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.
