No suprises here then:

Russia rules out new Iran sanctions over nuclear report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15659311

Israel'S nuclear arsenal is defensive, Iran'S is offensive.

The Arab neighbours never have much complained about Israel'S nuclear option until just the recent past years. These regimes had arranged themselves with Israel, knowing that Israel not only lacks the potential to ever threaten these regimes with toppling them or to conquer them, put even - paradoxically - helps them to solidify themselves. Israel is no offensive threat to anyone in the region. Iran is.

Iran however, does not answer Israel's favour to never have questioned Iran's integrity and stability and right to excist. Iran says clearly that Israel has no right to exist, Iran tries to destabilise Israel and the whole region for gaining more power itself, and Iran tests Irael'S internal stability by letting Iran'S helpful proxies firing missiles into Israel every couple of weeks currently, and helps terrorists to kill Israeli without discriminating military taregts from civilian persons. Iran already wages a shooting war against the state and people of Israel, it already kills. And IUran has left no doubt that the destruction of Israel is the ultimate goal of Iranian policy.

You may not see this little, but decisive difference, Sammi, or in an attempt to endlessly relativse the aggressiveness of Iran and to prevent a clear distinction between aggressor and victim you may think that the examples already set up by Iran and that give evidence that Iran is not like any other nuclear power (like you seem to argue) mean nothing. But that speaks against your reasonability then, not against Israel or the need to prevent Iran becoming nuclear. Israel acts passively in the region and is no strategic threat to anyone there, questioning no state's or regime's right to exist there. Iran is the aggressor here, and it has said what it wants to do with Israel, not to mention the even deeper-rooting antipathy to Saudi Arabia. You m ay think Israel or the Palestinioans are important and key to the ME - they are not. Key to understanding the problem they have there is the hostility between Shia and Sunni, Iran and Saudi Arabia. And that conflict rages like many centuries.

And your concerns about the environment and war killing people, that is very kind, thank you for your good heart. If that way of arguing were the reasons that decide over war and peace, world peace already would have broken out longer time ago. But it hasn't. Conclusions?

"We use the bomb for
peaceful purposes only!"
.................................................. ....................................."Pardon! We use nuclear energy
.................................................. ........................................for peaceful purposes only!"
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/pa...ormat=format10

:har:

[QUOTE=Skybird;1784812]Israel'S nuclear arsenal is defensive, Iran'S is offensive.

or so we are told.

[QUOTE=JU_88;1784994]No, it'S historic record.

Read the rest of my post. Israel is no threat to any neighbouring states existence, Iran is. Israel never has threatened for example Jordan to wipe the Jordanian dirt off the earth'S face. Iran has.

Israel will attack Iran next month according to the British press today. :o

Is Israel leaking there plans to the press? :hmmm:

Iran dose not need to spy on them just pick up a UK paper. :har:

Yes but by that rationale, Sky, the USA is the only nation who owns 'offensive' nuclear weapons - by the historical record.

The problem with all nuclear weapons is, if any one nation is dumb enough to use them against another nation that has them - both nations are toast, as well as probably the rest of the planet as automatic MAD retaliatory systems kick in. I think most governments (yes even the Iranian dictatorship) understand this. Even your cynical mind must be able to see the irony here. Israel was neither forthcoming nor transparent when it developed its own nuclear arsenal.

You are welcome for my 'good heart' and 'kindness' as much as you want to belittle me over it, the point was, bombing nuclear facilities risks dispersing radioactive materials into the environment equaling or even surpassing Chernobyl, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable for human beings for centuries, of course, who cares if it's not on your land right?

I am not fond of the Iranian regime, nor of extremist Islamist anti Iraeli sentiments, but then Israeli regime actions since the end of their last war have hardly been whiter than white either. I would personally find it more agreeable if a nation who didn't have nuclear weapons was making these investigations and demands for a Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, at least it would come from a position of righteousness rather than seeming like the school bully with the biggest stick in the playground. Then again, as I stated in my previous post, that is my opinion - not a fact, not an implication that it should or must be done or not, simply an opinion, OK?

regards,
Sam.

Steed,

Israel did not leak it to the press, but advised the British authorities (and apparently the British military), it seems. It is an insider of the latter that the Mail refers to.

http://www.debka.com/article/21464/

Not even the Soviet Union has ever threatened nuclear holocaust against another nation for mere reasons of hate, or just becasue that nation was there. The Cold War was basing on a mutual deterrancy. You cannot compare Iran'S policy to that of the USSR, the US, Britain, France, Israel, Brasil, India.

