TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israel sends veiled threat to Iran
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Israel sends veiled threat to Iran

I found this position pretty interesting... what do you perceive of this? I think Israel is a shit disturber, but most of you wont be surprised by my thoughts....what are yours?

quote:

Oct. 8, 2003 Israel sends veiled threat to Iran RICHARD GWYN According to local people, the Ein Sabeh training camp for terrorists just north of Syria's capital of Damascus that Israel attacked this week hasn't been used for a long time. Of course, the locals may not have known what was going on at Ein Sabeh, or they may have been lying. Yet it's certainly odd that the only casualty of the Israeli air strike was a security guard who was wounded. Demolishing a few buildings used to house trainees, no matter if these are filled up with the kind of low-grade weapons that terrorists use, is no more than a symbolic gesture. So why, for so little, would Israel risk so much � the certainty of some kind of terrorist response and of widespread international criticism, as has happened, including, as is rare, by Canada? Certainly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government had to meet public demand that it "do something" in retaliation for the Palestinian suicide bomber's murder of 19 Israeli citizens in Haifa last weekend. But why escalate the conflict to Syria and thereby break a ceasefire between the two countries that has lasted for 30 years? The extent of Syria's involvement in supporting terrorism � today, as opposed to the past, when it was clear �is at least questionable. It's impossible to fit all the known aspects of the event into a plausible, pat political equation. Except for one possibility: We're looking at the wrong political equation. What's happened, that is, wasn't a warning signal to Syria to stop its support for terrorism. It was, instead, a warning signal to Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. This would explain why Israel risked so much for so little. And it would explain U.S. President George Bush's quick approval of Israel's act of aggression, even though it rips another hole into his tattered "road map" for Middle East peace. Iran matters; Syria does not. It's a major Middle East power, rather than a bankrupt little state. Most definitely, a nuclear weapons program, no matter whether it is just a potential one or one already fully underway, matters, as one more dusty training camp does not. A so-called "Islamic bomb" in Iran's hands that could be passed on to terrorists (at least the crude form of a "dirty" bomb that could spread radioactivity), would represent the ultimate threat to Israel's existence. Iran denies its nuclear program has any military purpose or potential. But, unlike the case of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, there is widespread support for U.S. and Israeli suspicions about Iran. At the United Nations, France, Germany and Britain have co-sponsored a resolution requiring Iran to halt its nuclear program by the end of October and to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to verify that no weapons-grade uranium or plutonium is being stockpiled. A U.N. report released last week calculates that Iran could acquire a bomb within two years. This report draws attention to a huge nuclear power complex capable of holding large amounts of weapons-grade material in Natanz, which is 35 feet underground and has walls eight feet thick. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis in Iran is always possible. So far, though, Iran has refused to accept the kind of stringent regulations that the IAEA imposed on Iraq and is expanding its program of Russian-built nuclear power plants. The attack on Syria thus only makes sense � at least, makes the best sense � as a dress rehearsal for, and a warning to, Iran of a possible attack on it by Israel. In exactly the same way, Israel in 1981 attacked and destroyed Iraq's partially completed Osirik nuclear power reactor on the grounds that it was a precursor to a nuclear weapons program (as it was). Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon has already publicly warned such an attack could happen. In turn, Bush's support for the Israeli sideshow in Syria makes best sense as a way of ratcheting up the pressure on Iran by signalling that any Israeli attack would have full U.S. support, from the technological and logistic to the diplomatic. Effectively, Bush is also signalling that he no longer cares about Middle East peace, an attitude he's already made pretty plain by his indifference to the fence the Israelis are constructing as a combination security buffer and land grab from the Palestinians. We are approaching the brink of a major Middle East crisis that could send the entire region up in flames.

I am glad that the UN is handling this situation before it escilates like that of NK. that article states iran could have 'the bomb' in two years so im glad they are planning ahead and have called for iran to stop its nuclear program by the 31st of october (definitely a day to watch for) so that it could investigate the program.

