11 Lies Netanyahu Told Congress on Iran

  • Thread starter F1jocker12
  • 137 comments
  • 5,617 views
I am doing this between other things, and again, some commentators (even the admin) seem not to be ok with long posts
Huh?

I make some of the longest posts of anyone on this site - but crucially they are my words, not a wholesale copy/paste of someone else's words with no other contribution.
Land supposed to be returned to the palestinians.
Why would it be "returned" to them? What claim do they have to it?

If you mean you simply want to redraw the League of Nations' original 1948 borders for the creation of Israel - from the United Kingdom's lands of the Mandate of Palestine prior to that - why that set of plans specifically and no others?
 
Huh?

I make some of the longest posts of anyone on this site - but crucially they are my words, not a wholesale copy/paste of someone else's words with no other contribution.Why would it be "returned" to them? What claim do they have to it?

If you mean you simply want to redraw the League of Nations' original 1948 borders for the creation of Israel - from the United Kingdom's lands of the Mandate of Palestine prior to that - why that set of plans specifically and no others?
Copy/paste doesn't have any relevance on the matter... as long as quotations are used, all that matters is if what is written is right or wrong, true or false.

well... the long initial post and the long video seem to affect attention span (slight sarcasm-hope readers still have sense of humor) or make you think I'm one of those zealots/trolls... I hope you understand now, why I chose to add the video to the already long, but documented, article.
If you don't like it just let me know.

Here is why they need to return it. Because of the international law "The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized."
 
Last edited:
Copy/paste doesn't have any relevance on the matter... as long as quotations are used, all that matters is if what is written is right or wrong.
Nope.

Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter in the slightest in the context of a discussion of opinions that spring forth from it - but entirely posting someone else's words with absolutely no contribution from yourself to provide a context, or a question, or anything is... meaningless. We have no idea of the background, nor what we're supposed to be discussing - and you didn't even tell us what you think, which, surely, is the principle underwriting an opinions section. You just banged someone else's work up with a Buzzfeed title - without even ensuring it was properly referenced (though at least there was a name and a link in there).

Adding a forty minute long video with no context whatsoever is just as bad. At no point have you explained why anyone should invest 40 minutes of their life in watching what appears to be a boring old guy talking to a bunch of other boring old guys about something boring. Without any context, no-one has any reason to hit "play" on that.


Apparently this topic is something you're interested in. You don't get anyone else interested if you don't even bother to tell them why it is you are.

I notice you chose to respond to that post, but not to any of the four questions I asked in it...
 
I notice you chose to respond to that post, but not to any of the four questions I asked in it...
It is coming, because you raised an interesting combination there... in the next 24 hours... I am aware of it! At this point, I can't stay at the computer for more than 5 or 10 minutes at the time, the most.
 
According to all of these sources quoted. Yes, and they should be wiped off the face of the Earth, as should Jews. That's what I'm gathering.
That's what you're gathering or that's what you believe?
 
Gathering. Why would I believe that?
It's the internet, I have to ask for clarification because you never know what someone actually means when they post something that might be interpreted in more ways than one. Thanks for the clarification.👍
 
It is a long one.....


Which of these two things is it that makes them dangerous though? Their alleged attitude or their alleged nuclear arsenal?

I'll ask again, why is it the possession of nuclear weapons that makes a state or organisation dangerous? You asked which was dangerous, a side with nuclear weapons or a side without them. Why are the UK and France dangerous for possessing nuclear weapons but a side that does not possess them- say Al Qa'ida - not?

You know the answer, but you persist in thinking nuclear weapon ownership is danger.I live in a country where we are so fearful of guns - which equalise power - that we have all but banned them, and instead we only have to live in fear of the behaviour. It's not weaponry that makes people dangerous, rather their bad attitude.That's a weirdly random sentence, but ultimately one without any real meaning. You act like nuclear weapons are the problem, not the attitude. A state or organisation with only conventional weapons - or even no weapons at all - can be dangerous, and I don't know why you're ignoring that.

