 12 months.

Nobody will benefit from attacking Iran, except maybe oil companies.

Yahew wrote:

The effect on the dollar was over-rated don't you think?

Nope, not at all.

Petrodollar Warfare

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

The context doesn't change the meaning in this case at all, and you are simply stating the same thing over and over again, and also far be if for me to point out that for some accusing me of cherry picking quotes, it rather odd that you are doing exactly that by only addressing Begin, as opposed to various other quotes raised in both of those articles.......

Context is everything in this case.
Tilted subjectivity in your posting on the subject is exemplified with a sudden belief in everything Israeli politicians or IDF officers might say.

wes wrote: »

So again get back to me, when you can actually back up your claims, which I doubt you will bother to do, and insist on being right, due to your saying so. Also, at least I linked to some stuff to back myself up, which is far far superior to the nothing you have provided, so its a bit rich of you to call other posts "Wiki-wagging", when your proof consists of exactly nothing at all.

Sorry but 'wiki-wagging' is retroactively plucking bits of a story just because they suit your view. I've listed you three authors to read up with. Does not being in an internet article invalidate their work? Of course it doesn't. Try another like Paul Salem or Walter Russell Mead.
These are books I have. I'm not going to spend my time transcribing entire texts for an anonymous moniker on the web.

I'm sure you know all about the Likud v Labor battles of the late 70s/early 80s already but tap into other reading and you might find further helpful information on both the Lebanese war in '82 and the Six Day War in '67.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Context is everything in this case.
Tilted subjectivity in your posting on the subject is exemplified with a sudden belief in everything Israeli politicians or IDF officers might say.

As I said before, get back to me, when you can actually back up what you said. You have refused to do so, and you have also been selective (the irony of you accusations against me in this regard are rather entertaining) in what you wish to address from the articles I posted, as they don't just refer to Israeli's, that was just one example I posted.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

As I said before, get back to me, when you can actually back up what you said. You have refused to do so, and you have also been selective (the irony of you accusations against me in this regard are rather entertaining) in what you wish to address from the articles I posted, as they don't just refer to Israeli's, that was just one example I posted.

I'm not going to transcribe a flippin' collection of books...

Most definitely have not been selective either. Pointing out what was politicking and rivalrous rhetoric is nothing of a kind.
Editorial comment and opinion is all very well to anonymously link from the internet but guess what, there is more out there than the web.

You can quote carefully selected Knesset debate or other people's opinions and take what you want at heart. That is subjective and convenient quoting. If it wasn't, you would be believing any old duff from the airwaves, net or blogs.

If thats entertaining to you, then you've got your worth of the forum. Brilliant.

davoxx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15635476

obama knows and still plays along ... :eek:

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm not going to transcribe a flippin' collection of books...

You don't have to transcribe entire books, you can refer to the certain parts of the book (and quote certain parts of it), and you know give the actual titles (a link to where one can get the book as well, would be polite), but you can't be bothered to do even the minimum of backing up what you said, and I simply won't bother replying to you after this, and you clearly just wish to insist you are correct, and providing nothing to back it up.

JustinDee

Don't reply then...*sigh*

A link on wikipedia or via Google doesn't make any view/opinion/decree as 'credible'. Nor do cherry-picked quotes without a context or regurgitation of other people's views that conveniently happen to suit your own.

I'll give you a little reading list from home later on if that helps your cause.

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

Anyone care to speculate the effect of the cessation of 40% of the Worlds oil transit? I'll tell you thing - petrol stations will be busy within an hour or two. I already have an isolated petrol station in mind to take a few containers to when this happens.

The oil didn't stop when both sides of the Persian Gulf were shooting at tankers, I can't see why it should stop when only one side is.

NTM

hangon

I wonder will this be enough for Israel to strike,certainly will be of help to those who were looking for justification.

Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a report likely to raise tensions in the Middle East.

Citing what it called "credible" information from member states and elsewhere, the agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.

