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.
Originally posted by Shminkee Pinkee
Has anyone ever considered that Israel might not have Nuclear weapons and just perpetuates the idea for it's own gain. I'm not really clued up on this so forgive me, but it could be a bluff on a huge scale, they won't confirm or deny they have them to my knowledge, and because they haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty, they don't have to answer to anyone. So could they be bluffing?
Originally posted by libertytoall
I don't deny their is an enormous military-industrial complex. With that comes higher risk of abuse but overall the US military has kept the world more peaceful. The Iraq war was a prime example of abuse of the system taking place but you can't wash away all the good that's been done because of a couple rogue leaders.
Originally posted by libertytoall
I think that depends if these are sales to legitimate places or not. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman are responsible for the majority of those sales and the sales consisted of warplanes and missile defense systems. In this case I don't see it as a good example of producing a powder keg. I mean most of it was missile defense.. Can you come up with something better?
Originally posted by libertytoall
Don't they have to be somewhat oppressive if the people are being somewhat rebellious and violent? Iraq and Vietnam aren't the only wars the US has been in. Did you forget saving the world in WWII? How about countless missions in south America and Africa to remove brutal drug lords and murderous dictators? How about Korea? How about stopping Saddam in the first Gulf war from taking over Kuwait? When Turkey invaded Cypress? The Congo? The Philippines, Panama, or Columbia? Countless rescue operations in Africa? I think you get the point..
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Originally posted by libertytoall
blah blah blah kidnapping Canadians and sending them overseas for torture etc..
Could you provide some evidence of that?
because we pay no mind to various religions' mumbo jumbo?
Increases the role of the army in everyday life
The Council favors military candidates at the expense of reform candidates. This ensures that the ideological Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (separate from the Iranian army) holds a commanding influence over the political, economic, and cultural life of Iran.[11]
Arbitrarily disqualifies candidates from elections
After conservative candidates fared poorly in the 2000 parliamentary elections, the Council disqualified more than 3,600 reformist and independent candidates for the 2004 elections.
Rule by unelected leaders
Link
Talking about religious myths/prophesies, what about the Second Coming of Christ and the End of Times?
You think countries that are in part or fully controlled by such nut jobs should have nuclear weapons?
Recent Developments:
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2009.
There are ongoing investigations by the IAEA concerning Iran's compliance with the NPT. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, an IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the NPT. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Remaining uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's November 2004 report. IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards, Pierre Goldschmidt, reported in June 2005 that Iran had admitted to separating out small amounts of plutonium as recently as 1998.
Despite suspending its enrichment and conversion programs in 2003, Iran resumed uranium conversion in 2005 and enrichment in 2006. In 2009, it was revealed that Iran had secretly constructed a second enrichment facility within a Revolutionary Guards military base twenty miles from the city of Qum. The enrichment facility near Qum is smaller than the Natanz enrichment facility. The smaller size of the Qum enrichment facility combined with its location within a military base suggests to some that this second enrichment plant is not for enriching uranium required for generating civil nuclear power. Iran maintains that the facility is necessary for enriching uranium for its research reactor and it was built due to worries that the Natanz facility is vulnerable to attack. One study notes that the Qum enrichment facility is potentially too small to be an effective enrichment plant for weapons grade material. In the study’s conclusion, the authors note that the Qum enrichment facility is “neither ideal for commercial nor military purposes.”
V. Representation of Other Organizations and of States not Members of the Agency
Rule 30. Representatives of States not Members of the Agency
Representatives of States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies which are not Members of the Agency shall be invited to attend the General Conference and may participate without vote on matters of direct concern to them.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MrInquisitive
Using your same source, the Federation of American Scientists, we see Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons as well.
FAS - Nuclear Weapons - Iran
...Also so we can keep this somewhat on topic -
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT nor a member of the IAEA - meaning they are not subject to inspections. Iran on the other hand signed both, and if they wish to pursue a weapons program all they need to do is pull out of the treaties, like North Korea did.
If people insist on inspecting israeli facilities by force when they are not subject to the treaty then the very same should apply to Iran, who by the way ARE subject to the treaties.
One last thing - The Israeli government has neither confirmed nor denied a nuclear weapons pogram. To state as fact that they have one allows the same to be applied to Iran - that Iran is in fact developing a nuclear weapons program.
The claim for Israel is based on intelligence and classified documents, just as Irans program is based on, and might I add both sources are the US.