No nation or organisation that holds a nuclear arsenal is beholden to "eradicate" it unless they have agreed to do so. Such an agreement would form a contract and that's the nature of contracts - they can't be unilaterally altered, nor applied to non-signatory parties. Israel, Pakistan and India haven't signed such a contract.

Now I think you'll have to agree that a state that develops nuclear weapons despite agreeing not to is one that is dangerous. At the moment this applies only to North Korea, which decided it wanted out of that contract in 2003, while Iran has fallen foul of the terms of the contract several times over the period of 2003-2011.

So, now we have to ask your question again. Which is dangerous, a side that probably has nuclear weapons but will neither say it does or doesn't - or a side that says it won't make any nuclear weapons but is repeatedly found not to be sticking to that promise?Why?

I'd like you to imagine that everyone on Earth is disarmed - there are no more weapons. Is everyone safe? Oh wait, we forgot about tools that can be used as weapons. Let's get rid of all the knives, axes, screwdrivers, razors, tooth brushes, sports equipment, yadda yadda. Is everyone safe? Oh wait, we forgot about improvised weapons. Let's get rid of all the bricks, large rocks, heavy tree boughs, yadda yadda. Is everyone safe? Oh wait, we forgot about things that can be used to harm or incapacitate people. Let's get rid of all the sand, peanuts, pollen... Oh crap, I have a dog and my neighbour doesn't - I must be dangerous...

It's turtles all the way down and even once you get to the point of it just being two people, they can still use their bare hands. If one guy is bigger and stronger, he can take whatever he wants from the other guy because he can - and he cannot be stopped.

While you're focussing on disarming everyone for peace, you've missed the point that rights are violated by force and have to be defended with more force or there are no consequences to violating rights - and there is always someone who wants to violate your rights.

I would be curious how you'd go about achieving peace if one rogue nation or organisation decided to activate its own nuclear program while every other nation on Earth was completely disarmed.Yeah, no-one's aware of that. It's that damn mainstream media that everyone else watches all the time misleading us.

Wake up, sheeple (etc. etc. etc.).

I already mentioned the interesting combination you try to explain - behavior and/vs. possession.

There are two levels though. Personal (which i brought in, to give a sense of the reality) and national.

At the personal level, U.S. already has a debate with two very strong sides. NRA (National Rifle Association) argues that it is not the gun that does the killing but the person. On the other hand, shooting victims argue that, without a gun there will be a lot less victims and therefore a lot more survivors. In the middle of it, any police officer or law enforcement official will say, it will be much better without guns. Why? Because, you cannot control behavior in any way, but all you can have is the power to ban (by law) the firearms.

I understand were you are coming from, but without firearms, again at a personal level, you will drastically reduce the number of victims which is very very important. If you want to push your reasoning to the absurd, I will say a car can be used as a weapon and have numerous people hurt or killed. Yes, but you cannot be as fast as having a gun and you cannot reload to kill fast and precise. With an automatic rifle and enough ammunition, you can do incredible tragically damage (L.A.Times source and Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting or the "famous"
Columbine massacre)
Still, there will be tragic events, but with a lot less victims - because essentially you cannot control behavior.

Now, at the national level.... Technically, any country with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (Israel has all of these) is dangerous. U.K. and France too, depending on your geolocation and/or the political system your country is controlled by. As an Iranian, you will feel that way. As an american, french or British, not so much.

If you follow Netanyahu's rethoric, he doesn't ask for a regime change in Iran, but for limiting the possible access or production capabilities to/of the nuclear weapons. In other words, he doesn't want Iran to have those weapons. If you turn the table, you will understand how neither any of it's neighbors want Israel to have nuclear capabilities. The big difference is that Israel already has them and that nobody else is lying to the whole world in their pursue to achieve their strategical goals.