Iran, which denies it wants nuclear weapons, condemned the findings of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "unbalanced" and "politically motivated."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1109/breaking3.html

davoxx

hangon wrote: »

I wonder will this be enough for Israel to strike,certainly will be of help to those who were looking for justification.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1109/breaking3.html

sure 911 was enough for afghanistan, a bogus report was enough for iraq, the supposed slaughter of civilians for libya ... i'm sure the fact that they want to have nukes just like israel is enough of a reason ... it only matter if they do have it ... easy to win wars are better ....


but on the plus .. russia is getting its balls back ...

Border-Rat

Manic Moran wrote: »

The oil didn't stop when both sides of the Persian Gulf were shooting at tankers, I can't see why it should stop when only one side is.

NTM

They were largely targeted Kuwaiti and Iraqi tankers and had nowhere near the capability they have today.

When Iran is attacked, radiation from Bushehr, which is right and the head of the Persian Gulf will contaminate shipping routes. China has supplied Iran with EM-52 proximity rocket mines which unlike typical mines will propel themselves towards ships if they come anywhere near them. They have ASCM's all over the north head of the gap. They have MRBM's with a range of 2,000km that'll hit Kuwaiti and Saudi ports and wells before the oil is even loaded. They have 160,000 proxy militia in Iraq, not including the infiltrated Iraqi police and army who will shut down Iraqi oil production. Irans own oil production of course, will also be cut off.

And considering the attacks on Saudi and Kuwaiti ports, the ACSM's in northern Hormuz that are hidden and can't be bombed from the air, the Chinese mines and the threats of hijacking, not to mention radiation gushing out of Bushehr - tanker insurance companies will take their ball and go home.

Say goodbye to 40% of the worlds oil, thank you Israel.

hangon

davoxx wrote: »

sure 911 was enough for afghanistan,

well something had to be done after 9/11,how could terrorist training camps be ignored(and it was a home for terrorism against the west as well as terrible oppression against Women in particular.
the war may not have been the best solution but how could it be ignored?

a bogus report was enough for iraq,

i agree totally and i believe Colin Powell was misled when he gave the demonstrations of the WMD's that turned out to be nothing more than containers.

but on the plus .. russia is getting its balls back ...

That would be Mr Putin!

The IAEA do seem to come up with very one sided reports at very convenient times though.
I would not trust them to be neutral as far as i could throw them!

Border-Rat

hangon wrote: »

The IAEA do seem to come up with very one sided reports at very convenient times though.
I would not trust them to be neutral as far as i could throw them!

No time for caution, they can be assembled in 45 minutes!

baddebt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16101552



the world is going mad :eek:

have any other news sources confirmed this?

military war monger's in america are itching to bomb iran , and will start by egging on the isrealies to take the first strike ,
little obama or any other yank politican will be able to do about it , because the waepon's mnaufacturers (run by fromer war monger's ) will make a fortune ,
this has little or nothing to do with Iran and nuclear bombs ( just like Iraq , its to do with money )

davoxx

hangon wrote: »

well something had to be done after 9/11,how could terrorist training camps be ignored(and it was a home for terrorism against the west as well as terrible oppression against Women in particular.
the war may not have been the best solution but how could it be ignored?

just because there is the urge to do something, does not mean that anything you do is okay ...

i don't know if they were responsible for 911, or if the country itself was allowing these "terrorists" to operate freely ...

they could have had a trial? all i'm saying here is that it was an excuse, and you seem to agree. there were other options.

Hayte

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't reply then...*sigh*

A link on wikipedia or via Google doesn't make any view/opinion/decree as 'credible'. Nor do cherry-picked quotes without a context or regurgitation of other people's views that conveniently happen to suit your own.

I'll give you a little reading list from home later on if that helps your cause.

You are doing it wrong if you cite wikipedia anyway. The whole point of sourcing policy and bibliography (both of which are mandatory at third level essay writing and beyond) is that all of the information in your essay that doesn't come directly from you can be traced back to a named source. That information can then be independently verified or contested.

Posting on an internet forum is obviously not like writing an essay for a university degree or published works in the formal sense and it shows because the standard of debate, discussion and writing is incredibly low on most internet message boards. Nevertheless, this does not mean you should not strive to attain or even exceed that standard but most people do not appear to have the training nor the inclination to even try. That is part of the reason why this discussion, like so many on this forum turns into a mud flinging dogpile.

