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 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar


Hum, how does this man really know that they have nuclear weapons? Israel has never said they have them, so how do we know?

Any thoughts on all this?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here is your answer Shar exerpt from the telegraph.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A decades-long silence about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons has been broken in an apparent slip of the tongue by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, during a visit to Europe.

Ehud Olmert
Mr Olmert broke a decades-long silence

However, his admissions has sparked controversy at home, where one of his ministers urged a return to silence about the country's nuclear capabilities.

"I would suggest that all those who want to talk about the issue, for God's sake and for the sake of Israel's security, stop it," said the Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer.

Currently visiting Germany, Mr Olmert appeared to admit in an interview on Monday with a German television station that Israel was among the states that possess an atomic bom




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I hope this puts to rest any questions put forth as to the validity of the claim that Israel has nuclear weapons... And this forum ends as well with that I say adeu



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


Is this what you are talking about? From your link


He told a Senate confirmation committee that Iran might want an atomic bomb because it is "surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf".


I'm wondering here. Today we have this in the headlines:

Call for Israel PM to stand down




Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to take a leave of absence or resign as he battles allegations of corruption.....Mr Olmert denies claims that he took up to $500,000 (£250,000) in bribes or illegal campaign donations


link


Ok, what if he did take this money but not for what they are saying. Maybe it was to say what he said over there. I think we have a lot of people who do not want peace over there so they intentionally keep things stirred up!!



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar
 


Nope thats not what I said... I suggest you read the telegraph article.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar
 


"Currently visiting Germany, Mr Olmert appeared to admit in an interview on Monday with a German television station that Israel was among the states that possess an atomic bom" I will try to find the interview... where he is claimed to have said this.. But the fact that powerful people at home lambasted him for his claims and to "shut up" clearly shows that he is telling the truth.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar
 





posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf37


Is that all you can say? ‘Your post is BS.’ That is not exactly debating. That’s more like arguing with no response.




Now you have lost any small amount of credibility you might have had. Throwing up all that Amnesty International stuff and then praising bus bombing terrorists. You don’t know what you think do you? There is a huge difference between innocent people being hurt as a result of warfare and a coward targeting innocent civilians and killing himself in the process so that he doesn’t even have to face any consequences for his actions. There is a special place in Hell for these people I’m sure.





Is that all you can say? ‘Your post is BS.’ That is not exactly debating. That’s more like arguing with no response.

because you have no proof to show that Israel does not commit war crimes against humanity ....
and I am still waiting for proof for the BS you post...




Now you have lost any small amount of credibility you might have had. Throwing up all that Amnesty International stuff and then praising bus bombing terrorists. You don’t know what you think do you? There is a huge difference between innocent people being hurt as a result of warfare and a coward targeting innocent civilians and killing himself in the process so that he doesn’t even have to face any consequences for his actions. There is a special place in Hell for these people I’m sure.

when did i praise the bus terrorists??? , by the way they are freedom fighters fighting against the genocidal israeli apartheid forces ...




There is a huge difference between innocent people being hurt as a result of warfare and a coward targeting innocent civilians and killing himself in the process so that he doesn’t even have to face any consequences for his actions.

in pure western military terms ,this is assymetric warfare by resistance forces , as Israeli occupation forces commit war crimes against humanity such assymetric responses are bound to happen ....



huge difference between innocent people being hurt as a result of warfare and a coward targeting innocent civilians

so you implicitly admit that Israeli soldiers are also cowards targeting innocent palestinian people




ow you have lost any small amount of credibility you might have had.

and you pro-israeli troll already have no crediblitiy at all

[edit on 28-5-2008 by manson_322]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by lonewolf37
 


Lonewolf no you lost all the credibility you have. You sound like your copying and pasting from the main stream media ..... Stop buying everything you hear.. your falling for it hook line and sinker.


kudos to people like you , if there were no people like you ,everyone would have been falling for the pro-american israeli propaganda myths which are rampant in MSM

[edit on 28-5-2008 by manson_322]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Harlequin:

Maybe you will search what happened in Jerusalem in 1920? This is not kept in secret by British army, so you should find it. Long before Irgun and ,since it was the reason for creating Hagannah, before Hagannah itself. As for "peace" before that - maybe during Turks, but even that rarely.