Even Mossad, reported (leaked information) that Iran - at this point - it's not even close to be capable to have enough enriched uranium to make two nuclear bombs (one to test, and one to report in it's arsenal).
Your question and comparison (about "more" dangerous) between France, U.K. and Al Qa'ida or any other "terrorist" organization (I presented that way because what Israel is doing to Palestinians is terrorism too) is not correct, because you cannot compare nations with organizations. I understand your concerns but in order to speak apples to apples, you need the recognize that Israel vs. Iran is something, France and/or UK vs. Al Qa'ida is something else. The nations have elected representatives and take decisions in a totally different way than Al Qa'ida does. I will call those organizations "freedom fighters". Why? Because terrorism it depends on which side of the barrier you're standing on. If you are from Panama, you will recognize U.S. military intervention as terrorism. If you live in Guatemala, the coup d'etat will be a very good example of terrorism which american officials already apologized for.

If you remember, one of Bin Laden motives for 9/11th attacks was "the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon" which translates (when you click on 'Lebanon" and scroll down) into U.S. support to Israel. The same source mentions Bin Laden later statements regarding the issue:
" [T]he aim [of the United States] is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

In order to understand the last part of the statement ("brutal crusade"), you will need to define Zionism, which is jewish expansion, and is a political agenda of some of the Israeli politicians. Not all of them, just some of them. If you want to understand zionists position I will recommend you to read the comments to this article. Here is one of them: "The State of Israel must immediately declare null the Oslo Accords and annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to its territory immediately. The Oslo Accords are null, because they are against the Law of God (Written Torah), because it is written in the Torah, in Numbers 33:50-53 and Deuteronomy 1:8 and 30:5, that God commanded Israel to possess all the Land of Canaan, that is the Land of Israel, that includes all the Palestine. And the State of Israel must not give Israeli citizenship to the Arabs, because Israel is a Jewish state, so that only Jews can be citizens of Israel. This is not racism, because any person, of any race or ethnicity, may convert to Judaism.
The State of Israel must immediately expel the Arabs from its territory, because it is written in the Torah, in Bamidbar (Numbers) 33:52, that God commanded Israel to expel the other inhabitants of the Land of Canaan, which is the Land of Israel, which includes all the Palestine. The Arabs invaded the Land of Israel in the year 635 CE, so that they are invaders, and must leave Israel, and return to their own land, which is Arabia. This is not racism, because any person, of any race or ethnicity, can convert to Judaism. Moreover, the Palestinian Arabs are killing the Israeli Jews, so that the Israeli Jews need to expel the Palestinian Arabs from the Land of Israel (Palestine), as self defense, in order to save their lives."
This is extremism.

And now, we complete the circle, and come back to your dilemma - behavior or possession. I'll approach the behavior part of it...
I will start with the end of the "Law In This Parts" documentary:

"From case number 2058 from 2011.
The military prosecutor vs. Bassem Tamimi.
The defendant addresses to court:
Your honor,
I was born in the same year as the occupation, and ever since, I've being living under it's inherent inhumanity, inequality, racism and lack of freedom.
I have been imprisoned nine times for a sum total of almost three years, though I was never convicted of any felony.
During one of my detentions, I was paralyzed as a result of torture.
My wife was detained, my children wounded, my land stolen by settlers, and now my house is slated for demolition.
International law recognizes that occupied people have the rights to resist.
Because of my belief in this right, I organize popular demonstrations against the theft of more than half of my village's land. Against settlers attack, against the occupation.
You, to claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East, are trying me under laws written by authorities I have not elected, and which do not represent me. For me, these laws do not exist; they are meaningless.
The military prosecutor is accusing me of inciting protesters to throw stones at the soldiers. What actually incited them was the occupation's bulldozers on our land, the guns, the smell of tear gas.
And if the military judge releases me, will I be convinced there is justice in your courts?"


