Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

Here is a little info...take it as you will
Israeli nuclear program

reply to post by Harlequin


I'm well aware that there have been a few slips by Israeli leaders in the past. It isn't something they go around announcing to the world, however, and the official state position is still neither confirmation nor denial.

reply to post by xxpigxx


then wheres the proof for the BS you post ????

reply to post by lonewolf37


no doubt israeli government is war criminal
Amnesty slams Israel's war crimes

Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes'
Palestinian man carries boy injured in Israeli missile strike in Gaza
Most Palestinian casualties are unjustifiable, Amnesty says
Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The rights group's report for 2004 says Israeli forces have killed some 700 Palestinians - including 150 children - mostly in unlawful circumstances.

The report lists "reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force".

It also condemns the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian militants and violence by Jewish settlers.

"Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes," Amnesty's report says.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Amnesty's accusations against the Israeli army include unlawful killings, torture, extensive and wanton destruction of property, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel.



Amnesty also says Israel has continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations, "forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives", despite an injunction by Israel's high court banning the practice.

The report accuses Israel of offering impunity to soldiers and settlers who commit crimes against Palestinians.

"In the overwhelming majority of the thousands of cases of unlawful killings and other grave human rights violations in the previous four years, no investigations were known to have been carried out," the report says.
news.bbc.co.uk...

In the latest emerging news from Lebanon, human rights groups are accusing Israel of violating international law and using cluster grenades, which kill indiscriminately. There are reports too, so far unconfirmed, that Israel has been firing illegal incendiary bombs.
www.antiwar.com...

[edit on 27-5-2008 by manson_322]

So if a Palestinian or group of Palestinians lobs rockets into a civilian area of Israel or several then it is deserved and the Israeli army shouldn't react because the have an organized army and assets? I am sorry, but as much as I agree with Palestine's freedom, this is ridiculous. Whether or not you identify Israel as a legitimate entity in ME, the right of thier gov't remains to protect thier lands against attacks. Unfortunatley people get killed , especially non-coms, when "warriors" mask themselves inside the general populace and instigate a standing army or country. That is the nature of guerilla warfare now. Israel may or may not be overreacting at some levels but this isn't a farmer walking into a hen house and slaughtering the hens for fun. It's called low-intensity conflict. As long as this conflict has been happening the Palestinians have been fueled(philisophically and politically), armed, and advised by other ME countries. So a wider view of blame needs to be layed not solely on Israel.

nukes are so dumb..what's the point?

nobody should have nukes..complete waste of time

reply to post by djvexd

from one of my sources in my above posts'

Amnesty's accusations against the Israeli army include unlawful killings, torture, extensive and wanton destruction of property, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel.



Amnesty also says Israel has continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations, "forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives", despite an injunction by Israel's high court banning the practice.

says it all, the israeli military behaviour is deliberate to terrorise palestinan civilians

reply to post by manson_322


What exactly did I post that was BS?

reply to post by xxpigxx

Your debunking was debunked last week with Iran's president attending that rally.

Maybe I missed it, but I failed to see you in that thread trying to pull this crap.

Everyone knows what he meant. You are just playing the word game, a la Bill Clinton.

still , waiting for proof for the BS you post....

Everyone knows what he meant. You are just playing the word game, a la Bill Clinton.

oh, really , hes bill clinton , from where did you get this BS from???

Jimmy was a dummy when he was President (one term only) and he is an Older Dummy now!! What did he accomplish! We have all known for years that Israel has nuclear weapons. Jimmy is a media whore!! He is starved for attention and worst , he is still a politician to the bone!!

Anybody wish to buy a case of Billy Beer?

More reason why other countries shouldn't be allowed to have them.

There's too many in the world, One is one too many and political justifications are not greater than the very humans who's existance has created these various excuses to have complete life destorying weapons.

The cold war came too close to the end of humanity as a whole and we stupidly have not learned enough since then and our toys will be the instruments that destroy us.

Every nuke that comes into the world just increases the chances of our death and decreases the time in which it can happen.

reply to post by vor78


slips???!!!???

the hanging of a british seargent is not a slip - they gutted him and hung him by his own entrails - that nothing like a slip

Originally posted by SR
More reason why other countries shouldn't be allowed to have them.

For clarification, is it your position that a specific country should have them, while all others should not? Or do you believe there should be an outright ban on the weapons?

There's too many in the world, One is one too many and political justifications are not greater than the very humans who's existance has created these various excuses to have complete life destorying weapons.

The cold war came too close to the end of humanity as a whole and we stupidly have not learned enough since then and our toys will be the instruments that destroy us.

Every nuke that comes into the world just increases the chances of our death and decreases the time in which it can happen.