Thefreepatriot:

In Iraq US forces shot at British soldiers. And their were part of the same coalition. Accident.
Israeli forces attacked a ship of neutral side. Not an accident? And why after this attack Israel became much closer to US then before? What was the reason for that attack then? Mind you, there were ships that were attacked and sunk by their own forces. And it is not some evil doings, but an accident.

Pexx421:

So firing rockets and mortar shells at civilian city is ok. But firing at terrorist who are in the midst of civilian population in one of most crowded places on Earth - wrong. Great logic. Congrats. White is black and black is green.

As for nukes and their number. If there are really 150 nukes, i do not understand why so many? Maybe tactical ones are also included?
Note: i have no real information about Israel's nuclear capabilities. All my info comes from Internet/media sources.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


I personally know one of the vets on that ship.... and it was no accident..There was a large U.S flag flying over the ship and frantic radio calls to the attacking aircrafts..Yet they continued to fire You are talking to someone who actually knows one of the victims of the attacks.. not someone who just read it off the internet..........



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Harlequin:

Maybe you will search what happened in Jerusalem in 1920? This is not kept in secret by British army, so you should find it. Long before Irgun and ,since it was the reason for creating Hagannah, before Hagannah itself. As for "peace" before that - maybe during Turks, but even that rarely.

Thefreepatriot:

In Iraq US forces shot at British soldiers. And their were part of the same coalition. Accident.
Israeli forces attacked a ship of neutral side. Not an accident? And why after this attack Israel became much closer to US then before? What was the reason for that attack then? Mind you, there were ships that were attacked and sunk by their own forces. And it is not some evil doings, but an accident.

Pexx421:

So firing rockets and mortar shells at civilian city is ok. But firing at terrorist who are in the midst of civilian population in one of most crowded places on Earth - wrong. Great logic. Congrats. White is black and black is green.

As for nukes and their number. If there are really 150 nukes, i do not understand why so many? Maybe tactical ones are also included?
Note: i have no real information about Israel's nuclear capabilities. All my info comes from Internet/media sources.



What a funny comparison You compare an incident where a newly formed army that has little or no control over its military(IRAQ)... to one that has been established for quite some time and has full control over there military(ISRAEL)(Not the best example there buddy. try another one. And the reason is clear Israel wanted to drag the U.S into the war with Egypt.., by blaming the attack on Egypt. Probaly seemed closer by all the damage control after the incident.... but look at all the Israel spies being found... do you deem this"closer" if Israel was our freind why would Israel have spies on our soil stealing secrets?

[edit on 28-5-2008 by thefreepatriot]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


My freind finding common sense among the people is like finding diamonds in a rough, they listen to the news and the take this as there own opinion when in reality there opinion has been already given to them..Instead of doing actual research which is inexcusable these days with computers, they jus take the MSM'S word for it... People need to learn to think for themselves and find out information on there own, unless they like being fed crap all the time.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


First of all, i am glad that your friend made it and sorry for those that did not.
And certainly he knows about what happened better then me, but still i cannot understand how he is sure that pilots knew that the ship was US ship.
As far as i know no radio contact was made with aircrafts. And if Israel wanted (Why????) to sink the ship, why it did not?
As for friendly fire accident - US A-10s attacked British column. With much more advanced friend-or-foe systems and communications. Not to mention same coalition. In the war things like these happen.
I simply cannot see what Israel was hoping to gain by attack.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Zero knowledge if you recall the 6 day war Had they sunk the U.S ship they would have blamed it on the Egyptians,thereby forcing the US into the war with the Arab nations and helping Israel directly.. That would have been the benefit.. It was no accident. not with a standing American flag flying on the ship and frantic radio calls to stop the shooting.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by thefreepatriot]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Exerpt Israel Pilot speaks up
www.rense.com...