If you remove the year and the arabic name from the transcript, you will recognize that in the history of human kind were very few organizations able to inflict that much systematic damage to an individual or to a group of people. In that regard, I am not afraid to say that the Israeli authorities are competing/comparable with Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Schutzstaffel (SS) or the SouthAfrican Apartheid regime. There is no more to say out of respect for all the victims, known and unknown, on both sides (any family that lost members in any conflict, is a victim).

I see other commentators asking if Israel is evil and needs to be wiped out. I need to repeat myself. The Israeli authorities and their occupation obsessions and policies, have created monsters and nightmares which are hunting us today. It is not about the state of Israel, is about politicians politics...
The end of the occupation will not fix the problem either, like the end of the apartheid didn't fix south african problems, but that will not be in vain. It's a first step which needs to be followed by many other steps forward.

To the occupied territories that must be returned, I need to add the Golan Heights, which I've omitted in my previous comments.

Peace comes without the weapons. Jews and Palestinians used to have tea together... Everybody forgets that, because of the zionistic terror and it's monsters.

Countries change. Germany proved it and Japan proved it, that's why I think Israel can change too, after a long healing process, under peace in the region.

Admin, if you think I need to explain more or further, challenge.
 
Last edited:
I understand were you are coming from, but without firearms, again at a personal level, you will drastically reduce the number of victims which is very very important.

Still, there will be tragic events, but with a lot less victims
Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

Since we've just destroyed the premise underpinning your post, you're welcome to think about the whole thing all over again.
because essentially you cannot control behavior.
Indeed not - and as I point out in my post where I removed absolutely every possible tool and naturally occurring item that could be used as a weapon or projectile, peace still doesn't exist because a strong man who wants to take something from a weak one can and will.
Now, at the national level.... Technically, any country with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (Israel has all of these) is dangerous. U.K. and France too, depending on your geolocation and/or the political system your country is controlled by.
Are you suggesting cause and effect between possessing nuclear weapons and being dangerous?

If you are, I'd love to see your working on that. If not, why do you keep suggesting that nuclear capable nations, specifically, are dangerous?
If you follow Netanyahu's rethoric, he doesn't ask for a regime change in Iran, but for limiting the possible access or production capabilities to/of the nuclear weapons. In other words, he doesn't want Iran to have those weapons.
Then you and he agree on something.
If you turn the table, you will understand how neither any of it's neighbors want Israel to have nuclear capabilities. The big difference is that Israel already has them and that nobody else is lying to the whole world in their pursue to achieve their strategical goals.
Except Iran, which the IAEA repeatedly find to be in breach of the conditions of the NNPT to which it is signatory.

Israel isn't a signatory nation to the NNPT and doesn't lie about its nuclear capability. It has a policy of opacity - which means they will never explicitly confirm or deny that they have them, nor refer to them in any way. So while your "else" implies they're lying about it, they cannot possibly do so...
Your question and comparison (about "more" dangerous)
Actually, since you last objected to the word "more" by way of not answering the question due to that one word, I dropped it entirely...
between France, U.K. and Al Qa'ida or any other "terrorist" organization (I presented that way because what Israel is doing to Palestinians is terrorism too) is not correct, because you cannot compare nations with organizations.
Why not? The structures and heirarchy are broadly the same. In any case one organisation - Daesh - believes itself to be a state and refers to itself as such... You may know it as IS, ISIS or ISIL, but I prefer the derogatory Daesh rather than the legitimising names it gives itself.

That seems to be a staggering cop out to avoid having to answer the question as to why nuclear capable France is dangerous and non-nuclear capable Al Qa'ida is not.
I will call those organizations "freedom fighters". Why? Because terrorism it depends on which side of the barrier you're standing on.
More weasel words.

Terrorism is any military action against a representative state body where non-combatant civilians are the primary targets in order to instil fear (or 'terror') in the civilian population.