If you post crap, it shouldn't be up to other forum goers to figure out where that crap came from and spend the time digging through it to see if theres more to it than just a big pile of crap. If anything, people shouldn't post unless they are willing to put the time and effort into making it a good one. Brevity and witticism can make a good post where it is appropriate and I derive much enjoyment from a particularly clever and articulate boardsie posting inciteful one liners. In more formal discussion, its not something you can rely on to obviate necessary criticism of your position however.

nacho libre

hangon wrote: »

well something

The IAEA do seem to come up with very one sided reports at very convenient times though.
I would not trust them to be neutral as far as i could throw them!

With this in mind a former head of the IAEA was pressured into stepping down because his reports on Iran weren't to the liking of western politicians.
Furthermore the impartiality of IAEA inspectors is a legitimate concern, since previously inspectors have been exposed as spies for western intelligence agencies.
So it's prudent to question whether the information in this report is heavily politicised as opposed to being an accurate account of what Iran are doing.
It's interesting to note that past fatwas from the Ayatollah were taken as sacrosanct, but in relation to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons his pronouncement that nuclear weapons are "harem"under Islam is ignored.

Mr.Micro

Shure the Yanks have not had a good invasion since 2003 and Israel is always up to invade its neighbours with big brother to back it up. Its nearly Presidential election time, a good war will help, plus the US economy is in the pits, so get peoples minds off the gloom, go to war, then a nice bit of rebuilding once the war is done. Anybody see a pattern here. Once Iran is done, who next,..... back to the Russians or will it be the Chinese?

BlaasForRafa

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Shure the Yanks have not had a good invasion since 2003 and Israel is always up to invade its neighbours with big brother to back it up. Its nearly Presidential election time, a good war will help, plus the US economy is in the pits, so get peoples minds off the gloom, go to war, then a nice bit of rebuilding once the war is done. Anybody see a pattern here. Once Iran is done, who next,..... back to the Russians or will it be the Chinese?

If you think that the Israelis are "always up to invade its neighbours" then you know nothing about Israelis, they would prefer to get on with their lives in peace.

This forum is getting more and more like the conspiracy theory forum every day.

hangon

nacho libre wrote: »

With this in mind a former head of the IAEA was pressured into stepping down because his reports on Iran weren't to the liking of western politicians.

Hi nacho are you talking about Mohamed ElBaradei?
He headed the IAEA for three terms and was only opposed by the US for the third term(the US dropped its objection)
i am only asking for my own benefit as i have had not been able to find out who you mean and it is killing me!!!!!

hangon

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you think that the Israelis are "always up to invade its neighbours" then you know nothing about Israelis, they would prefer to get on with their lives in peace.

The latest opinion poll amongst Israeli's puts support for a strike against Iran at approx 50/50
this is worrying because usually it has been peace loving Israeli's who have kept their Govt in check.
if the Poll is correct it means the general public are becoming more right wing or frightened.

Jaafa

hangon wrote: »

I wonder will this be enough for Israel to strike,certainly will be of help to those who were looking for justification.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1109/breaking3.html

It's ridiculous, that report says nothing we didn't know already. That the Iranians had some sort of WMD program before 2003 and then shut it down.

The IAEA then says they POSSIBLY kept SOME aspects of this program, which is pure speculation, or at best based on weak evidence.

The Americans and Israels are heralding it as the 'we told you so moment' even though it doesn't prove anything.

Mr.Micro

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you think that the Israelis are "always up to invade its neighbours" then you know nothing about Israelis, they would prefer to get on with their lives in peace.

This forum is getting more and more like the conspiracy theory forum every day.

So when one questions and postulates its conspiracy theory is it? What I stated has and does happen in the case of Iraq, now Iran probably. So not just theory but fact.

Mr.Micro

Jaafa wrote: »

It's ridiculous, that report says nothing we didn't know already. That the Iranians had some sort of WMD program before 2003 and then shut it down.

The IAEA then says they POSSIBLY kept SOME aspects of this program, which is pure speculation, or at best based on weak evidence.

The Americans and Israels are heralding it as the 'we told you so moment' even though it doesn't prove anything.

The Yanks probably just want to wipe out most of the middle east and just leave Israel, some thing that would suit the latter.