At 1400 a well coordinated attack by jet aircraft and torpedo boats began. Jets hammered the virtually unarmed ship with cannon and rockets, and napalmed it. Its forward machineguns were wiped out in the first firing pass, and whatever transmitting antennas survived that pass were disabled by the second. Nine minutes into the attack, crewmen juryrigged a transmitter to an antenna. But the radiomen discovered that four out of five of the ship's radio frequencies, including the international distress frequency, were being jammed. Ironically, the only time Liberty could transmit was while the jets were firing their missiles. A frantic cry for help was sent to the Sixth Fleet, only 400 miles away and off Crete; despite the Israeli jamming, the Liberty's plea for assistance was received. The patchwork transmitting arrangement ceased functioning soon afterward.

Torpedo boats soon arrived and continued the attack, firing five torpedoes, with one hitting and killing 25 men. They then leisurely circled the defenseless ship for 40 minutes, pumping hundreds of 40mm, 20mm, and 50cal. rounds at wounded men on deck, stretcher bearers and fire fighters. Thinking the ship was about to sink, the crew threw life rafts over the side; the attackers machinegunned those too. With increased radio activity from the U.S. Sixth Fleet indicating an impending U.S. response (many of the Fleet's messages bore "Flash" precedence), the Israelis suddenly contacted the U.S. embassy and informed it of this "accident." It was probably the longest "accidental" attack in the history of naval warfare an hour and 15 minutes.

Two separate flights of jets from the carriers America and Saratoga were recalled by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the first flight probably because Washington was not absolutely certain of the attackers' identity and was leery of starting a war with the Russians if they were the guilty party. The second flight was recalled after receipt of the Israeli xplanation.

MORE EVIDENCE OF GUILT

In addition to the abovementioned circumstances which show that Israel's attack was deliberate the lengthy and careful surveillance, the radio jamming, etc. numerous other details belie Israel's professed innocence. They include: * The Israelis initially claimed they had "mistaken" the Liberty for the Egyptian ship El Quseir. But the El Quseir was only 40 percent the size of Liberty (4000 vs. 10,400 tons). The El Quseir was an old, rustedout horse transport that bore about as much resemblance to the Liberty as a rusty VW does to a new Cadillac. The Liberty was arrayed with numerous specialized antennas, and an ultramodern (for 1967) 16foot microwave dish, a device possessed by no other ship in the world except her sister ship Belmont. She bore standard U.S. Navy markings, which included a freshly painted 10foothigh hull number, and Liberty on the stern.

* The radio jamming is by itself damning evidence that the assailants knew exactly whom they were attacking. Such jamming requires intimate advance knowledge of the target being jammed, obtained by extended monitoring of its signals. And this was selective jamming; it struck Liberty's frequencies and no others.

Afterward, in one of their ever changing explanations, the Israelis claimed to have learned the ship's identity when they heard its distress signals. But the attack continued for sixty six minutes after the first distress signal, which the Israelis had jammed, was sent. Had this particular Israeli claim been true, they would have recalled the torpedo boats before they even reached the ship.

* The Israelis claimed that the ship's U.S. flag hung limp because there was no wind. Later, when presented with the fact that the flag had been perfectly visible, they claimed that they thought that the ship was an enemy vessel flying false colors. The extended radio monitoring, exposing considerable advance investigation of Liberty's communication facilities, refutes this claim.

* The Israelis claimed that the torpedo boats, after first sighting the ship, had called in the aircraft to attack after the ship refused to identify itself. This is an obvious lie, because the attack was clearly a preplanned and well coordinated onetwo punch employing different branches of the Israeli Defense Forces. The jets were already intent on attacking the ship before the Liberty came into the torpedo boats' radar range. Directly contradicting themselves, the Israelis later claimed that their aircraft had called in the torpedo boats.