China, Rzussia and the US would not go at each others throats over a hyrophobic dog like Iran. You can truist in that. Also, as I repeatedly said, the bigger danger is not Iran dropping the bomb on Israel, although that is absolkutely possible - they said so often eough mand who am I or who are you to tell the world the Iranians do not mean what they say? They are relgious nutzheads, and thus by defintion: irrational. The bigger thgreats are nuclear proilioferation to terror ghroups, the Wets become vuklnerable to nuclöear blackmal by such terror groupos of the Iranian MRBMs, and the risky nature of a nuclear artms range between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt in an environment as instabile, unpredictable, emotionally hysteric and simply: ionsane, oime the the ME is. The cold war took place in a reölatively stable, raitonal context (and even hewre we sometimes were close to lose control, and inat least one case simpy were lucky that we survrivbed it). a new cold war in the ME is - unacceptable. It makes the cold war of the past look like a friendly gathering under the christmas tree.

And it never threatened anybody to wipe him off the earth'S face, and is not seen by the Arabic regimes as a thrat to their very own existence. If they are not better than the IUranians, then I wonder why the Arbaa nations see this difference? Nobody has raised his own hjuclearf program to coutner Israel. But with Iran, SA, Turky and Egypt have left no doubt in the past years that they would seek nuclear reactions to that.

Right. Better them than us, since we did not make the deicison to threaten our neighbours with exticntion, and do not support terrorism. You see, I believe in thjat people are responisble for the choiuces they make. Even the Iranians. My country poayed a porice for tzhe deciisons the people made 80 years ago. So will the Iranians. I have no intetion to leave them any other cheap alternative.

Equalling Chernobyl, you say? Well, Fukushima surpasses Chernobyl, they now say. But Japan is still there. Iran has smaller radioactive material stockpiles, and as I said on various occasions: we do talk aboiut nuclear bunker busting of those critical installations only that cannot be reached by conventional ammo. If any radioactive contamination makes it difficult to enter the bombed sites to try saving plutonium or critical technology and installation - the better!

Then yoiu have slept since many years. Practically all European natiosn for example, nhuke-owners and not, have said that loiud and clear, and supported the IAEA. Since years. Since over one deacde. And they sqaid time and again they would not tolerate or accept a nuzclear Iran. Have you been on a 5 year expedition to the outer planets to miss that? I even quoted a 10 book pages' list of diplomatic exchanges some days ago, four dozen exchanges within a timeframe of just 18 months, 2007 and 2008.

Maybe so. I do believe it's some kind of misled information

Markus

You may well be right :hmmm:

OK Sky, next time, maybe just type in German and I'll use a translator, or maybe just try not to type in an emotionally charged state, you know, think of your heart (the blood pumping one not the emotive one). it might be easier for me to read that way. My posts certainly seem to provide you with much argumentative glee though, so here's another.

You have a point there, they might all throw nukes at each other but then you write -

That last bit basically states you couldn't care less if Iran gets large areas of land and people irradiated for a very long time, and that in your eyes they even deserve it? I find that pretty disgusting considering you are talking about a dictatorship government who does not in any real sense represent those people. They've not recently tried to conquer the entirety of Europe, or the ME, have they? Your logic about nuclear weapons being 'defensive' and/or 'deterrent' is ludicrous because it can just as easily be used by Iran. Yes they threaten, and yes they posture, but this is not proof that they will use nuclear weapons against Israel or anybody else. Of course, Israel says that its nukes are defensive only as does every other nuclear armed nation, but as has already been discussed they will surely hit first and talk later.

To recap only on the content of what I said before, I think it's a bit bloody ironic that all of our nations who are practically bristling with enough nuclear armament to turn the entire planet into space dust telling any other nation (however mad and/or dangerous we are led to believe they are) that they're not allowed. You are arguing against my sense of irony, but as I sense it, how can I be without it ? I can hear you typing madly already so let me just quote myself again only this time, see if you can understand :-

I said that if they want a showdown over their damn bomb, then I prefer them to suffer instead of us. I prefer an Iranian bunker factory or research site being taken out to a suitcase bomb with radioactive material going off in Frankfurt or London.