Now you'll notice that Hamas send rockets at civilian populations - even targetting a nuclear power stations - which neatly fits the description of terrorism. Meanwhile Israel, although it doesn't seem to give much of a crap about Palestinians when it's sending shells back at Hamas, isn't targetting them on purpose. That means that they're not terrorists, just exceptionally unpleasant.
And now, we complete the circle, and come back to your dilemma - behavior or possession. I'll approach the behavior part of it...
...and unfortunately you didn't. You just posted yet more of someone else's words to show why you think Israel is evil already. The question was why you think that merely possessing nuclear weapons makes an organisation dangerous, rather than one that behaves in a dangerous manner - it's as yet unanswered.


So let's pare it all back again and hope for a simple answer this time.

Who is dangerous, an unarmed mugger using physical force and intimidation to try to take possessions from an innocent civilian or the civilian who, it turns out, has a 9mm firearm with which to defend himself?
Peace comes without the weapons. Jews and Palestinians used to have tea together... Everybody forgets that, because of the zionistic terror and it's monsters.
And when was that? Was that before or after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war where, upon the stroke of midnight and the expiry of the British Mandate of Palestine, the brand new state of Israel was immediately invaded by bordering nations? Perhaps it was before then, when insurgents from both sides attacked the 'occupying' British forces (and each other).

I suspect your knowledge of the history of the region is not quite as deep as you think it is. You never did answer to whom you would "return" the land and why...
 
Hmmmm... If it wouldn't be for such a serious matter, I would think this is a bad joke.

Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png
Since we've just destroyed the premise underpinning your post, you're welcome to think about the whole thing all over again.

Misleading again... I was telling you about the number of the victims, you are showing everybody the number of the offences, which is contextual. Like I said in my previous post,
Still, there will be tragic events, but with a lot less victims - because essentially you cannot control behavior.
What that graph shows is a rate (on the left) per million capita.

It's not for the first time (and I have a feeling not for the last - there is a pattern already) I need to ask you to pay attention to the details. But we are good. You better check these scary numbers, based on weapon type, age, etc., in a place were firearms are legal.

Are you suggesting cause and effect between possessing nuclear weapons and being dangerous?
Let's imagine you (Iran) are walking on the street and a man (Israel) with a gun (nuclear weapon) stuck behind his belt is approaching asking for your money. You refuse to give them away or try to ignore him. Then he is punching you in the face (Israel killing Iran nuclear scientists - let's say, out of it's many abuses). While robbed and while tasting the blood in you mouth, you will understand the fact that you were unable to react because of the gun in that's man possession.

That seems to be a staggering cop out to avoid having to answer the question as to why nuclear capable France is dangerous and non-nuclear capable Al Qa'ida is not.
As a nation you can be kept accountable for your actions in an International Court of Law. You have rights and responsibilities. You have elected representatives which you can remove by vote.... Just to give only few big differences.

Terrorism is any military action against a representative state body where non-combatant civilians are the primary targets in order to instil fear (or 'terror') in the civilian population.
Terrorism is not a military action... You got it wrong again... It is a violent act intended to create terror with a specific purpose...

...and unfortunately you didn't. You just posted yet more of someone else's words to show why you think Israel is evil already.
This is what I've already said:
I see other commentators asking if Israel is evil and needs to be wiped out. I need to repeat myself. The Israeli authorities and their occupation obsessions and policies, have created monsters and nightmares which are hunting us today. It is not about the state of Israel, is about politicians politics...

Who is dangerous, an unarmed mugger using physical force and intimidation to try to take possessions from an innocent civilian or the civilian who, it turns out, has a 9mm firearm with which to defend himself?

Looking at the context of that part of the discussion, you will see how I was referring to Israel by having nuclear weapons, and to Iran by not having them. In addition to that, I need to remind you that the recent history shows how Iran is not an aggressive country. They were the ones to defend not to attack. The only exception is Abu Musa (edit) when they were under the Shah rule and backed by U.S. government. So... the mugger will be Israel if you don't mind, put the firearm in it's pocket and rephrase the question.
The fact that you still think Iran (like previously Iraq) is the mugger is only because of heavy propaganda and Israeli's government scare tactics.

