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.

 

Israel seeks exemption from atomic rules

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
Sorry as much of a supporter of Israel that I am, they can not have it both ways, of the denounce Iran by trying to acquire nuclear weapons, what business do they have doing the same?


Could this not also be applied to any of the nuclear powers, declared or undeclared?

Iran knows that acquiring nuclear weapons would be seen as provocative and cause a fundamental shift of power in the region; yet they continue to pursue this goal despite the fact that they are bordered on two sides by countries occupied by coalition forces one of which was invaded under the pretext of finding WMDs.

Is it double standards that Israel is permitted to (covertly) maintain a nuclear capability whilst Iran is facing possible attack and invasion for attempting to do the same? Perhaps, however given the history of the region Israels perceived need for nukes to ensure its security is in my eyes understandable; it's very easy for us in Europe or North America to criticise Israel when we live in relative safety, however if we were surrounded on all fronts by unfriendly nations with a desire to wipe our nation off the map we may (for reasons of survival) feel differently.




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   

MR. COATSWORTH: One by one, it is, yes. (Applause.)
The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security. You must understand that in our constitution, in our laws, in the parliamentary elections, for every 150,000 people we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, one-fifth of this number they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal.



That is the clearest answer i have ever seen from this man ever.

They have a large Jewish population , and are represented in government in iran (source) - how many other mp`s would take issue with a president directly!

he wants the removal of the zionist state , which has caused far more harm than nazi germany ever did - but actively supports judaism - THAT is the fundamental difference which so many people (spoon fed by fox and cnn) fail to grasp the concept.

You must seprate religion and government for this case - The governement of Israel is the major destabilising influence in the middle east - and that is the issue he talks about.

[edit on 26/9/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
These are the FACTS behind Israeli Nuclear Program:


News BBC

While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the world's list of nuclear powers.Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of mass destruction programme in the world.

Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.

As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The extent of Israel's nuclear capability has been the subject of often wildly inaccurate intelligence estimates since the 1960s, when the country's nuclear reactor, at Dimona in the Negev desert, came online.

The shrouds of secrecy have lifted only once, in the mid-1980s, when a former worker at the plant, Mordechai Vanunu, gave a British newspaper descriptions and photographs of Israeli nuclear warheads.

Vanunu's evidence led to a sharp upwards revision of the number of nuclear warheads Israel was believed to possess - to at least 100 - and possibly as many as 200.

There were no IAEA inspectors in Israel.

There were no complaints from United Nations.

There was just a BIG interes of many countries, that Israel gets the nukes.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miishgoos
My Opinion

No treaty signed no need to worry.

You sign treaties you should honour them.

thats my opinion



Whilst the premise of this is sound in theory, you do realise that the USA and the UK have broken just about every part of the NPT that they signed in providing assistance to foreign nations in the following

- developing nuclear weapons (in Israels case)
- developing delivery systems
- developing nuclear facilities capable of producing weapons grade material (thats a doozy, 'cos Rumsfeld was on the board of the company that sold the reactor to North Korea)
- provision of nuclear weapons to countries that do not have their own nuclear capability (the US supplied weapons for use by NATO countries during the cold war should things turn hot - NATO is a political entity and not a soverign nation, and therefore this was a material breach of the NPT)

So, we're buggered then. Best bomb ourselves huh?

As for Israel, the fact that this is being mooted during the current crisis with Iran is the height of hypocrisy. Sadly I'm unsuprised that the only place I've seen it mentioned so far is here.



[edit on 26/0907/07 by neformore]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
If I were the leader of Iran right now, I'd be pooing my pants ... and doing everything in my power to get hold of nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

How else would I be able to defend my country, way of life and citizens from nuclear armed countries, near and far, that publically appear to be preparing to bomb my country into the stoneage.

Especially as those countries, with vastly superior military machines, have demonstrated they are capable and willing to unilaterally and illegally invade and occupy other nations with bogus 'excuses'



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
www.nytimes.com...

A discussion of the various sides in the Frasi/English translations of the statement in question



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
You are kind if leaving out the part where the country that MIGHT be getting Nuclear weapons has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

That is sort of an important component here...you know if truth is of any importance.


Pure fiction.

That is nothing but unsubstantiated propaganda and a true testament to Israels pervasive influence of western media (among other things Western).

He never said that at all.

It's nonsense like this that had Columbia University invite the Iranian president to dinner and then shamelessly slap him in the face during his intro by calling him a "petty dictator". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the "President" of Iran, he was democratically elected for goodness sake, he is not a dictator.

Most people had never even heard of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad until they decided he should be the new enemy of this hegemonic empire.

Meanwhile Israel flagrantly violates multiple UN and wartime rules with impunity and seeks to childishly point the finger at another nation for coming no where near the violations it has with it's own hidden nuclear program.

