Netanyahu to set "clear red line" for Iran in U.N. speech

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Seen twelve year olds make better diagrams
edit on 27/9/12 by Todzer because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
THE RED LINE HAS BEEN DRAWN (lol)





posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
He's so filled with assumptions... and he keeps repeating and repeating the same things.

Enriching process does NOT equal enriching for the purpose of building a bomb. What Nuttyahu is doing is brainwashing... it's propaganda.

And wow... such a liar... "advance human rights..." what a load of bs
edit on 27/9/12 by flice because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Obama won't back him up and he won't bail him out. Obama doesn't like Israel. He simply doesn't.


Completely agree.

I think it's deeper than not like Israel; I think it's a general dislike for all things Jewish.

And I think this attitude is not just Obama's, but the common inheritance of many members of Europes and America's upper classes.

Take for example WWII - you can find this information in David Wyman's 'america and the holocaust'. It is simply astounding learning that America had multiple opportunities to save the Jews of Europe, and same with Britain, but both decided on not acting. They did everything it seems to delay, resorting to dilatory tactics like holding 'conferences' to deliberate how they could go about helping the Jews; the first was in 1939 - nothing came of it. The second, the 'bermuda conference' in 1943, was only set because of Jewish prodding, and even than nothing definite emerged from it. Than they set up the war refugee board at the end of 1945.

What's most amazing is the state department and war departments refusal to bomb the railroad lines leading to Auschwitz, and even more flabbergasting, their refusal to bomb Auschwitz when they were running missions in the area.

Why didn't America divert at least one bomber to save hundreds of thousands of lives? How come at all times, Britain made it a bigger priority to keep the Jewish refugees of Europe out of Palestine than to grant them asylum - even a conditional asylum, like a visa - to take them out of harms way???

No. Everyone played their part. The Nazis the bad guy murderers, all the nations of Europe they just dallied into, sat idly by and did what the big bad Nazis told them, all gave up their Jews, all contributed to the horrors committed against them, and the so-called 'good guys' Britain and America, both showed a complete indifference, or even a general preference, to see Hitler accomplish his sordid task: to eliminate more Jews.

All the information seems to present this as the only plausible reasoning; Christian antisemitism is as old as Christianity. The churches of Europe were notoriously uncaring in the plight of the Jews of Europe. Even the pope himself seemed to have had a role in his pre-war days as papal nuncio to berlin; he helped organize the destruction of the catholic center party, which in turn assisted the Nazis to come to power in 1933. Why? You could claim as the Vatican does, that the pope was defending Catholic interests, but something deeper and far more nefarious seemed to be at work. It should also bear mentioning - as stated in "Hitlers Pope" that the pope didn't say a word about the Holocaust during its 6 years; he came to power in 1939 as pope - the year the holocaust began, and by 1945, he had said nothing definitive, made no explicit condemnation of Nazi policy towards the Jews, and all the while claimed he couldn't say anything because he feared Nazi reprisals (ignoring the fact that the greater reich was at least HALF Catholic, and that the Nazis would never have been so stupid as to start persecuting such a huge segment of the civilian population.

The only rational, plausible answer is: they are scheming against the Jews.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Love the diagram .... So attack before next Spring then


Leaked picture from Iranian nuclear weapons site


edit on 27-9-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by flice
He's so filled with assumptions... and he keeps repeating and repeating the same things.

Enriching process does NOT equal enriching for the purpose of building a bomb. What Nuttyahu is doing is brainwashing... it's propaganda.

And wow... such a liar... "advance human rights..." what a load of bs
edit on 27/9/12 by flice because: (no reason given)


Well then, what is the purpose of enriching uranium passed 5%


Just for funzies ??



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   





No. Everyone played their part. The Nazis the bad guy murderers, all the nations of Europe they just dallied into, sat idly by and did what the big bad Nazis told them, all gave up their Jews, all contributed to the horrors committed against them, and the so-called 'good guys' Britain and America, both showed a complete indifference, or even a general preference, to see Hitler accomplish his sordid task: to eliminate more Jews.


Wrong.

Finland, Albania, and Italy to a lesser extent refused to deport Jews. There were many who worked in other countries to aid Jews by giving out passports, or outright hiding them.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 





Finland, Albania, and Italy to a lesser extent refused to deport Jews.


I was making a general statement.

Yes, Sweden was MUCH better, and did more than any other European country to help the Jews - see Raoul Wallenberg. Italy was decent, and generally sought to prevent the Jews from being deported - in provence, for example - but this could be interpreted as an Italian concession to the allies, to not get tied into what the Germans had entangled themselves in. But then there was the Nazi incursion into Venice, into Milan, whose Jews were shipped off and killed; as well as the infamous Nazi incursion into Rome, shipping off 5000 Jews to their deaths, right under the nose of the pope - who didn't make a squeak. Again, he had his pretext for not acting "lest the Germans react by harming Catholics or occupying the Vatican".