While I agree in principal with the rest of your post, I find rather short-sighted. You seem to underestimate humanities need to kill each other, and our inventiveness to do it with bigger sticks than the other guy.

If its not specifically Nukes, it would be something else. Scalar weaponry, neutron devices, biological or bacteriological, the list goes on...

Nature has built in population control mechanisms found in the balance of the food supply. Perhaps, because we humans have no real natural predator, our destructive nature is our population control mechanism? Just a thought

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by manson_322

 

What exactly did I post that was BS?

I believe the "BS" people are reffering to is this:

As far as nuclear weapons . . . I don't see Israel vowing to obliterate other nations.

You claim that the debunking of the debunk of this case is false because the President of Iran went to a rally. That proves nothing. The president of Iran never said that Iran will wipe isreal off the face of the map. Its propaganda.

reply to post by Harlequin


We were discussing the Israeli nuclear program and admissions by that government of their weapons program. I said that their leadership had on occasions let it slip that they DID in fact have one, but that the official state position remains ambiguity.

I'll tell you what though. Forget it. I'm not going to get into one of these arguments with someone who twists everything that is said.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by SR
More reason why other countries shouldn't be allowed to have them.

For clarification, is it your position that a specific country should have them, while all others should not? Or do you believe there should be an outright ban on the weapons?

There's too many in the world, One is one too many and political justifications are not greater than the very humans who's existance has created these various excuses to have complete life destorying weapons.

The cold war came too close to the end of humanity as a whole and we stupidly have not learned enough since then and our toys will be the instruments that destroy us.

Every nuke that comes into the world just increases the chances of our death and decreases the time in which it can happen.

While I agree in principal with the rest of your post, I find rather short-sighted. You seem to underestimate humanities need to kill each other, and our inventiveness to do it with bigger sticks than the other guy.

If its not specifically Nukes, it would be something else. Scalar weaponry, neutron devices, biological or bacteriological, the list goes on...

Nature has built in population control mechanisms found in the balance of the food supply. Perhaps, because we humans have no real natural predator, our destructive nature is our population control mechanism? Just a thought

I recognise the need for humanity to kill each other greatly.

The mistakes of our fathers are not our fault they brought Nuclear weapons into world.

Yet it's our actions as the future generations to decide if we want to continue with the pursuit of worldwide instant death due to our insecurities or not.

Each life destroying weapon on a mass scale that comes into existance is another step towards jumping off the cliff. There also comes a point where you've got so far that it would be madness to turn back and not to jump off the cliff as the inguenuity of the human mind.

No one has ever given me personally a crediable justification for bringing more nuclear weapons into the world except for political insecurities which again who controls who here...without humanity exisiting there are no insecurities. If one exists i'd love to hear it.

In my opinion life is more valuable than ideology.

I agree with your point about nature it's clear that more and more weapons of destruction have come into place as we've reached the top of the food chain relatively speaking.

Are we merely doing natures intentions by killing ourselves and taking the means from nature to kill us or are we just too spoilt for our own good???

Should we die by our own hand or let nature dream up some way to kill us. Does it matter??? is another question.

It's tough to fathom with so many varaiables to work out and so much more we have to learn and understand about ourselves and system.

I believe personally though if given the chance of survival we may one day be able to work it out a basic human right of freedom for all to make their own destiny. The odds are stacked against us though heavily already.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by SR]

reply to post by Shar



If you are with the neocons, than yes he is trying to start trouble. that is with there agendas. Words over war is a much safer position than blowing up and killing innocent people to get the word out, we come in peace!.

reply to post by Shar


Carter is the only president that tells the truth. My question is... when he does why can't Americans deal with it?? Americans would rather hide behind a lie or lier when confronted with hard ball questions. Of course Israel has nukes, nukes that are stockpiled for an American use in the region. 150 nukes and no one else in the area can have one. Sounds hella arrogant & one-sided to me.

reply to post by Harlequin


Off -topic for off-topic:
What "gutted" and hanged on his "entrails" Sergeant?
If this is the case :
www.time.com...
then it were two British sergeants ,who were brutally hanged. Yet i saw no "gutted" or other bloody details. What is your source?
Because i fear it tends to add "facts" sometimes.
Israel surely had no nukes then by the way.

reply to post by manson_322


Amnesty Int'l does not take into account the conflict. their whole aim is to denounce organized militaries from taking action against civies. When combatants start blending in with civies and the civilians don't react? So the opposing army is suppposed to go..."wait they are blending in with the civilian population while lobbing things at us that can kill us...we should go away!!!" Gimme a break. The days of standing armies meeting oanother on an open field is long over. Civilian losses are always bad, but these armmies have a choice to NOT involve the population.