Oh they do. I need no rehtorics to show you that. They say they want to annihilate Israel. They already shoot at Israel. They support Islamic terror around the world, they finance it, equip it, support it by training and intel. They have infiltratred and taken over Lebanon. Thanks to them, Hezbollah is there - and armed stronger than ever before. Iranian RG commandoe are there and train Hezbollah. They want an Islamic global rule, which is the aim of Islam.

Is that aggressive and violent enough for you, yes?

If Israel is being pushed into a corner. Iran has not been pushed into a corner, and theirs is a record of proxy wars and violence and terror support. Maybe you think it is clever to still give them the benefit of doubt when wanting to decidce whether or not leaving them nukes. But that is insanity. Iran act offensiovely. Iran acts agressively. Iran acts criminally and inhumane. Iran threatens extinction and annihilation not as a retaliatory means, but offensively.

If the people want not to be held respkjnbile for what is beign done in their name, then they have to raise up. That may come at a price, but that'S how it is. However, having spend loinger time in Iran years ago, I learned the many difefefnt people/classes there, and if yoiu think the regime has support only by a minority of the ordinary population, then you are simply wrong. It is not that simplistic.

We are not led to believe. We see it from their record of the past 30 years.

And I refer again to the difefrence of the setting of the cold war, which desopite all overkill potential was cold rational and a mutual agreement for a balance that nobody wanted or dared to break (except Cuba), and the hysteric climaste and emotioanlly charged, irrational environment the ME is. You do not want a nuclear arms race there between 4 local rivals. You really do not want that. Not with these players.

The problem with you is that you ignore their own deeds and acts and words, claim to know ebtter what really goes on (while ignoring the evident), and give them the benefit of doubt as long as a terror strike has not killed or contaminated 50.000 people. I accept that if you would pout only your own life and that of your own family at risk - then I couldn't care less. But if they trim their weapons at my directions and that of the country I live in, while having such a terrosit records marked on their behalf, then I warn them while the wepaon still is moving - but short before it actually is aimed at me I strrike them first if they do not stop.

You see, I am not suicidal idiot enough to let them proceed beyond a certain critical mark. Yolu can prefer to do that, if you want, but again: do that with your own family only - not with 50.000 others as well.

Yet that response doesn't address Sammis quoted statement at all.


Was that after the infiltration, invasion and occupation by Israel failed?

Isn't that the terrorist group formed after the Israeli invasion and after the Israeli support of Lebanese terrorist groups?

Yeah right:doh:

Both are being pushed, both have a record of proxy wars and violence and both support terrorists.

Applies to both countries.

Supply the quote,and deal with what was really said. but hey thats been dealt with so many times already and nothing will stop Skybird from, repeating the same bull again and again:yep:


Applies to both countries.

Iran bad Israel good
Isreal bad Iran good
Bollox they are both bad

Right, Sky, all I have actually said or wanted to say I repeat one final time : I think it's Ironic. You can say you don't, and why, but you can't stop me thinking that or suggest I am wrong to do so. I have obviously annoyed you in a previous argument, and to be honest I am glad. Sorry for the ad hominem folks but you asked for it Sky, you consistently show yourself to be extremely right wing, fascistic and of totally reproachable character.

So now for your further entertainment, I shall respond in your own style.

They want a bomb like the bullies who would bully them, not a showdown. If they get a bomb, they can hardly bully anyone else who has one, a lesson from the cold war.

I prefer taking out the logistics and infrastructure that facilitates such sites and avoiding possible nuclear disasters.

No, they haven't.

I think you do.

Promises, promises.

That's quite an accusation, definitive proof of Iranian military attacks upon Israel in the last decade please.

Bit like the CIA then, or Mossad. Oh right, Islamic, rather that Christian or Zionist. They are all the same, these extreme Abrahamic nutjubs.

That's between Lebanon and Iran.

But they don't have nuclear weapons.

Quite. Despicable behavior I agree. A bit like us training the Taliban to fight off those pesky commies during the cold war.

You are talking about a minority of religious idiots, and making a gross generalisation.

No.

Excuses, excuses.

Hmmm, again I see striking similarities here with the USA, Russia, China, etc...

Maybe I think it's ironic that nations staggering under the weight of their own nuclear arsenal think they have any right to dictate who is or is not allowed a nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, you know, I might have said something different.

Maybe so, but those were your words, not mine.

Like Israel then.

Like Israel...

I could swear you meant to type Israel in place of Iran there.

Promises, promises.