I think everyone should find it suspecious that the third largest producer of oil in OPEC needs nuclear energy for it's country.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy I am glad that the UN is handling this situation before it escilates like that of NK. that article states iran could have 'the bomb' in two years so im glad they are planning ahead and have called for iran to stop its nuclear program by the 31st of october (definitely a day to watch for) so that it could investigate the program. I think everyone should find it suspecious that the third largest producer of oil in OPEC needs nuclear energy for it's country.

Look at Iraq, they had power failures as well.

Have you been to Iran.. well i can tell you that these people living there have many power outages. They need energy.

But i do agree that biuilding of nuclear arms should be banned... espescially from Israel and the US. No nation should have such weapons.

could you please post the source when copying articles so we know where they are from.

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox could you please post the source when copying articles so we know where they are from.

I beleive it is from the New York Times. Sorry, i got it as an email from a friend.

If US and other countries have nuclear weapons,I dont see why Iran shouldnt,even though I dont think they are going to make a nuclear bomb,but hey it is all the U.S. propagenda anyways,all bullshit excuses to go and take over another counrty!!

i think you guys need to watch this:
BBC.ISREAL.SECRET.WEAPON
and how Vanunu is still held because of it

quote:

Originally posted by ZinG i think you guys need to watch this: BBC.ISREAL.SECRET.WEAPON and how Vanunu is still held because of it

Isreal???secret weapons???
I thought Isreal was a peaceful country??

it is about time the world starts seeing what kind of weapons Isreal has!!

It is doubtful Israel would use those weapons. Golda Meir resisted use of them in the Yom Kippur War when Israel was under attack by Egypt and Syria. At that time, Israel was in a terrible situation too. Nowadays, there isn't really a need to use them unless something absolutely catastrophic happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate

well I hope you are right about that!!!cause it'll be a disaster if something like that ever happens.

To avoid triggering American economic and military sanctions, U.S. intelligence agencies routinely omit Israel from semiannual reports to Congress identifying countries developing weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration even barred the sale of the most detailed U.S. satellite photographs of Israel in an effort to protect that country's nuclear complex and other targets.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...es12oct12.story

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek To avoid triggering American economic and military sanctions, U.S. intelligence agencies routinely omit Israel from semiannual reports to Congress identifying countries developing weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration even barred the sale of the most detailed U.S. satellite photographs of Israel in an effort to protect that country's nuclear complex and other targets. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...es12oct12.story

from the same article

Iranian leaders are resisting more intrusive inspections by the United Nations, setting the stage for a showdown in coming weeks.

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency has given Tehran an Oct. 31 deadline to accept full inspections and prove it has no nuclear arms program.

obviously its not only the US and Israel who are worried. The world as represented by the UN wants to make sure iran doesnt acquire nuclear weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer If US and other countries have nuclear weapons,I dont see why Iran shouldnt,

I tell you why.
Israel is a Democracy.
no decisions about the nucleur weapons will be made by one crazy\fanatic man.
as soon as Iran becomes a true and stable democracy, i bet you no UN will poss an ultimatum on its nucleur programs.
secondly, Iran is a terror center today.

think about turkey.
also a muslem country.
if they decide they want nukes, UN cant realy do anything against it.

quote:

even though I dont think they are going to make a nuclear bomb,but hey it is all the U.S. propagenda anyways,all bullshit excuses to go and take over another counrty!!

yea ofcourse

You dont think Iran wants nucleur weaopns?
so you are simply naive.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/

why are Russsion WEAPON experert assist Iran.
why this country finances terror.
why it sends missles so hizbulla.

quote:

Originally posted by Flotser I tell you why. Israel is a Democracy.

Why doesn't Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," have a constitution?

"The abstention from formulating a constitution was no accident. The massive expropriation of lands and other properties from those Arabs who fled the country as a result of the War of Independence and of those who remained but were declared absent, as well as the confiscation of large tracts of land from Arab villages who did not flee, and the laws passed to legalize those acts - all this would have necessarily been declared unconstitutional, null and void, by the Supreme Court, being expressly discriminatory against one part of the citizenry, whereas a democratic constitution obliges the state to treat all of its citizens equally." Israeli author, Boas Evron, "Jewish State or Israeli Nation?"