You never did answer to whom you would "return" the land and why...
Misleading...
Read comment #32 again and pay attention 'til the end. Click on the link and read from the top to the bottom. I know it's complicated man.
And you forgot you already argued about "to whom" in your comment #31...
 
Last edited:
To summarize your position then; Observe Palestinian statehood and borders from 1988, overthrow the current Israeli government, take away their nukes or maybe not, remove sanctions set against Iran in response to it's nuclear program and stop dissuading such programs.

All that and we will have peace in the region?
 
Overthrow the Israeli government? Who gave you that idea? They will have elections in 2 weeks I think... You cannot overthrow anything in Israel my friend.
Take away the nukes... They are lying even about that - what does that tells you? Once they will recognize it, they will be facing signing agreements which they don't want to ...
Based on the actual negotiations, Iran will be under supervision... see the main post. Problem is, Israel needs to let agencies inside to check Negev and other places, align to the international requirements and standards.
Will be hard to achieve peace, because Israel knows, once Palestine will become official state, any military response to it's neighbors aggression will not be labeled as terrorism, because Palestinians will defend their territory, which is an international right for any sovereign country.
Let me put it this way... peace.... if you will get hit by a truck and survive, you think you'll ever be the same again?

To summarize your position then; Observe Palestinian statehood and borders from 1988, overthrow the current Israeli government, take away their nukes or maybe not, remove sanctions set against Iran in response to it's nuclear program and stop dissuading such programs.

All that and we will have peace in the region?
got the answer at comment #47
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Technically, any country with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (Israel has all of these) is dangerous.

Does it? Israel neither confirms nor denies possession of nuclear weapons, that doesn't seem like enough evidence to say they have them to me. I will neither confirm nor deny having several powerful firearms in my home. Want to break in? See how that works?

Misleading again... I was telling you about the number of the victims, you are showing everybody the number of the offences, which is contextual. Like I said in my previous post,

I don't think I've seen a graph like that show something other than number of victims.

Read comment #32 again and pay attention 'til the end. Click on the link and read from the top to the bottom. I know it's complicated man.

Why do your posts seem to contain so many condescending digs? It's like you think everybody here is stupid but you.

And you forgot you already argued about "to whom" in your comment #31...

And you didn't give your opinion, which is what he was after. If you continue refusing to answer questions this thread will go nowhere.
 
The problem is do the Palestinians actually want peace or to co-exist with Israel? Hamas already has in it's constitution that they will not accept a two-state solution, so Israel then has to make how many concessions?
 
Does it? Israel neither confirms nor denies possession of nuclear weapons, that doesn't seem like enough evidence to say they have them to me. I will neither confirm nor deny having several powerful firearms in my home. Want to break in? See how that works?

