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.

 

Iran-Israel-Iran-Israel All day Oy vey!

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
How about let's all concentrate really hard on having a positive impact in our immediate surroundings, before we start worrying about what may or not be happening on the other side of the planet. I mean really, you got people ready to war over stuff they can't even besure is happening ina desert 10k miles away, but you got homeless people sleeping in your back yard and your local governments picking their pockets.

Get your priorities straight people!




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by nenothtu
 


www.iaea.org...

I can find more if you want.


OK, I read it. Now can you answer my question of what it is you think Israel is in "non-compliance" with?

No more PDF's just yet... until you can answer the question at hand.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


They have been asked by the UN and IAEA to allow full and open inspection of their nuclear facilaties.

They have refused...

Well thats the gist without the PDFs as you requested...

Pretty much what they accuse Iran of...But worse,,,



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why ask me a question and then leave???

Bit rude..



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why ask me a question and then leave???

Bit rude..


Sorry 'bout that. I was at another blog raking a hoaxer over the coals.



They have been asked by the UN and IAEA to allow full and open inspection of their nuclear facilaties.

They have refused...

Well thats the gist without the PDFs as you requested...

Pretty much what they accuse Iran of...But worse,,,


So the "non-compliance" you mention is refusing a request? I fail to see how that ranks higher than failure to comply with contractual obligations, such as the NPT, which is, I thought, what Iran was being accused of.

How is that worse?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Hmm semantics again...OK, lets put it this way...

IMO, Israel is suggesting that Iran should do things that Israel will not do..



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Hmm semantics again...OK, lets put it this way...

IMO, Israel is suggesting that Iran should do things that Israel will not do..


Semantics? I'd call it "legalities". I'm not aware of anywhere that folks are required to fulfill requests, but nearly everywhere requires them to live up to contractual obligations.

If Iran didn't want to live up to the contract, they shouldn't have signed it. Same for Israel, and they didn't.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


lol, I love word play...

Simple though....

Israel is demanding Iran do things that Israel will not do...

You can not argue that FACT....



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by nenothtu
 


lol, I love word play...

Simple though....

Israel is demanding Iran do things that Israel will not do...

You can not argue that FACT....


Nor have I tried to argue against it. It IS a fact, as is it also a fact that Israel was bright enough not to sign a treaty that would work against them. I'm still failing to see a problem here...



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


If you dont see the problem of Israel wanting a country to be attacked for doing the same thing Israel is doing then there is really no point discussing the issue with you...



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by nenothtu
 


If you dont see the problem of Israel wanting a country to be attacked for doing the same thing Israel is doing then there is really no point discussing the issue with you...


Okay then.

G'night.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by nenothtu
 


If you dont see the problem of Israel wanting a country to be attacked for doing the same thing Israel is doing then there is really no point discussing the issue with you...


After waking this morning with a somewhat clearer head, I had to add my take on this statement. Israel hasn't been accused of violating the NPT, but Iran HAS been accused of doing so. Therefore, they are NOT doing "the same thing". One is accused of being in violation, the other is not.

THAT is where the difference is.


edit on 2010/9/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Well I kind of agree with you Slayer, but if you're sick of it why make a thread telling us you're sick of it? Because all you'll end up doing is creating yet another thread which falls into the back and forth sniping and insults which you described.

Also thanks, I now have Wheels on the Bus stuck in my head.



edit on 10/9/10 by Kram09 because: Because I made yet another typo error!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



After waking this morning with a somewhat clearer head, I had to add my take on this statement. Israel hasn't been accused of violating the NPT, but Iran HAS been accused of doing so. Therefore, they are NOT doing "the same thing". One is accused of being in violation, the other is not.

THAT is where the difference is.


Semantics again mate...My statement still stands...

The fact that Israel has not signed up and therefore can not be in breach of it's obligations is correct..

That does not mean they are not doing the same as Iran by not complying with UN and IAEA requests..

It actually makes Israel look even more hypocritical for quoting an authority they obviously dont recognise to lobby for an attack on another country..



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I finally had to look up "semantics", to see if I could find a definition that applied here, but came up dry. Obviously, I'm missing something in your usage of the word, as I found nothing new to add to my previous understanding of the word. It seems, in the basic definition, to relate to the meanings of words, or more specifically the changes in meaning over time, or misuse of a dual-use word.

I'm just not seeing that, so there must be another meaning I've overlooked.

As regards the Israeli/ Iranian loggerhead, you seem to be saying that it's OK for Iran to ignore their treaty obligations, but Israel should be held to an agreement they never made. I'm not seeing the even-handedness of the logic there. It seems to me that both parties ought to be held to their agreements, and if they had the foresight NOT to agree to anything dangerous to them, then they ought to be held to THAT, too.

UN/ IAEA "requests" for inspection? I had the local constabulary "request" to inspect my premises not long ago. Not having anything to hide that they didn't already know about, but being aware of their proclivities, I cordially told them that sure, they could inspect - just as soon as they returned with the legal authority to do so. I wasn't about to have a "consent search", since my experience has been that it will continue until SOMETHING is found supporting a faulty premise, and then there is just all manner of legal wrangling to set it straight.

Unnecessary if I don't "consent" to begin with. Saves time AND money. They were, in the end, unable to obtain legal authority to force a search, and I see pretty much the same situation going on with Israel, just on a grander scale.

More simply put, I'm not going to give up MY rights and obligations just because my disagreeable neighbor had signed a contract to allow searches at any time. As an example, it doesn't matter if only one of us don't have child locks on our shotguns, or neither of us do, or BOTH of us do. They're NOT searching my place to find out just because he allows them to search HIS.

Neither would I leave my doors unlocked at night just because he does.

We might live in the same place, and do precisely the same things, but I'll be damned if I'll give up my rights just because he does.

The same applies, on a macro scale, to Israel/ Iran.

Now see? I've been dragged back into this Israel/ Iran discussion yet again, against my better judgment.

Granny would NOT be proud of me!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Ok, grannies asleep so I'll say one last thing..

Ignoring any agreements with UN, IAEA or anyone else...

The situation, IMHO, is that Israel is complaing about Iran not allowing full and open inspection of its nuclear program, although Iran has allowed some..

Israel on the other hand has not allowed any inspection, open or not, and very little is known of its nuclear assets.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hi Slayer,

I have to agree with you and it's not just the Iran/Israel issue. ATS members are just about at war with each other. Liberal vs. Conservative, Christian vs. Muslim. Americans vs. Canadians.

I didn't come to ATS for this crap. These are blatant divide and conquer tactics being used on us and too many people are falling into the trap. It's just going to get worse with the elections coming up. I think I need a break from ATS for a while.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
Also thanks, I now have Wheels on the Bus stuck in my head.



I'm giving this thread a shameless bump so other people can get the song stuck in their heads, then off into the abyss it goes.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join