Like the Germans rose up against Hitler you mean?

So you think then that Germany and its people should be held permanently accountable for WW2 and all that sprung from it, the cold war, and the current situation in the ME regarding Israel then?

Neither is it as simplistic as 'they all support it or are too weak to rise up therefore they should all suffer the same fate determined by us outsiders because oh, we're just so righteous' - pathetic. honestly.

Yes we are.

Shown to us via our own propaganda media.

Sky have you any idea how wrong your interpretation of the cold war is? it was not rational, it damn near ended humanity more than once, and contained plenty of emotionally charged anti communist and anti capitalist hysteria.

Not really, no. But our nations set the example they want to follow you know.

You already said that.

You already said that as well.

I don't claim anything, Sky, all I said was I think it's ironic... where are you getting all of this from my posts?

Well thanks for your kind words. I see it's very easy for you to subhumanise people and use rhetoric to rationalise it. Now that is very familiar, where have we seen that before?

all the while your weapons are trained on them and you deny this is threatening or intimidating and they should just accept it?

Well now I don't feel so bad about my calling you a right wing fascist.

Islamaphobia = Anti semitism : you just switched the target of your persecution.

I don't agree with you Sky and I am prepared to leave it at that, I only replied as you seem to delight in picking apart my rather simplistic post stating a single opinion and turned it into a page of vehement diatribe with a fervor that equals that of the fundamentalists you aspire to hate, over which I feel compelled to defend my position. Mods I am sorry If this offends and I agree it is way off topic, so I understand if you feel the need to give me an infraction, but Sky here goaded me into it over a simple one line statement and I must give as good as I get. Apologies.

Geee-some people must regard their freedom as god given thing.

Sky wanna be wahibi but thinks it may be a bit muslimish for him.

Sammi....

While you obviously have an issue with Israel existing and countries like the US acting globally (which I agree we should not always do), your position regarding Iran and its "promises, promises", "well everyone else does it to" and "what they do isn't anyone else's business if it doesn't affect them" demonstrate a case of neville chamberlain syndrome. He too turned a blind eye to what could already be seen, and because of it the world suffered more than necessary.

While one could argue that "everyone else" like the US is doing bad things too - the comparison of working in Afghanistan to help that country defend itself against communist military aggression vs Iran supporting groups whose only goal is to kill the men, women and children of nations that do not share their religious views and zealotry - just doesn't work. One is a military action - the mujahaden were not targetting russian women and children during the time we were helping. Terrorists do not care who they kill, they are perfectly happy taking out their own people (look at Iraq for example) as well as their targets. The Afghani's during the Russo-Afghan conflict focused on military targets - Terrorists intentionally target civilians all too often. The differences are vast, your attempt to equate them just does not hold up under scrutiny.

Israel is the aggressor also doesn't fly. Israel was established not by force of a zionistic military action, but by the act of internation agreement within the UN. Since that time - they are the ones who have been attacked. In those attacks, their enemies (like Syria with the Golan Heights) lost significant territory. Perhaps you don't understand how war works - but to the winner goes the spoils. Israel didn't ask to be attacked. The countries that attacked paid a price in land loss. The people in those areas were, technically - conquered. Unrest happens. Having it fomented and supported by foreign entities however is an act of war - Israel's forbearance has been rather significant. Neighboring areas like lebanon have been supported and used to attack as well. Yes, Israel sends in the troops to regions sometimes - but name once where it did so without a causus belli occuring first. Every action taken is in response to violence or an attack. They are entitled to an active defense. Again your expounded perspective is demonstratably refusing to look at all the facts.

Finally - your position that Iran is just "talking". Iran right now is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are attacking their neighbors (as well as NATO forces and Israel) by proxy. And they are not even talking about doing that. They have continually acted to gain power, prestige and recognition at the cost of their own people, their neighbors and the world. They say they seek a caliphate - and their actions show that they are acting to that end. You talk about "well the terrorists haven't gotten a nuke yet" - your right - they do have Iranian explosives though. Iran simply doesn't have a nuke to give them - YET. There is a reason that all the other countries in the region are quietly working to isolate Iran - they all are threatened by what the Iranian government and its action arms do. To ignore that reality is to do exactly like Chamberlain more than a half a century ago. He stuck his head in the sand and refused to see the threat that was plain to everyone else. You seem to be choosing to do the same, apparently based on your anti-israel and anti-us views.

**********