So if its against Israel is reliable but if its against Iran its not?
The constant invocation of Israel every time Irans nuclear program comes up is about as useful as the invocation of Bush every time Obama comes up.
Its nothing more than a deflection coupled with an excuse.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by MrInquisitive
When the government in question is BASED on that 'various religious mumbo jumbo' - YES - absolutely you should pay attention to it.
Were not talking about a liberal democracy here. Were talking about an Islamist - an Islamic political entity.
...
You think countries that are in part or fully controlled by such nut jobs should have nuclear weapons?
...
Yes, Israel has far right wing fanatics. Same with America. Neither of them have sufficient influence on government policy to effect their goals.
Originally posted by dontreally
To just highlight the Jewishness - and Hebrew foundations of - the land of Israel, just look at these Arabizations of Hebrew names:
Town Names Betray Their True History
Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following:
* Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah.
* Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE.
blah, blah, blah
Where did the name Palestine come from? The name Palestine is given to the region spreading from eastern Mediterranean coast to the Jordan Valley to the area covering Galilee Lake in the north and southern Negev Desert. The origin of this word lies in “Plesheth”. This is a name appearing frequently in the Bible and have started being known as “Philistine” in English. The world root of “Plesheth” lies in the word “palah” was is a term used generally in the sense of migratory, referring to the Palestinian’s conquest of the coast of Mediterranean.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Originally posted by libertytoall
I don't deny their is an enormous military-industrial complex. With that comes higher risk of abuse but overall the US military has kept the world more peaceful. The Iraq war was a prime example of abuse of the system taking place but you can't wash away all the good that's been done because of a couple rogue leaders.
I'd say the damages wreaked in Viet Nam and Iraq alone far outweigh any good that we've done militarily since WWII, and in WWII we still committed mass war crimes with the strategic bombing and dropping of two atomic bombs. US and British military leaders from the period have acknowledged as much.
Originally posted by libertytoall
I think that depends if these are sales to legitimate places or not. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman are responsible for the majority of those sales and the sales consisted of warplanes and missile defense systems. In this case I don't see it as a good example of producing a powder keg. I mean most of it was missile defense.. Can you come up with something better?
No, a lot of these sales go to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan. Other go to Africa for conflicts there. The weapons going to the Gulf states are not all missile defense; some are for conventional weapons to fight popular uprisings in those countries. We gave military aid to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. That worked out well. We gave aid to the the Afghans fighting the Soviets. That worked out REALLY WELL. Never mind that all the planes an tanks we sell (and those we use in conflicts) help to dwindle petroleum resources and spur climate change (ask all the parts of the US facing droughts and wildfires how climate change is affecting them).
Originally posted by libertytoall
Don't they have to be somewhat oppressive if the people are being somewhat rebellious and violent? Iraq and Vietnam aren't the only wars the US has been in. Did you forget saving the world in WWII? How about countless missions in south America and Africa to remove brutal drug lords and murderous dictators? How about Korea? How about stopping Saddam in the first Gulf war from taking over Kuwait? When Turkey invaded Cypress? The Congo? The Philippines, Panama, or Columbia? Countless rescue operations in Africa? I think you get the point..
Man, you have the most ironic name EVAR, "libertytoall", but you're all for oppressive governments keeping their people down. Rebellious and violent? I believe that is what the Founding Fathers of the US were -- last time I checked.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
And you're just plain wrong with respect to Uranium. Normal Uranium is in DU -- not to mention trace amounts of more radioactive isotopes as well as Plutonium and other nasty radionuclides. And any form of Uranium is a nastier, toxic, heavy metal than lead. And all forms of Uranium are radioactive to some degree. Swallowing some will cause some radiation damage, but far worse is breathing it in, as it will get stuck in the lungs. And a large proportion of DU munitions vaporize aerosolize upon explosion. These particles get blown into the air and breathed in. There is a reason western countries are very concerned about dirty bomb terrorism, and it could make use of just such material. That said, all the spraying of lead by US forces all around the world is doing no environmental good either, and is leaving a terrible legacy.
You say DU is safe, that all the health issues are myths, but provide no back-up evidence of this.
The WHO report is biased and selective in its statements, as DU-using countries wield the most weight in the UN. Do a google search and look for non-government reports, as DU-using governments are not to be trusted in their claims about the safety
I've been told by Jewish Israelis that there aren't swear words in Hebrew, but rather they use Arabic terms as swear words. Does this mean the Jews don't have a legitimate culture and have stolen from the Arabs?
So Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas. So what?
My understanding is that, yes people moved in, but there was intermixing as well, not to mention the conversion of the indigenous peoples to the Muslim faith. Human history has been one migration/invasion/displacement after another.
The creation of Israel caused the uprooting of over 700,000 people and now their descendents, numbering in the millions, are kept in squallid reservations by the Israeli conquerors.
It has everything to do with this thread / topic because the action is based on a faulty premise, which is Israel should be inspected not because of treaty obligations but simply because they are Israel and 17 ME countries are pushing it.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
You know, I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that Iran is not possibly developing nuclear weapons. But WHAT does that have to with countries in the region wanting Israel to face inspections of Its nuclear program,
Iraq is a signatory to the NPT
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
similar to what Iraq and Iran have been forced or are continuing to be forced to do???
Deflecting? Iran refuses to honor their treaty obligations while at the same time Arab countries are pushing an action towards ISrael that does not apply. I think if you look closely you will see the only deflection occuring is by Iran and 17 ME nations. Where are those demands when it comes to Iran?
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
At the end of your post you claim that I and others wishing to have Israel face similar inspections as deflecting and making excuses, when it is, in fact, people like yourself who are doing the deflecting and excuse making.
Based on intelligence reports and not official confirmation by the Israeli government. If you are going to accept the reports on Israel then you also must accept the reports on Iran.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
This thread is supposed to be about M.E. countries wanting Israel -- a country HIGHLY REGARDED as already having nuclear weapons since the late 1960's --
They are not a signatory to the treaty which means they are not required nor obligated to comply with inspections.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
to allow international inspection of Its nuclear program.
Actually it is related and to answer the statement above no, Iran cannot be trusted.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
This thread is not about Iran and Its nuclear program or whether or not Muslim nations are fit to be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
It's about forcing Israel to bow to the same standards as it is insisting on with respect to Iran. Yet, all you Israel defenders and Islamphobes want to turn the topic onto tangents -- SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Then you should go back and read the entire info contained in the link, where you will see -
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
BTW, your quotes from the FAS only talk about the fact that Iran has an uranium processing program. It mentions nothing specifically about a nuclear weapons program.
More recently, on November 9, 2011, the IAEA reported that it still had serious concerns that Iran’s nuclear program continued to have potential military dimensions to them and that Iran has been carrying out activities relating to developing explosive nuclear devices. This report stated that evidence suggests that Iran has likely continued to have an organized nuclear weapons program going back to 2003. The conclusions of the November 9, 2011 IAEA report have been reiterated in more recent reports, indicating that concern over Iran’s nuclear program has not diminished.
........ In late May 2012, satellite imagery revealed that Iran has potentially engaged in “ground-scraping activities” in Parchin to conceal facilities and equipment that could be associated with developing nuclear weapons before United Nations inspectors could visit the site.
For starters the info is not false. Simply ignoring what you dont like does not mean the info is not valid. Ironically enough I provided links to my sources where as you have not for your rebuttal.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Your headline is flat-out false, based on the evidence you provide. But that's par for the course for Israel defenders and warmongers looking to attack Iran, another oil rich country in the M.E.
The standards are not the same and again ignoring info you dont like or that does not fit your position does not make it invalid.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
No one here has said Iran shouldn't be required to allow inspections. All that is being asked for is Israel to be held to the same standards.
Respectfully you don't.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
I fully realize that Israel has not signed the NPT,
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
but the fact that it is lobbying for attacks against Iran for not coming completely clean with Its program is the hight of hypocrisy and thuggery. If it wants the international community to put pressure on Iran, then it needs to hold itself to the same standard. THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.
Funny enough the claim Israel has nuclear weapons is pure speculation. However if you are going to use "evidence" against Israel then the "evidence" aginst Iran is valid.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
And as for your claim that Israel's nuclear program is pure speculation, there is abundant evidence suggesting it is a fact.
While at the very same time you ignore those very same sources when it comes to Iran and their program.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Did you look into the case of Mordechai Vanunu? The FAS report I cited cites CIA reports that Israel very likely has nuclear weapons. There are many articles and books that also document this fairly certain fact. I believe information on Israel's nuclear collaboration with South Africa came out after the change in government there. Also if I remember rightly, there have been reports of nuclear contamination near the top secret Israeli Dimona nuclear facility -- which is definitely a nuclear facility, no speculation about it. Why would it be top secret if it were purely for non-military purposes.