"The 1989 Israel High Court decision that any political party advocating full equality between Arab and Jew can be barred from fielding candidates in an election...[means] that the Israeli state is the state of the Jews...not their [the Arabs'] state." Professor Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."

Israels policies towards Palestinians are RACIST as what was concluded at the United Nations racism Convention held at Durbin South Africa in Sep 2001. Democratic governments are supposed to be void of racist policies therefore the State of Israel is not a democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster Why doesn't Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," have a constitution?

why does United Kingdom has no constitution?
UK is not a democracy?
no!
no one said that you have to have a constitutopn in order to be a democracy.

you can quote your prppaganda stuff, but they proove nothing about Israel not being a democrasy, that is stabilized and mature enough to use nucleur weapons wisely.

and here is a quote from
http://www.eurolegal.org/british/ukconset.htm

quote:

The United Kingdom has no written constitution. Therefore in contrast with most other countries it is not possible to point to a text and say "this is our constitution", nor is there any doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution over other legislation, nor any constitutional court, nor any doctrine of the separation of powers. .... One convention which has a major impact is that of the supremacy of Parliament and the principle that no parliament can bind its successor

The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
Their claims of democracy is a joke.

lol

Laugh as you will but does anybody actually practice true democracy?

The United States of America the Saviours of democracy is the biggest joke of all.

Ie have a look at how jeb bush became governor of florida and his next of kin dubya.............great democracy!

ok dude, you can try and unssucsefully proove that UK, US , and Israel
are not democracies,

However,
what I was simply trying to say is,
that those countris are democratic and stable enough to be responsible for nucleur weapons.
Iran, on the other hand, is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Flotser However, what I was simply trying to say is, that those countris are democratic and stable enough to be responsible for nucleur weapons. Iran, on the other hand, is not.

This i do not disagree with.

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster This i do not disagree with.

cool than

i was actually tryng to explain this point to
hardcore trancer
after his statement on the first page

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster Why doesn't Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," have a constitution? "The abstention from formulating a constitution was no accident. The massive expropriation of lands and other properties from those Arabs who fled the country as a result of the War of Independence and of those who remained but were declared absent, as well as the confiscation of large tracts of land from Arab villages who did not flee, and the laws passed to legalize those acts - all this would have necessarily been declared unconstitutional, null and void, by the Supreme Court, being expressly discriminatory against one part of the citizenry, whereas a democratic constitution obliges the state to treat all of its citizens equally." Israeli author, Boas Evron, "Jewish State or Israeli Nation?" "The 1989 Israel High Court decision that any political party advocating full equality between Arab and Jew can be barred from fielding candidates in an election...[means] that the Israeli state is the state of the Jews...not their [the Arabs'] state." Professor Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict." Israels policies towards Palestinians are RACIST as what was concluded at the United Nations racism Convention held at Durbin South Africa in Sep 2001. Democratic governments are supposed to be void of racist policies therefore the State of Israel is not a democracy.

You talk about Israeli's racist policies as if they are the only democracy to have them. What about the United States when it was founded as a democracy? There was the whole section about slavery which was certainly racism.

Did the USA not have a civil war with slavery being one of the major sticking points?
Slavery as a first step needed to be abolished in order to satisfy the requirement that all peoples are equal under a democracy. The birth of democracy certainly didnt abolish racism completely from american society, but it was a start and in time(with much reluctance) the rights of blacks and women evolved to satisfy the true requirements of a democratic institution.

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. Their claims of democracy is a joke.

democracy

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

constitution

The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
The document in which such a system is recorded.

therefore democracy can exist without a constitution.
Israeli has currently adapted elemnts of the law of the British/Ottoman empire as well as their Independence "speech" as a pseudo-constitution.

Also: Democracy is not the contrary of Monarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Flotser what I was simply trying to say is, that those countris are democratic and stable enough to be responsible for nucleur weapons. Iran, on the other hand, is not.

ya right,Isreal,U.S. the most peaceful nations on earth!!
and u saying Iran isnt responsible for using their weapons??hmmm when was the last time Iran used a nuclear bomb or any other WMD against Isreal or any other countries??

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.