* The Israelis eventually admitted that before the attack, their commanders had compared reconnaissance photos of the Liberty with Jane's Fighting Ships. But they claimed that before the attack they twice telephoned the U.S. naval attache in Tel Aviv inquiring whether the Liberty was a U.S. ship and were told that there were no U.S. Navy ships in the area. They claimed that having received a negative reply, they decided that the ship had to be the El Quseir. However, the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and later the naval attache, emphatically stated that no such inquiries were made. The Israelis not only knew the ship's nationality and that she was an "ELINT" ship; they also knew she was the Liberty herself.

* Immediately preceding the attack, an Israeli pilot recognized Liberty as a U.S. ship and radioed this information to IDF headquarters. He was instructed to attack anyway. This dialogue was intercepted at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter revealed the existence of this intercept in 1991.

* Finally, there is evidence, circumstantial but clear, of a relationship between the attack on the Liberty and a postponement of Israel's planned attack on the Golan Heights. The Golan attack was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on 8 June; the Liberty was spotted by 6 a.m. or earlier; lastminute orders delayed the Golan attack; the Liberty was put out of commission; and the Golan attack occurred shortly thereafter. The vaunted IDF made very few mistakes in that war.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It was widely known in the hallowed halls of the US Armed Forces that Israel had nuclear weapons since the late 70's. It has never been divulged as to what tonnage they are or exactly how many, just that they had them.

Anyone with an ounce of nerve would know that if Israel had F-16's, they had nukes as well. How else do you think we have been able to hold a balance of power in the middle east so far?

Now that Iran, with the help of North Korea and Russia, has nuclear material to make into bombs, the question is not when will Iran attack, but Who will be the highest bidder of the nuclear materials or weapons created from them to use against the west and its allies (including Israel)?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Instead of calling BS on everything, perhaps you should engage in some reading comprehension?

The president of Iran does not like Israel. He was mistranslated as saying that he wants to wipe Israel off of the map.

True, he did not say those exact words, but the meaning is the same. The people who are claiming he was mistranslated and Iran looooves Israel (exaggeration there on my part ;D ) are playing the semantics game. Just like the classic Bill Clinton line: "What is the meaning of 'is?'"

As for the proof about the rally . . . google is your friend.


Start with this, which happened a few years ago.





[edit on 29/5/2008 by xxpigxx]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


I dont think anyone is saying that the governments of Iran and Israel are best buddies. But calling for a regime change is not the same as calling for genocide.

The president wasn't simply mistranslated, he was purposely mistranslated in an ongoing propaganda ploy.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


umm . . . how about no. He attended rallies such as this

I highly doubt that he is calling for a regime change. Read the signs in the pic. Nothing about a regime change there . . . unless "Death to Israel" and "Death to the USA" means "We Want a Regime Change."




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


we could go back throughout history and look at periods of calm in between wars but thats the history of the world - no lengthy `peace` anywhere.

as for the Palestine riots (see i occasionally know history) as i can see it the Haganah was formed more from the view of `lack of british support against the arabs` than anything else , but bear in mind my opinion comes from reading the reprinted Palin commission 1920 (reprinted 1991) and what is interesting is the wording that Bolshevism had allready `infected the heart` of the jews to there detrement. which could of course set teh tone for the events between the jewish settlers and the british 20 years later , but i does begger the question - did the peoples have a master plan before the 20th century? and would go to any lengths even in the `victorian era` to achieve it?

my opinion is that the palestine riots happened from inpatience - a case of `we want the land and we want it now` , so it could be said the roots of the likes of the PLO were formed then , as th elocals started to refer to themselves as palestians and not syrians after that point.


but i digress as this is way off topic.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join