The fact that you don't see enough evidence about classified information is not a surprise... have you tried to see if there is any evidence?
how about here (don't get dizzy):
  • 1967 (Six Day War)– 2 bombs;[100][101] 13 bombs[102]
  • 1969– 5–6 bombs of 19 kilotons yield each[103]
  • 1973 (Yom Kippur War)– 13 bombs;[65] 20 nuclear missiles plus developed a suitcase bomb[104]
  • 1974– 3 capable artillery battalions each with 12 175 mm tubes and a total of 108 warheads;[105][106] 10 bombs[107]
  • 1976– 10–20 nuclear weapons[a]
  • 1980– 100–200 bombs[109][110]
  • 1984– 12–31 atomic bombs;[111] 31 plutonium bombs and 10 uranium bombs[112]
  • 1985– at least 100 nuclear bombs[113][114]
  • 1986– 100 to 200 fission bombs and a number of fusion bombs[115]
  • 1991– 50–60 to 200–300[116]
  • 1992– more than 200 bombs[114]
  • 1994– 64–112 bombs (5 kg/warhead);[117] 50 nuclear tipped Jericho missiles, 200 total[118]
  • 1994- 300 nuclear weapons.[119]
  • 1995– 66–116 bombs (at 5 kg/warhead);[117] 70–80 bombs;[120] "A complete Repertoire" (neutron bombs, nuclear mines, suitcase bombs, submarine-borne)[121]
  • 1996– 60–80 plutonium weapons, maybe more than 100 assembled, ER variants, variable yields[122]
  • 1997– More than 400 deliverable thermonuclear and nuclear weapons[3]
  • 2002– Between 75 and 200 weapons[123]
  • 2004– 82[124]
  • 2006– Federation of American Scientists believes that Israel "could have produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons".[2]
  • 2008– 150 or more nuclear weapons.[125]
  • 2008– 80 intact warheads, of which 50 are re-entry vehicles for delivery by ballistic missiles and the rest bombs for delivery by aircraft. Total military plutonium stockpile 340–560 kg[126]
  • 2009– Estimates of weapon numbers differ sharply with plausible estimates varying from 60 to 400.[127]
  • 2010– According to Jane's Defense Weekly Israel has between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads, most of them are probably being kept in unassembled mode but can become fully functional "in a matter of days".[128]
  • 2010– "More than 100 weapons, mainly two-stage thermonuclear devices, capable of being delivered by missile, fighter-bomber, or submarine"[23]
  • 2014– Approximately 80 nuclear warheads for delivery by two dozen missiles, a couple of squadrons of aircraft, and perhaps a small number of sea-launched cruise missiles.[129]
  • 2014 - "300 or more" nuclear weapons.[130]
 
Misleading again... I was telling you about the number of the victims, you are showing everybody the number of the offences, which is contextual. Like I said in my previous post,

What that graph shows is a rate (on the left) per million capita.
Of deaths, yes.

The number of victims hasn't fallen, as you say it would. It, in fact, rose after handguns were banned and is even now no different to a year in which a man went into a school and shot 17 people dead in one morning.

Would you like a chart of firearm homicides over the same period?

Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.22+PM.png
Turns out that people are still shooting people dead at the same rate, despite the massive reduction in available weapons...
It's not for the first time (and I have a feeling not for the last - there is a pattern already) I need to ask you to pay attention to the details. But we are good. You better check these scary numbers, based on weapon type, age, etc., in a place were firearms are legal.
Well, you just missed the 'fine detail' that in the UK where we did exactly what you want and effectively banned guns, the number of victims didn't fall, just like you claim would happen.

So that part of your entire argument has no foundation now. You are welcome to rethink it.
Let's imagine you (Iran) are walking on the street and a man (Israel) with a gun (nuclear weapon) stuck behind his belt is approaching asking for your money. You refuse to give them away or try to ignore him. Then he is punching you in the face (Israel killing Iran nuclear scientists - let's say, out of it's many abuses). While robbed and while tasting the blood in you mouth, you will understand the fact that you were unable to react because of the gun in that's man possession.
Remember when I asked you who you would consider dangerous from an unarmed belligerent and an armed innocent? Only you didn't answer it and have chosen to redraw the hypothetical with an armed belligerent and an unarmed innocent.

The basis of the question is why you think being armed immediately makes someone or something dangerous, where the unarmed version is not. It appears that you're not going to answer that question.
As a nation you can be kept accountable for your actions in an International Court of Law. You have rights and responsibilities. You have elected representatives which you can remove by vote.... Just to give only few big differences.
I'm sure North Korea are supremely bothered by this. You still haven't answered the question.
Terrorism is not a military action... You got it wrong again... It is a violent act intended to create terror with a specific purpose...
Please look up what "military" means, then stop avoiding the question.