There were many who worked in other countries to aid Jews by giving out passports, or outright hiding them.


I'm making a distinction between a political effort - one that is collectively acknowledged - and the personal efforts of individual civilians. Individuals made efforts, some of them acted heroically; the one who comes most to mind, after Wallenberg is the Portuguese diplomat Aristides De Sousa Mendes who issued some 12,000 Visas to Jews, leading eventually to his dismissal and his eventual demise, dying homeless.

Others like him throughout Poland (not Germany, as the reich was officially judenrein), Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, helped Jews, not able to just sit idly by just knowing what the Nazis were doing to other human beings.

I never meant to say there werent individual cases of altruism; but the general attitude of organizations, of the Catholic Church and protestant Churches, of the ICRC (who for instance had no interest in visiting Auschwitz or other concentration camps), and the governments of Europe, they did nothing, and even sought to enable the Nazi's in their extermination program.

I've listed several examples from America and Britain that till this day go unexplained and leave many ominous questions open. The Vatican too played a very questionable part.
edit on 27-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think it was a well stated speech

Last time he acknowledged congress, he got over 43 applause sessions and 10 standing ovations lol



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Come over to my thread and let's make a MEME out of this


www.abovetopsecret.com...






posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

[
I was making a general statement.


That was my problem with it, it was factually inaccurate.



I've listed several examples from America and Britain that till this day go unexplained and leave many ominous questions open. The Vatican too played a very questionable part.
edit on 27-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


What could they have done from a military standpoint? They were in occupied territory, and sending men into occupied territory is not something any military leader is going to do, unless an overall plan of invasion is behind such an action. You can say that they should have invaded earlier, or done this, or that, but any such action would have failed, miserably. The Allies knew they had to get it right, and that they had only one shot. That shot took place on June 6, 1944, to free all of Europe, finally, from the invasion of the Third Reich.

The Dieppe raid in 1942 proved to every allied leader that it was not going to be easy to take back Europe.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 





That was my problem with it, it was factually inaccurate.


Ok. So if 99 people slap you in the face, and 1 person doesn't, do you really care to emphasize the one that didn't?? Or even 10 people, leaving 90 who did?

A general statement is designed to convey the dominant, major situation.




What could they have done from a military standpoint?


You're just playing devils advocate now. Read the books referenced in my post: The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 and Hitle r's Pope




They were in occupied territory, and sending men into occupied territory is not something any military leader is going to do, unless an overall plan of invasion is behind such an action.


What the hell are you talking about? Read my posts! I never mentioned invading concentration camps. I'm referring to an AIR raid on the rail tracks leading to Auschwitz. I also mentioned an air campaign in and around Auschwitz in which the War department REFUSED to conduct a bombing of Auschwitz, to blowup the extermination camps, to prevent the Nazis from continue on killing 6000 Jews a DAY - which is what Auschwitz was doing by that time in the war.

This was in 1944. If the Americans had done it when they had the opportunity, at least 500,000 Jews would have been saved.
edit on 27-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   



A general statement is designed to convey the dominant, major situation.


General statements are never a good way to begin or end a discussion.




You're just playing devils advocate now. Read the books referenced in my post


I was asking you about what you felt could be done to stop the concentration camps from continuing to do what they had been doing for years. I am merely here for a discussion.



What the hell are you talking about? Read my posts! I never mentioned invading concentration camps. I'm referring to an AIR raid on the rail tracks leading to Auschwitz. I also mentioned an air campaign in and around Auschwitz in which the War department REFUSED to conduct a bombing of Auschwitz, to blowup the extermination camps, to prevent the Nazis from continue on killing 6000 Jews a DAY - which is what Auschwitz was doing by that time in the war.


The destruction of rail lines did not really do all that much much, unless they were going to come back every few days, after they were repaired. They would have just found another way to get them to the camps. I also do not see what blowing up the camps would have done, other than killing more prisoners, than Germans.

You say it would have stopped the killing? How so, when even the bombing of German factories producing war materials is now known to have done almost nothing to stop German production of said war materials. They would have repaired the damage very quickly, continued killing, and you'd still have more deaths from the bombings.

German war production actually increased as the war went on, not decreased. The Allies, more than likely, realized any bombing of the camps would have killed way more prisoners. It isn't as if bombing of any kind (except for dive bombing), was in any way accurate. A plane, on a bombing run, has to run through AA guns, fighter interceptors, and then trust that all hands on board are cool, calm, and collected enough to deliver the bombs at the exact moment they are supposed to, to get a direct hit without any collateral damage. That almost never happened in WW2, because the young men in combat were under heavy stress. The technology was just not there to do pinpoint bombing, and that is why the Allies utilized carpet bombing as an overall strategy to win the war.

