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.

 

Let Palestinians have nukes - Kadhafi

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I explained how it is illegal. They are not a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory.

Yeah, but why do they have to be a signatory? Why does it make Israel illegal for not wanting to sign a treaty? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just can't understand how they can be labelled 'illegal' for not wanting to enter a treaty.

Which leaves my unanswered question about Israel (and India and Pakistan) - if they are illegally holding nukes, then who is going to arrest them and prosecute them?

Do they simply just get away with being 'illegal' because they can?

To me, the term 'illegal' means that the situation should be addressed and fixed until it is considered 'legal'.

Why didn't the USA invade Israel for its 'illegal' WMD nukes, instead of ivading Iraq?




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Letting them have nukes would still not settle the security dilema in the middle east and would just create a lot more problems especially since Palestine is not even a country.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 





So let me get this straight: Gaddafi is insane because he suggests Palestinians be allowed to defend themselves by possessing a nuclear arsenal, but it is perfectly normal for Israel to hold their nuclear arsenal as a bargaining chip over a population they have terrorized for 61 years?

I'm not sure who you are addressing, but let me make my post quite clear. Nuclear weapons are an insane idea in any nation's hands. The idea of a weapon whose sole purpose is to vaporize an entire area and its people defies logic.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Used? You mean paid handsomely. Your countrymen were letgo from the military as a downsizing and joined up with Executive Outcomes. Nobody twisted thier arms to fight in Angola. They did it for the money.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
There is only one reason Israel has nukes and thats because someone wanted them to have them .

They didn't develop Nukes shortly after becoming a nation , they were given all of it .

The middle east is one big chess board with proxy wars and cold wars all over the place .

When we argue and disagree on a lot of these middle east issues we in a lot of ways are doing exactly as we are intended to do , argue and disagree and completely miss the point .

The middle east has been set up this way , it didn't evolve into this , there was a lot of meddling going on to make it what we see today .

Now just why was all of this done ? One can only speculate .



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



Why didn't the USA invade Israel for its 'illegal' WMD nukes, instead of ivading Iraq?


Israel didn't threaten GWB's daddy.


You got a point on what's legal/what's not and who sees it as legal and is willing to ....dangit just too much legal in here.

What makes international legal if it isn't mandatory to sign on?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why didn't the USA invade Israel for its 'illegal' WMD nukes, instead of ivading Iraq?


Look at what our forces are going through in the third and fourth-rate states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at Vietnam, what we consider a "major war" but was, in all actuallity, the United States getting its butt kicked in a peasant rebellion.

I'm no fan of Israel. But they would have beat the crap out of the United States.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I'm no fan of Israel. But they would have beat the crap out of the United States.

Which is my point about the definition of 'illegal'. Israel can't be considered to have any 'illegal' nukes if no one is prepared to do anything about it.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by oozyism
 



Find Israel.


Find me where it says that a country has to sign on. Just because somebody signed on the list doesn't mean they won't make nukes.

Look at Libya and when they signed.

Good thing they gave up their program in 2003 before they built any.

I understand you want balance, but no treaty or law can create that balance.

It has to come from the two parties involved. As long as the two got willing partners to back them up, they will never reach a mutual agreement.

Countries which sign the treaty, will be pressured under the treaty to dismantle any nuclear activities, that is the reason why the international community is pressuring Iran, because they have signed the treaty.

Aren't you happy they have signed it and that they are being pressured from every corner to not gain any nuclear weapons?

Signing the treaty is a show of will, and it will add to their cause of one day destroying all nuclear weapons.

Libya signed and eradicated its nuclear ambitions. I say that is a good thing. Israel signing the treating would be the first step you don't think? Wouldn't that be a good thing?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Why give the surrounding countries nukes?

Just take Israel's away and you've got the equality.

Let them squabble over religious sites with small arms for another 2000 years... but god help us if both sides get WMDs.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by oozyism
 



Hey Ooz.

I noticed how you left out Pakistan and India. Funny that.
Isn't Pakistan a Muslim country?


Non-signatory
India, Israel, Pakistan

Our discussion was in regards to Israel, that being said my indication of Israel's absence as a signatory is justified.




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


Well according to Lieberman during the Gaza attack last year.

He was for a japanese solution......

The guy, He never think about radioactivity !!!! But he did threat neighbouring states with nukes !!!



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Our discussion was in regards to Israel, that being said my indication of Israel's absence as a signatory is justified.



Ahh OK.

Your post was very accurate about who signed but seemed lacking about who hadn't. I thought you were trying to make a statement by leaving India, Pakistan out. Must have slipped your mind.

My bad.


[edit on 25-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nimrod
 


Ya but Lieberman is about as bright as Kadhafi , oh correction I forgot about the all girl security staff , guess Kadhafi is smarter .



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Africa should be nuke free.

Less nukes is good


"Nuke Free"... [snicker]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Well seeing how many times we have nuked planet earth don't you think its time the planet builds its self a reactor or a bomb or two for protection ?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by exlibertateveritas
 

That would be like saying a serial killer with a gun is more trustworthy than a law abiding citizen who does not own a gun.



Are you trying to say that Israel is the serial killer and the arabs of that land are the law abiding citizens? If Israel was a 'serial killer' why didn't the force out all the arabs everytime they won a war? If arafat hadn't been such a prick the 'palestinians' (a term once used to refer to Jews, but co-opted by the arabs for the propaganda purposes) would have had a state by now, but they chose violence. Israel wanted peace, but are forced to fight back against people who plan to kill civilians, not soldiers. So if Israel really was a serial killer why didn't they use their WMD to wipe out their enemies? Not a serial killer. And if the 'palestinians' were the law abiding citizens without a gun, then they use rocks, fire bombs, anything they can to promote violence. Israel has shown restraint in using their weapons, the palestinians have never shown restraint which is why they can't be trusted with any more lethal weapons than the ones they have.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Why does the world instantly dismiss ghadafi's ideas ?


It saves time.....




.....his bodyguards I'd give a month's notice



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Ya really - giving a group of people and not an organised government nukes, good idea. Then when it is in the hands of ONE crazy person we get WW3.

I think the point about India/Pakistan really is that because they are both afraid of the outcome they will not use the nukes... they are like a psychological deterrent (but first one to use watch out!!). Theoretically *if* palestinians got a real government structure then I think nukes could possibly be an option (because they know what happens if they use it) but I would be worried about them psychologically... the revenge factor I think would be overwhelming and then they couldnt really be trusted.



Originally posted by fooffstarr
Let them squabble over religious sites with small arms for another 2000 years... but god help us if both sides get WMDs.

Haha both go back to biblical times maybe, swords and spears! hell Id be all for that worldwide



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I seen some arguments on here that just screams, retardation. You want to give Palestine Nukes? You would allow HAMAS to have nukes... # you want WWIII to happen don’t you. Letting the Palestine have nukes is like inviting a fat kid to an all you can eat buffet. You know you’re going to lose so why let him be there? Say no to fat kids at an all you can eat buffet, and no to HAMAS(Palestine) getting nukes…



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join