I'll help - it derives from the Latin "militaris", meaning "warlike". We get "militia" - armed citizens - from the same root.
Looking at the context of that part of the discussion, you will see how I was referring to Israel by having nuclear weapons, and to Iran by not having them. In addition to that, I need to remind you that the recent history shows how Iran is not an aggressive country. They were the ones to defend not to attack. The only exception is Abu Musa (edit) when they were under the Shah rule and backed by U.S. government. So... the mugger will be Israel if you don't mind, put the firearm in it's pocket and rephrase the question.
The fact that you still think Iran (like previously Iraq) is the mugger is only because of heavy propaganda and Israeli's government scare tactics.
At no point have I referred to Iran as "the mugger". What propaganda?

I asked who was dangerous, an unarmed belligerent who wants to violate rights or an armed innocent who would like his preserved.

You don't want to answer this. You want to paint all who are armed as belligerents, for some reason. You don't seem to be able to separate someone who is armed from someone who is dangerous - it's as if you think that good people cannot be armed and the act of being armed immediately turns you into someone who poses a threat to others, with the more armed you are proportional to the amount of threat you propose.


This returns us to the original question I asked you and you never actually answered (shock of shocks!) - why it is possession of a tool and not behaviour that makes someone a danger.
Misleading...
Read comment #32 again and pay attention 'til the end. Click on the link and read from the top to the bottom. I know it's complicated man.
And you forgot you already argued about "to whom" in your comment #31...
You haven't answered to whom you want the land to be "returned" to, or why.

Try to answer in a maximum of twenty of your own original words: To whom should territory within the land borders of Israel be 'returned' and why?

Yeah, all I see is a bunch of mumbo jumbo to this point. I can't even decipher the message, opinion, or reason for the thread.
I believe the message is "If you don't believe that Israel is an evil, warmongering state that must be stopped, you are being brainwashed by the mainstream media".
The fact that you don't see enough evidence about classified information is not a surprise... have you tried to see if there is any evidence?
how about here (don't get dizzy):
You know, one of the key parts of propaganda is that it purports to be fact through omission.

Here's the bit you omitted:
The following is a history of estimates by many different sources on the size and strength of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
 
Last edited:
Why do your posts seem to contain so many condescending digs? It's like you think everybody here is stupid but you.

The question was already answered, he already argued about my input, it is about focusing more...

And you didn't give your opinion, which is what he was after. If you continue refusing to answer questions this thread will go nowhere

They need to comply with International Law and U.N. decisions. They (the Netanyahu's government) also need to stop lying because is hurting it's own country.

Sources here, here and here.

I offered you sources from all the political spectrum, most of them from Israel, which is exactly my point here. Sad, but the truth was always a bitter pill to swallow...
 
The question was already answered

Could you spell it out (just for me) please? I really don't get what your answer is... what land should be returned and to whom? In the answer (a couple of sentences should do it) could you explain why the people-to-whom-the-land-should-be-returned are entitled to it? :D
 
You haven't answered to whom you want the land to be "returned" to, or why.

wOSCXIH.jpg


Here is why they need to return it. Because of the international law "The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized."[/QUOTE]

Besides those two comments read this. It's long but informative.[/QUOTE]
 
So territorial acquisitions. Lands they acquired by wars that were instigated by the other party, need to be given to a 3rd party that has no interest in a two state solution. Okay, I like that idea! Definitely nothing wrong could come of that!
 
More quotes from other people
You haven't answered to whom you want the land to be "returned" to, or why.

Try to answer in a maximum of twenty of your own original words: To whom should territory within the land borders of Israel be 'returned' and why?
Come on, you can do it.
 
So territorial acquisitions. Lands they acquired by wars that were instigated by the other party, need to be given to a 3rd party that has no interest in a two state solution. Okay, I like that idea! Definitely nothing wrong could come of that!
You have the right to defend or to resist occupation, but not acquire and populate foreign territory. No matter how the conflict started.
 
Back