I just don't think any bombing of a concentration camp would have gone very well. It would have been a disaster, and killed hundreds, if not thousands of prisoners, and would have brought about reprisals, and/or more deaths. That was probably the ultimate reason why an air attack wasn't made. It doesn't make much sense, and would only have lead to more death and destruction for the prisoners in the camps.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I've seen that bomb picture before...

Seems odd to use a picture like that.. seems like he's trying to draw on the subconscious to agitit8 the muslims...

where has it been used..

ahh thats right:



Mossad and Israel... deceptive sods!

So, 90% enriched uranium is the red line point is that what he's getting at?
edit on 27-9-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I laughed at that picture and genuinely thought it was a photoshop joke.

Turns out to be real.

Shades of Colin Powell here except for more laughable.

Bad move with that silly diagram...bad move.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Yep, meme galore.

What was Netanyahu thinking? It just looks so sily! Still can't believe it's real!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I'm sorry, but Netanyahu is a total drama queen..... I don't like Iran, but I definitely don't care for Israel... And I don't care for all the drama Netanyahu is bringing to the world stage... Someone needs to shut this man up already...

If Israel wants a fight let them have at Iran... This is nothing for the US... Why is Israel even an ally to us anyway, what good do they do, other than destabilizing our economy and Govt...
edit on 27-9-2012 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 





General statements are never a good way to begin or end a discussion.


You literally make no sense.

We make general statements to convey a general tone. Everyone uses them, philosophy and logic sanctions them.




I also do not see what blowing up the camps would have done, other than killing more prisoners, than Germans.


Are you serious?

The camps were EXTERMINATION facilities. If you destroyed the camps - you would in fact be preventing the Germans from carrying on with their 'efficient' extermination program.




They would have repaired the damage very quickly, continued killing, and you'd still have more deaths from the bombings.


You have clearly never read up on the history of the Holocaust.

Every day 6000 people were killed, after 1944. This means, there were very few PERMANENT inhabitants of the camps. The vast majority of those people killed came off trains, got undressed, and went strait to the gas chambers.

The allies knew what exactly was being done by 1944, as the Swiss were receiving continuous updates from channels inside the camps.

So given this was how the Nazis were killing, 6000 come in from Romania, another 6000 from Hungary, liquidating 6000 people each day, it would have very helpful and would have saved hundreds of thousands lives if the Americans had bombed Auschwitz.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
netanyahoo officially jumped the shark when he busted out the diagram of the "nuclear bomb" and his red magic marker.

it looks like something wile e. coyote would throw at the road runner.

complete with lit fizzy fuse at the end.

i'm surprised he wasn't laughed out of the u.n.

this is what you bring as proof of irans nuclear program. its almost as bad as colin powells aluminum home depot tube.

thousands of lives on the line and you bring a cartoon bomb to state your case.

he is desperate for the u.s. to attack iran. if he is that worried about the existence of his country and its in imminent mortal danger, what is he waiting for.

why doesn't he set the stupid "red line".

he wants america yet again to fight a war for them, costing him nothing in terms of money, military hardware and soldiers lives, while he sits back on his chair with his feet up, most likely laughing with his cronies.
edit on 27-9-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rapha
Iran already has nukes.

Shall i say that slowly....

IRAN HAS HAD ITS OWN NUKES SINCE 2002.

www.cuttingedge.org...

NEWS BRIEF: "RUSSIAN GENERAL CONFIRMS IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!", Stratfor Intelligence, Week of June 4, 2002.


"A Russian general's statement about Iran's nukes fails to register with media. Sometime a slip of the tongue is so incredible that no amount of doctoring can explain it. And sometimes a slip of the tongue is as intentional as could be.

"Then the Russian general takes a surprise turn: 'Now, as to whether or not Iran has tested something like that. Iran does have nuclear weapons,' Baluyevsky said. 'Of course, these are non-strategic nuclear weapons. I mean these are not ICBMs with a range of more than 5,500 kilometers and more."

This Russian general has just confirmed that Iran has nuclear warheads and theater missiles with which to deliver them


Isn't it blatently obvious why the west never attacks Iran ???????

No because tomorrow a zionist will say 'Iran will have nuke in 24 hours and must be attacked now'
What will ATS do? ATS will take it as the gospel truth, hook, line and sinker. Again and again.



That is some solid source you got going on there a webdesigner who can't justify text and everything I am sooooooo convinced by this.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join