Never mind though. Go ahead and buy your "Ahmadinejad Chew-Toys" for your pets and play "Bin-Laden in a Blender" if it makes you feel better. Just know that you are being manipulated in such an obvious way I'm surprised it's working so well.

This is so sad, that it's downright embarrassing.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
If this happens there will be a number of countries wondering why they bothered signing the NPT in the first place.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   


You are kind if leaving out the part where the country that MIGHT be getting Nuclear weapons has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

That is sort of an important component here...you know if truth is of any importance.

I'm pretty sure that not only did Akmaninajihad not say that, but in fact they were talking about what would happen to Israel if they nuked the Iranian nuclear facilities.

So the truth is, Israel has been the agressor in every war that they have been a part of, and if they bomb Iran, they will be the agressor again.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonicology
Is it double standards that Israel is permitted to (covertly) maintain a nuclear capability whilst Iran is facing possible attack and invasion for attempting to do the same? Perhaps...


No it is a double standard. The nation that secretly has the weapons is planning to attack one that may have the means to acquire them some time in the future.


however given the history of the region Israels perceived need for nukes to ensure its security is in my eyes understandable.


Iran hasn't attacked another nation in over a century, Israel has.

Given the history of Israel in the region and it's current threats, then by your own logic Iran should have them as well to ensure it's own security should Israel decide to send the IAF to fly over and bomb what it feels some nations don't deserve to have.

Iran has not attacked or threatened to attack Israel or the United States. All I ever hear about now is Iran's "meddling" in Iraq...a nation we have meddled the hell out of btw...yet there is barely any substantial proof.

Surprisingly though it seems from some sources that a majority of the insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia. Of course we'll handle that information the same way we did when we found out that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from SA...we'll ignore it and attack someone else.

Iran will do quite nicely.



[edit on 26-9-2007 by lee anoma]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I say let's do a pre-empty strike on Israel and end their dangerous WMDs, on this one we do not even need Intel to tells us how dangerous they are.

Israel is an unstable country with one goal in mind the domination and extermination of all Arabs in the region.


Funny but that is exactly what many say of Iran and they still have not nuclear weapons.


The hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
If I were the leader of Iran right now, I'd be pooing my pants ... and doing everything in my power to get hold of nuclear weapons as soon as possible.


OR...you could truly gain the moral high ground and ruin the Bush administration's plans of attacking by making it very clear to the rest of the world that you are NOT pursuing nuclear weapons by allowing the IAEA FULL access to whatever site they wish, while at the same time leading a campaign exposing the hypocrisy of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. But since Iran's president is probably working for the same people that control Bush, he won't do that, he will continue to instigate and people on this board and elsewhere will continue to choose sides in a battle that has been planned and decided already. Oh well.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by downtown436

That same country talks about bombing a neighboring country that has no nuclear weapons, and signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, with nuclear weapons, because they MIGHT be trying to get nuclear weapons.



You are kind if leaving out the part where the country that MIGHT be getting Nuclear weapons has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

That is sort of an important component here...you know if truth is of any importance.


Show me evidence of Iran ever stating their goal was to wipe Israel off the map because Iran has never stated that. Of course most peoples would like to believe Iran is evil.

There are many truths but only one reality.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by TigeriS]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
These videos were posted in another thread and with all the nuclear amibitions talk in this thread I thought they held some importance. Apparently people missed them, depsite the attempt by others here to point them out.

If you want to continue discussion of the nuclear ambitions of Iran, you would be best to watch these videos before continuing:





posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
You know If Iran really wanted to have in their possession nuclear weapons they just do like Israel . . . buy them from a more than willing country like US is to Israel.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
To be fair, it was France and the UK that gave Israel the means to build the bomb, not the US. The US hasn't always been the blind supporter of Israel it is now.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



Iran has allowed UN inspectors. Didn't you see their last report?

The inspectors never left.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This article leaves out one very important fact about the deal with India. The part that creates balance.

India agreed to give up its right to reprocess spent fuel rods

The deal has not yet been ratified so its interim in nature, and there are groups within the Indian gov fighting it, but that is part of the deal.


If Israel were to do the same they would lose the ability to separate the Plutonium from their spent fuel rods.

But, of course, if this goes through there will be no similar restriction for Israel.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
reply to post by 27jd
 



Iran has allowed UN inspectors. Didn't you see their last report?

The inspectors never left.


Right, that's why I said ALL sites, there are military sites in question that Iran refuses to allow inspected. It's the same kind of shell games Saddam played that gave those who wanted to attack false legitimacy. If Saddam had allowed FULL access to anywhere the IAEA wanted to go, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. But like I said, that wasn't in the plan for those who really run things.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Iraq was not required to allow inspection of those sites.

And its not the IAEA making the demands, its America.

After all the wild goose chases the IAEA has been sent on in the past armed with false info from America they are demanding proof for anything.

And you would too after being lied to enough times....

What you are saying is that they should do what America demands no matter if they have rights or not.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Malichai]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join