Again had you read your own source you would see -
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
On the other hand, the last CIA reports that have come out have said that there is no evidence that Iran is currently engaged in a nulcear weapons program. But I digress, because this thread is about Israel and Its program.
In November 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) undertaken by the United States Intelligence Community concluded “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The NIE further stated that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons until the fall of 2003 and that it was likely that international pressure persuaded the Iranians to end its nuclear weapons program. The NIE went on to say that Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program was ongoing and that some commercial and conventional military research programs Iran was conducting could potentially have limited use in a nuclear weapons program although the NIE asserted that Iran’s nuclear weapon program was suspended.
While arguing Israel should be held to a standard they are not obligated to be held to is hypocritical and ignorant.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
To equate the likelihood of Israel's nuclear weapons program with Iran's is just specious or ignorant.
It is one of the point of this thread actually. Feel free to research which countries are pushing the issue with Israel. Being the source is Presstv (Iranian government) and it specifically points out in the article the Israeli position on Iran, its very much relevent to this thread.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
But again, that is not the point of this thread. Want to talk about Iran's possible nuclear weapons program? THEN START YOUR OWN THREAD!!! This one is about subjecting Israel to international inspections of Its VERY probable (i.e. 99.9% likely) nuclear weapons program.
Originally posted by libertytoall
I don't think MrInquisitive is coming back. He must realize he's lost the argument.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
You know, I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that Iran is not possibly developing nuclear weapons. But WHAT does that have to with countries in the region wanting Israel to face inspections of Its nuclear program, similar to what Iraq and Iran have been forced or are continuing to be forced to do???[\quote]
It has everything to do with this thread / topic because the action is based on a faulty premise, which is Israel should be inspected not because of treaty obligations but simply because they are Israel and 17 ME countries are pushing it
Iraq is a signatory to the NPT
Iran is a signatory to the IAEA
Israel is NOT a member of either and therefore are not bound by those rules, which includes inspections.
Yes, how ridiculous of 17 ME countries to want the one country in the region that almost certainly has several hundred nuclear weapons to acquiesce to the same inspections Israel is insisting another country have, and which Israel is threatening to attack and/or lobbying the US to attack. The nerve of those 17 countries. The fact that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT nor apparently a member of the IAEA, but in all likelihood has had a nuclear weapons program since 1967 (this is about the time of its first bomb, the program has been going on since the 1950's) and is threatening to attack a signatory to the NPT is all the more reason that Israel should be forced to open itself to inspections.
Your argument is essentially: Israel has not joined the civilized family of nations by signing the NPT and joining the IAEA, so it doesn't have to do anything, BUT it has every right to demand other countries follow rules that itself won't abide by. And by the way, Iran has abided by the NPT and opened itself to IAEA inspections. There are criticisms that Iran has not opened up completely and this may well be, but it has done a whole lot more than Israel in this respect. Furthermore, the demands the US, Israel's proxy, is making of Iran include some that would take away rights Iran has under the NPT. In other words, the US and Israel want to make Iran a second-class NPT signatory, and yet Israel refuses to abide by any of these international rules.
The fact that you have this massive double standard for Israel compared to other countries, shows how extremely biased you are in your views. There is no point in trying to carry on a discussion with such a dogmatic person. That you can't see how neighboring ME countries can be legitimately concerned about Israel's nuclear weapons program, and want international action to be taken to correct this, shows how one-sided your views are, and that you can't see the point of view of anyone else.
Contrary to what you may believe, I am not a fervent defender of Iran. My point is Iran may well be developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Israel's and against the obvious and ongoing aggression of the US, the only superpower in the world, in the region. However, if the US and Israel are serious about not wanting Iran or other countries in the region having nuclear weapons, then Israel needs to abide by the same rules and the US needs to get the hell out of the region militarily -- at least leave the countries bordering Iran. Yet the US and Israel will not even consider discussing these topics with Iran, and the US has initial demands of Iran, which are essentially non-starters that will curtail rights it presently enjoys as a NPT signatory. In other words the US doesn't want to negotiate; it wants to bully and coerce to get what it wants. And I can't blame a country for refusing to go along with such self-harming measures that another country is trying to force on it -- particularly a superpower that is notorious for waging wars of aggression, which are what "preventative" wars, such as that against Iraq, are.
If you can't get it around your head that Israel needs to be a fair player in this field if it expects others in the region to do the same, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion.