# IRI: Israel's nukes world's greatest threat



## amir (May 2, 2012)

*Iran: Israeli nukes greatest threat to peace *
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press

2:40 p.m., May 2, 2012



VIENNA  A senior Iranian official said Wednesday that Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to Mideast peace and accused the United States and other nuclear powers of hypocritically ignoring their disarmament commitments.

Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mahdi Akhondzadeh's comments to a 189-nation nonproliferation meeting reflected Iran's attempts to deflect international concerns that its nuclear activities could be turned to making weapons.

Usually strident Western criticism of Iran has been muted since the conference opened Monday, possibly due to reluctance to burden the atmosphere ahead of a new meeting later this month between Iran and six powers attempting to nudge it toward concessions meant to ease such worries.

But Akhondzadeh didn't hold back. While avoiding direct mention of the United States, his criticism of "certain nuclear-weapon states" encompassed the U.S., Britain and France - three nations that will be sitting at the table with Iran, along with Russia, China and Germany in Baghdad on May 23.

He also described Israel as posing "the gravest threat to the stability and security" of the Middle East.

Although Israel has never confirmed it, it is widely assumed to be the only Mideast nation to possess nuclear arms.

The United States and its allies see Iran as the greatest potential nuclear threat in the Mideast because of its refusal to stop uranium enrichment and other activities that could be used to make such weapons. But Iran and the Arab states say the Jewish state's undeclared arms program poses the most pressing danger.

The United States has thrown its weight behind efforts to convene a meeting of all Mideast states later this year to discuss creating a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

But neither Israel nor Iran have committed to attending, and a recently retired senior Israeli official told The Associated Press his country was unlikely to attend. He demanded anonymity because his information was confidential.

Israel's absence would strip any such Mideast meeting of significance. 

Beyond Israel, Akhondzadeh criticized "certain nuclear-weapon states" that have ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, saying their stockpile of weapons "and their continued modernization ... (is) the most serious threat to the survival of mankind."

He accused them of "lack of effective and systematic progress towards implementing nuclear disarmament obligations" under commitments to the Nonproliferation Treaty.

While he did not name the countries, his use of the term "certain" indicated he was talking about the United States, Britain and France. Iran has been careful not to irk Russia and China, the other two nuclear-weapons states that have signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and which oppose sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic by Washington and its Western allies.

"Certain nuclear-weapon states are expected to display sincerity and political will rather than hypocrisy with regard to their nuclear disarmament obligations," Akhondzadeh said.
The Associated Press


----------



## JStone (May 2, 2012)

Arab American Institute: Survey, Most Arabs Say Iran Playing Negative Role In Iraq and in the Region
Arab Attitudes Toward Iran: 2011 | The Arab American Institute


----------



## Ariux (May 3, 2012)

Isreal is in violation of international law.


----------



## Douger (May 3, 2012)

Fuck off stoned Jew.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1-oFjuPeI]The Samson Option - How Psychopathic Megalomaniacs Blackmail The World With Nuclear War - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rhodescholar (May 3, 2012)

amir said:


> VIENNA  A senior Iranian official said Wednesday that Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to Mideast peace and accused the United States and other nuclear powers of hypocritically ignoring their disarmament commitments.




This from the head of a fake regime of thugs and murderers, who regularly murders children.  A regime that uses suicide bombings of civilians to conduct policy, commits crimes against humanity across the world, is the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism, and runs one of the world's largest gulags.

The iranian regime might be the lowest form of shit humanity has ever produced; if you think anyone with any sense gives a flying fuck what they say, you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## rhodescholar (May 3, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Isreal is in violation of international law.



Really, How so, idiot?


----------



## JStone (May 3, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Isreal is in violation of international law.



You just made that up, junior. 

Iran is in violation of international law prohibiting state sponsorship of terrorism.

Now, you know, junior


----------



## rancidmilko (May 4, 2012)

rhodescholar said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Isreal is in violation of international law.
> ...



Right now, they're building illegal settlements, for example.


----------



## rancidmilko (May 4, 2012)

JStone said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Isreal is in violation of international law.
> ...



I agree with you.
Both Iran and Israel have attitude problems.


----------



## JStone (May 4, 2012)

United States Senator Daniel Inouye, President Pro Tempore of the US Senate, Awarded Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star...


> If one looks at most of this world, especially the Middle East, one country stands out as a foundation of stability and as a pillar of democracy. And at a time like this, when you have revolution in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, thank God we have Israel.
> Top senator: An attack on Israel is an a... JPost - International


----------



## rhodescholar (May 5, 2012)

rancidmilko said:


> Right now, they're building illegal settlements, for example.



"Illegal"?  According to who?  UNSC Res 242 calls for a negotiated agreement, since there has been no such contract, then both sides are free to do as they please.


----------



## RoccoR (May 5, 2012)

rhodescholar,  Ariux,  _*et al,*_

People often ask this question.  In fact, Israel is a protected nation under the umbrella of the US in this issue.



rhodescholar said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Isreal is in violation of international law.
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*



Rome Statues said:


> (viii)     The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court



*(NOTE)*

Israel is not a signatory to the treatise, and the US unsigned the treatise.  But all of Europe and the entire Middle East/Persian Gulf (less Israel) is a signatory.  Both Pakistan and India are also non-signatories of the NPT; but, only differ from Israel in their acknowledgement of possessing nuclear weapons.

*(COMMENT)*

This is a case that the UN cannot act in either case _(the Rome Statues or the NPT)_ because of the shield the US provides through its veto power.  But it is well understood _(elsewhere in the world) _ that Israel has been in violation and operating outside the normally accepted protocol since the establishment of the "Occupied Territories" and the expansion of Israeli Settlements, as well as the Nuclear Protocols.

This is probably the single biggest obstacle to peace in the region.

*(NUCLEAR WEAPONS)*

Israel is, what is often described as, Nuclear Ambiguous.  It is not a declared Nuclear Weapons State.  






Excerpt from 160-page secret DIA report, 
first disclosed and reproduced in Rowan Scarborough, 
Rumsfeld's War (Regnery, 2004), pp. 194-223.​
The question is not whether Israel has them; but rather, whether the US and UN recognize the existence of Israeli Nuclear Weapons; and if the existence of Israeli Nuclear Weapons contributes to the stabilization of security in the region.  To date, the US follows the Israeli approach of neither confirming or denial.  By not acknowledging possession of nuclear weapons, Israel avoids a US legal prohibition on funding countries which proliferate weapons of mass destruction.  By the US pretending to be blind, and ignoring its own intelligence estimates, the US avoids the legal complications associated with Israel being a Nuclear Weapons State.  But it makes the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region a US aborted  Nuclear Weapons Free region, and the US goal of disarmament selectively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar (May 5, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> rhodescholar...



That was one of THE most bizarre, psychotic posts I've ever seen... 

The poster mixed up no less than THREE, completely distinct and separate agreements - the Rome Statute, the 4th Geneva Conventions, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear armaments, and maybe a few others.

Along with the fact that this poster is wrong about the 4GC, and applied them completely inaccurately.  

All I can respond to this person is: WTF on earth are you talking about?


----------



## hjmick (May 5, 2012)

> A senior Iranian official said...



Of course he did...


----------



## daveman (May 5, 2012)

How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!


----------



## JStone (May 5, 2012)

Everyone staying up at night losing sleep over those Israelis?  After all, iran and the muslimes are peaceful.


----------



## Roudy (May 5, 2012)

rancidmilko said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...


Settlements on land that they conquered after after 5 Arab nations attacked them?  So I guess California, Arizona, and Texas should also be called illegal settlements on Mexican land.


----------



## RoccoR (May 5, 2012)

rhodescholar,  _et al,_

I beg your pardon.



rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > rhodescholar...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

When Israel is mentioned as being on the wrong side of international law, they are usually referring to one of two aspects.


The Occupation of the Occuppied Territories; or,
The Status of Nuclear Weapons.

I did not mention the 4th Geneva Convention at all.  I did mention the Rome Statue in regard to the displacement of the indigenous population and the transplant of Israeli citizens.  (A violation of International Law.)  

I also mentioned the general belief that the balance of power and the stability of peace in the region is threatened by the Israeli policy of Nuclear Ambiguity.  (Which is not a violation of law/treaty as they are not a signatory to the NPT; but could be subject to sanctions if the true status was actually recognized.)

I do not think I miss applied the Rome Statue position.  The statue is quoted directly.

Both these issues (and sometimes more) are often lumped together, describing a pattern of misconduct by the Israelis.  Both do not contribute to the stability of the region.  My post was meant to distinguish between the two (one a violation of International Law, and one a violation of US Sanction implementation).

I sincerely apologize if that was not made clear.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 5, 2012)

JStone,  _*et al,*_

Yes,,,



JStone said:


> Everyone staying up at night losing sleep over those Israelis?  After all, iran and the muslimes are peaceful.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel is what it is.  In half a century, it has not been able to resolve its neighborhood differences.  This is not a one sided affair.  Both sides have legitimate grievances and concerns.  And Israel is an ally of the US only in matter of convenience_ (Remember the USS Liberty.  They have no special love for Americans.)_.

On the other hand, Iran and a segment of the "radical" Islamic community poses unique and very different challenges to both Regional and World Peace.  While Iran is being a pain in the ass, there are extenuating circumstances and prejudicial actions that are questionable.  But while Iran is an Islamic country, the religion is not the true problem.

Muslims are not, as a whole, a threat to America.  Radicalism is the threat.  The struggle for power and control.  And in that struggle, where Islam is used as a vehicle, is the threat to peace.  

I'm not defending Iran, but I do see some of the points they make.  While it may be the case that Iran could be in violation of a treaty, they need only withdraw from the treaty under Article X, and the legal issues are resolved.  But that doesn't address the fears that have been raised.  _(Remember, it was not Iran that threatened an Act of War.)_

Is Iran a non-Interventionist country?  No.  They are actively involved in a number of Proxy Activities and covert actions.   But that is not the overt basis for the implementation of sanctions.  Proliferation is the basis for the sanctions.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 5, 2012)

_*et al,*_

Yes, the old Manifest Destiny argument.



Roudy said:


> rancidmilko said:
> 
> 
> > rhodescholar said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You will notice that California, Arizona, and Texas are annexed states, with ALL the indigenous people granted US Citizenship, with the exact same protections.  This is no way comparable to the Occupied Territories.

But more importantly, we should remember that there were many things America did in its quest for expansion that were not strictly kosher.  We stole land from the Native Indians, as well as the Mexican Americans at the conclusion of hostilities.  Our hands are not totally clean.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar (May 7, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> When Israel is mentioned as being on the wrong side of international law, they are usually referring to one of two aspects. The Occupation of the Occuppied Territories; or, The Status of Nuclear Weapons.



Again, wrong.  The agreement dealing with population transfer and territorial occupation is the 4th GC, a secondary one is the UNSC 242 - neither of which are applicable to the israeli situation.

Further, the Rome Statue merely provides a mechanism for the judicial review of war crimes as per the GC and other conventions, the RS is NOT a legal treaty detailing what constitute them.  Try reading documents and researching before sounding like an idiot.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> I did not mention the 4th Geneva Convention at all.  I did mention the Rome Statue in regard to the displacement of the indigenous population and the transplant of Israeli citizens.  (A violation of International Law.)



Genius, the RS has NOTHING to do with displacement or anything else, it is a mechanism to create a court of judicial review - an enforcement mechanism.

Second, read the 4th GC, it is THAT treaty that deals with population transfers... 



> I also mentioned the general belief that the balance of power and the stability of peace in the region is threatened by the Israeli policy of Nuclear Ambiguity.



Really?  You mean that before israel had nuclear weapons, there was peaceful relations there?  Really?  



> (Which is not a violation of law/treaty as they are not a signatory to the NPT; but could be subject to sanctions if the true status was actually recognized.)



So now you claim parties can be subject to treaties they never signed?  You're fucking psychotic.



> I do not think I miss applied the Rome Statue position.  The statue is quoted directly.



LOL, you don't even know WTF the RS is, let alone quoted it correctly. 



> Both these issues (and sometimes more) are often lumped together, describing a pattern of misconduct by the Israelis.  Both do not contribute to the stability of the region.



Idiot, if israel did not even fucking exist, it would have zero effect on the ME.  None of the indigenous groups get along, and israel has 5 million jews, less than 1% of the entire ME population.  Try sticking to rational arguments for once.



> My post was meant to distinguish between the two (one a violation of International Law, and one a violation of US Sanction implementation).



You have yet to even offer a rational thought, let alone post one.  The israel settlements in the WB are on disputed land as per UNSC 242, and do not involve forcible transfer by the occupying power, which renders the 4GC inapplicable here.  Try sticking to something you might actually be informed of, like knitting.


----------



## rhodescholar (May 7, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> And Israel is an ally of the US only in matter of convenience (Remember the USS Liberty.  They have no special love for Americans.). / While Iran is being a pain in the ass, there are extenuating circumstances and prejudicial actions that are questionable.



As if you had much credibility before, you now have none.  I don't give a shit how polite your tone is, making idiotic, irrational claims about legal treaties that make no sense, claiming israel intentionally attacked US sailors, and running interference for criminal, murderous regimes like iran place you in the shitbox - you are close to ignore status.


----------



## RoccoR (May 7, 2012)

rhodescholar,,  _*et al,*_

Yes!



rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > When Israel is mentioned as being on the wrong side of international law, they are usually referring to one of two aspects. The Occupation of the Occuppied Territories; or, The Status of Nuclear Weapons.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Well, if you want to use the 4thGC, then, of course we can.  The War Crime in the Rome Statue has its companion in the 4thGC.

Copy Used:  Jewish Virtual Library


In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles
of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143."



			
				Section III said:
			
		

> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.



All of the Rome Statues has some foundation in either the Geneva Convention, or Subsequent International Tribunals.

While I have, from time-to-time found Wikipedia to be of some insight, it is not always interpreted correctly.  You will notice that it has a minor warning.


> This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2011)


  I suggest you go to the ICC Page.

Reference;  Rome Statues of the International Criminal Court



> I did not mention the 4th Geneva Convention at all.  I did mention the Rome Statue in regard to the displacement of the indigenous population and the transplant of Israeli citizens.  (A violation of International Law.)



Genius, the RS has NOTHING to do with displacement or anything else, it is a mechanism to create a court of judicial review - an enforcement mechanism.

Neither is accurate.  But the 4thGC and the RS have many companion points.  It so happens that Section III, Art 49, 4thGC _(supra)_ is the companion to Part II, Article 8, Para 2b(viii) of the RS. 



rhodescholar said:


> Really?  You mean that before israel had nuclear weapons, there was peaceful relations there?  Really?


*(COMMENT)*

I said no such thing.  I was talking about the Balance of Power.  



rhodescholar said:


> So now you claim parties can be subject to treaties they never signed?  You're fucking psychotic.


*(COMMENT)*

It only takes one party to be covered by the treaty.  In this case, the Occupied Territories are covered by the Treaty; with two points of standing.  Israel can counter claim it is above the law.  It would be interesting to see how it plays out in court. 

The Rome Statues are in place to act "where states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves." 

Reference:  ICTJ Briefing of Rome Statues 



rhodescholar said:


> Idiot, if israel did not even fucking exist, it would have zero effect on the ME.  None of the indigenous groups get along, and israel has 5 million jews, less than 1% of the entire ME population.  Try sticking to rational arguments for once.


*(COMMENT)*

This has nothing to do with an established pattern of misconduct.  



> My post was meant to distinguish between the two (one a violation of International Law, and one a violation of US Sanction implementation).





rhodescholar said:


> You have yet to even offer a rational thought, let alone post one.  The israel settlements in the WB are on disputed land as per UNSC 242, and do not involve forcible transfer by the occupying power, which renders the 4GC inapplicable here.  Try sticking to something you might actually be informed of, like knitting.


*(COMMENT)*

Reference:  Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs *Copy of UNSC 242*

I believe you are mistaken.  While your characterization of the Occupied Territories as being in dispute is probably correct, that has nothing to do with UNSC 242.  The UNSC calls for the withdraw of Israeli forces in UNSC 242.



			
				Excerpt: U.N. Security Council Resolution 242November 22 said:
			
		

> Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
> 
> *Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;*  Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;



But one can go further:  Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory



			
				INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE said:
			
		

> 120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.
> 
> In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.



Where the idea was advanced that the citation and references posted were incorrect in the applicability of accepted law is a misinterpretation --- is a misinterpretation of existing law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Staidhup (May 7, 2012)

60-85 Nucs should keep them safe from the Islamo Fascists. As for the clowns that still prescribe to the false belief that if Israel was no longer in existence that there would be peace in the Mid East had better think twice. Funny in how those that site the Fourth Geneva Convention seem to think terrorism is acceptable and that the right to defend ones self is secondary to the spirit of the law.


----------



## amir (May 7, 2012)

RhodesScholar: 
Death to Iran!!! 
***
I realize this sentiment is to counter all the "Death to America" chants by the thugs of IRI, but you maybe unaware that the people of Iran are the most pro American of all other countries in the region.
The mullahrchy is not an accurate representation of Iranians, and is against anything decent Persians stand for.
Death to the Islamic Republic!


----------



## JStone (May 7, 2012)

amir said:


> RhodesScholar:
> Death to Iran!!!
> ***
> I realize this sentiment is to counter all the "Death to America" chants by the thugs of IRI, but you maybe unaware that the people of Iran are the most pro American of all other countries in the region.
> ...



Persia disappeared a loooong time ago.  So, too, its peaceful zoroastrian religion


----------



## RoccoR (May 7, 2012)

Staidhup,  _*et al,*_

I didn't originally cite the GCIV.



Staidhup said:


> 60-85 Nucs should keep them safe from the Islamo Fascists. As for the clowns that still prescribe to the false belief that if Israel was no longer in existence that there would be peace in the Mid East had better think twice. Funny in how those that site the Fourth Geneva Convention seem to think terrorism is acceptable and that the right to defend ones self is secondary to the spirit of the law.


*(COMMENT)*

I spent a career in counterintelligence, with almost a decade in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region; including Yemen.  

Knowing and understanding the reasons and cause for conflict, does not mean you side with terrorists.  I am a counterterrorist.  But having said that, it doen't mean that I give all would be allies a free pass.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar (May 7, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> Where the idea was advanced that the citation and references posted were incorrect in the applicability of accepted law is a misinterpretation --- is a misinterpretation of existing law.



This poster is clearly mentally ill.  She cannot differentiate between basic concepts of the different treaties mixing them up, and her whole argument is "they are wrong."

When you leave your mental institution and come up with a rational argument that actually applies to the treaties you are talking about, let us know.  Until then, IGNORED.


----------



## rhodescholar (May 7, 2012)

amir said:


> RhodesScholar:
> Death to Iran!!!
> ***
> I realize this sentiment is to counter all the "Death to America" chants by the thugs of IRI, but you maybe unaware that the people of Iran are the most pro American of all other countries in the region.
> ...



I've no doubt that there are many pro-american iranians, but unfortunately, most are not - and iran has conducted thousands of attacks that have injured or murdered thousands of americans.  Every iranian i know is a decent person, but the US is going to have to liquidate the regime and thousands of others of its supporters, from the IRG to the basij, and a lot of innocents are sadly, going to be killed as well.  It is inevitable, and would not have been necessary if they were not protected by russia and china, or if there were far more "pro-american" iranians there.


----------



## rhodescholar (May 7, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> I spent a career in counterintelligence, with almost a decade in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region; including Yemen.



Bwaahaahaahahahaha!!!!

This moron cannot even differentiate between the NPT and other treaties, nor cannot come up with a rational post.

No doubt some 53-year old unemployed carpenter armchair internet warrior pounding away on her 1997 eMachine with Windows 95...


----------



## Billo_Really (May 7, 2012)

rhodescholar said:


> I've no doubt that there are many pro-american iranians, but unfortunately, most are not - and iran has conducted thousands of attacks that have injured or murdered thousands of americans.


Name a few.


----------



## JStone (May 7, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> Staidhup,  _*et al,*_
> 
> I didn't originally cite the GCIV.
> 
> ...



Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.

Worry more about Iran.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 7, 2012)

daveman said:


> How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!



Is that page one of zionism for dummies,can't refute the negaitive comment about Israel cry ant-semitism?


----------



## rhodescholar (May 8, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Name a few.



I guess you never heard of the iraqi shia militias armed and trained by iran, who used iranian-built IEDs/EFPs to maim/kill US troops, or the captured iranian officers in iraq, etc.

Are facts important to you, shit for brains?


----------



## rhodescholar (May 8, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Is that page one of zionism for dummies,can't refute the negaitive comment about Israel cry ant-semitism?



What negative comments were those, fucking moron?


----------



## JStone (May 8, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!
> ...



Jesus King of Israel was a Zionist, dummy 



> John 12:13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the king of Israel!



Allah who created Israel is a Zionist, dummy 



> Quran 10:93 We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place, and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them.



No 72 whores in that bordello in the sky for you, dumb motherfucker


----------



## Billo_Really (May 8, 2012)

rhodescholar said:


> I guess you never heard of the iraqi shia militias armed and trained by iran, who used iranian-built IEDs/EFPs to maim/kill US troops, or the captured iranian officers in iraq, etc.
> 
> Are facts important to you, shit for brains?


First off, junior, when you invade another country, you can expect to be attacked.  So getting all pissed off because someone is defending their homeland from a foreign force, is pretty ridiculous.  But what's more ridiculous, in light of your so-called "Iranian trained shia militia's", is the US government giving them the political power in Iraq.

Now, let's see some proof of your claim.  Or, how 'bout some examples of Iranian terrorism in country's we haven't invaded?


----------



## Billo_Really (May 8, 2012)

JStone said:


> Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.
> 
> Worry more about Iran.


And Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions.


----------



## rhodescholar (May 8, 2012)

loinboy said:


> First off, junior, when you invade another country, you can expect to be attacked.  So getting all pissed off because someone is defending their homeland from a foreign force, is pretty ridiculous.



Wrong idiot.  I guess reading is not one of your strong suits - it was IRAQ that we invaded, and it was IRAN who was interfering by arming/training terrorist groups in IRAQ.

Their interference wasn an act of war IMO, and iran should have been militarily attacked for doing so.



> But what's more ridiculous, in light of your so-called "Iranian trained shia militia's", is the US government giving them the political power in Iraq.



With idiots like you, if the US did not give them a say in the political process, you would have screamed they were being "disenfranchised."  With anti-american idiots, no matter what the US does it is in the wrong.



> Now, let's see some proof of your claim.  Or, how 'bout some examples of Iranian terrorism in country's we haven't invaded?



Uh, Argentina, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia....And why does iran get a pass to conduct terrorism in a nation the US invades?


----------



## rhodescholar (May 8, 2012)

loinboy said:


> And Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions.



UNGA votes are not legally binding, UNSC resolutions are - and Israel is not in violation of any UNSC ones.  It must suck to be as stupid and uniformed as you are.


----------



## RoccoR (May 8, 2012)

JStone,  _*et al,*_

Oh yes, this is close.  It is an international threat as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism;" on the DOS List since JAN 84 _(along with Cuba, Sudan, & Syria)_.



JStone said:


> Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.
> 
> Worry more about Iran.


*(COMMENT)*

Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel.  

I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic;  (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat).  And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation.  

The cascade effect is a real possibility; relative to proliferation.  Iran has not asked to go to the level that Israel has attained.  Currently, the question is over "enrichment."  Israel is well past that stage, and the unspoken Elephant in the room is the double-standard.  If the US protects Israel's right to have a nuclear military component, then as the honest broker, why is Iran being penalized.

Now we all know the answer to this question.  No one trusts Iran.  But that doesn't address the question of the double-standard.

When we talk about the threat that Iran poses, regionally, continentally, and internationally, I will comment there on the security, vulnerability and risk factors associated with Iran; including its assistance in rearming Hezbollah, in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; as well as, it's unwillingness to bring to justice al-Qaeda members it has in detention, and it's refusal to share intelligence on those in custody. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JStone (May 8, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> JStone,  _*et al,*_
> 
> Oh yes, this is close.  It is an international threat as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism;" on the DOS List since JAN 84 _(along with Cuba, Sudan, & Syria)_.
> 
> ...



You play videos and watch porn all day.

United States Senator Daniel Inouye, President Pro Tempore of the US Senate, Awarded Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star...


> If one looks at most of this world, especially the Middle East, one country stands out as a foundation of stability and as a pillar of democracy. And at a time like this, when you have revolution in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, thank God we have Israel.
> Top senator: An attack on Israel is an a... JPost - International


----------



## amir (May 8, 2012)

R:
Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel. 

I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic; (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat). And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation. 

The cascade effect is a real possibility; relative to proliferation. Iran has not asked to go to the level that Israel has attained. Currently, the question is over "enrichment." Israel is well past that stage, and the unspoken Elephant in the room is the double-standard. If the US protects Israel's right to have a nuclear military component, then as the honest broker, why is Iran being penalized.

Now we all know the answer to this question. No one trusts Iran. But that doesn't address the question of the double-standard.

When we talk about the threat that Iran poses, regionally, continentally, and internationally, I will comment there on the security, vulnerability and risk factors associated with Iran; including its assistance in rearming Hezbollah, in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; as well as, it's unwillingness to bring to justice al-Qaeda members it has in detention, and it's refusal to share intelligence on those in custody. 

Most Respectfully,
R 
***
*Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly)
I don't understand why you worry about Israel that has never threatened any other country with a nuclear attack. Would you worry more about a guy who is heavily armed but minds his own business, or someone who's not well armed but keep threatening to kill you (wipe you from the face of the earth/pages of history)?
You can relax R, several times Israel existence was in jeopardy but nobody was nuked. The mullahs on the other hand before even getting their hands on nuclear weapons are bullying their neighbors and others.*


----------



## rhodescholar (May 8, 2012)

amir said:


> Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly)  I don't understand why you worry about Israel that has never threatened any other country with a nuclear attack. Would you worry more about a guy who is heavily armed but minds his own business, or someone who's not well armed but keep threatening to kill you (wipe you from the face of the earth/pages of history)?  You can relax R, several times Israel existence was in jeopardy but nobody was nuked. The mullahs on the other hand before even getting their hands on nuclear weapons are bullying their neighbors and others.



What the mentally ill jew haters never mention is that israel has had nuclear weapons since the early 1960s - over 50 years - and has never threatened any other nation that was not about to attack it.  They try to pretend there is a double-standard by comparing israel, a democracy, to  theocratic, diseased, war mongering, terror-sponsoring, gulag-filled dictatorship of iran - which is simply not acceptable to the rational and intelligent.

To the mentally ill jew haters, jews are supposed to remain weak and vulnerable - never strong - so that they may be blamed and attacked without fear.  Sadly for the mentally ill jew hating filth, those days are over.


----------



## JStone (May 8, 2012)

amir said:


> R:
> Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel.
> 
> I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic; (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat). And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation.
> ...



The Rabs are worried over Israel?  The Rabs are urging Israel to attack Iran.  Get a clue, clueless one.

Reality check for you: Arab American Institute: Survey, Most Arabs Say Iran Playing Negative Role In Iraq and in the Region
Arab Attitudes Toward Iran: 2011 | The Arab American Institute


----------



## logical4u (May 8, 2012)

amir said:


> *Iran: Israeli nukes greatest threat to peace *
> By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press
> 
> 2:40 p.m., May 2, 2012
> ...





Will Iran please list the countries that Israel proclaims should be destroyed completely?
Will Iran please list the peoples that Israel is targeting for genocide?
Will Iran please list the countries where Israel is using terrorist methods to destablize that nation?


----------



## daveman (May 8, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!
> ...


I call anti-Semitism when I see it.


----------



## RoccoR (May 9, 2012)

JStone, amir,  _*et al,*_

The last thing that the Arab Community _(The GCC) _wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.



JStone said:


> amir said:
> 
> 
> > *Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly)
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I've never claimed that Iran was playing a positive role.  I was sticking to the subject, focused by the thread, on Israel.

But your claim that the GCC wants a "war" which would entangle the crtical infrastructure and passage through the straits, is simply wrong.  In fact, no one really wants that to happen.  While the Iranian Navy and Special IRGC-QF are out gunned at every turn, it doesn't mean that they cannot cause havoc throughout the Gulf.  


It would only take a few successful strikes (small unit tactical elements) to put Water Distillation/Desalinization facilities, which are absolutely essential, out of production through direct focused attack, sabotage, or other unconventional techniques.  And that could seriously hurt countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).


There are several critical choke points that are within strike range of Iran.  It would only take a couple of successful conventional attacks to spike oil prices world wide.
Straits of Hormuz, 
Strait of Malacca, 
Abqaiq processing facility, 
Suez Canal, 
Bab el-Mandab, 
Bosporus/Turkish Straits, 
Mina al-Ahmadi terminal (Kuwait), 
Al Basrah oil terminal (Iraq),


And any success, Iran might have against critical vulnerabilities to oil, fresh water facilities, passages and terminals would have a dramatic impact on the economies regionally, on the UE, and the US.

Rough References:

War Between Saudi Arabia & Iran: An Unpleasant Scenario
A war with Iran has implications
A War with Iran; The Regional Dimension

But this was not the focus of the thread.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar (May 9, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> The last thing that the Arab Community wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.



You can stop putting forth these idiocies/lies, they've been de-bunked 100 times already, moron.



> I've never claimed that Iran was playing a positive role.  I was sticking to the subject, focused by the thread, on Israel.



Of course you are.  Like every scumbag jew-hating turd, the focus has to always be on israel, even if it is under relentless attack, as we all know - jews are not allowed to defend themselves.



> But your claim that the GCC wants a "war" which would entangle the crtical infrastructure and passage through the straits, is simply wrong



Uh, you're an idiot.  They've already come out publicly for a US strike, time to read the newspapers, moron.


----------



## JStone (May 9, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> JStone, amir,  _*et al,*_
> 
> The last thing that the Arab Community _(The GCC) _wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.



Er, wrong, Kissinger: U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran&#39;s nukes - Washington Times


----------



## RoccoR (May 9, 2012)

JStone,  _*et al,*_

This story is from *July 2010,* over 20 months old.  Is it possible that this one Ambassador and the UAE and GCC has had time to think?  



JStone said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > JStone, amir,  _*et al,*_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I'm no Henry Kissinger, but then - there is more fresh information available that is current.

*Reference:*


Gulf states brace for unwanted US-Iran war January 6, 2012
Dubai: The Arab states that lie just miles across the Gulf from Iran are nervously eyeing the prospects of a war between Tehran and the West that none of them want and all know could devastate their economies.

This very real fear is prompting the oil-rich states to enhance their defences while hoping that diplomacy can rein in Tehran's regional ambitions and put an end to its worrying nuclear programme.

"No one in the Gulf States wants war but everyone is preparing for the possibility that it might happen," said military analyst Riad Kahwaji.

Tension has escalated as the West continues to squeeze Tehran over its nuclear programme, with the EU threatening a total ban on Iranian oil imports.​
​

Iran worries Arabs  but they don't want war 8 May 2012
There is no Arab appetite for the chaos caused by an Israeli or western attack on Iran, despite fears over its expansionism.

... While it is easy to predict its beginning, it is almost impossible to presage its end. War would redraw alliances and elicit external intervention into the affairs of states and groups. In the event, the Arab spring would end and be replaced by a Middle East autumn, one which would not give the region and the world anything but misery and danger. (Wadah Khanfar is a former director general of the al-Jazeera television network.)  © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2012​


With Much at Stake, GCC Wants to Participate in Iran Negotiations By: Anne Penketh posted on Wednesday, Apr 4, 2012
If military action happened, we have no control over it, said Mustafa Alani, Program Director for Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center.  ... ... ... 

At the same time, there is widespread skepticism that economic sanctions will compel Iran to comply with UN resolutions, and concern that war is a real possibility.

We dont want it, Alani said. We want it as a last resort, and we think the time is not right now for military action.​

Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war.  I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war.  The can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war.  But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities.  That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar (May 9, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war.  I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war.  The can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war.  But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities.  That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.



Wrong as usual, fuckbrain moron.  With iran already trying to push the GCC on issues like control over the UAE islands, and iran caught multiple times trying to initiate civil uprisings in a number of the GCC, they would LOVE to see the iranian fake regime of thugs and murderers liquidated militarily.  You are truly an idiot.


----------



## RoccoR (May 10, 2012)

rhodescholar,  _*et al,*_

*BLUF:*  T_he GCC will not risk a war over the Islands unless Iran attempts the closure._

Ha yes!  The three Islands of Greater Tunb,  Lesser Tunb and Abu Masa have been in dispute since the 1300's.  And for the last three decades, and 300 years prior to British Control in 1921, the Island were Persian (Iranian).  The Islands were liberated from Portugese colonial control by the Shah Abbas in 1622, and then by re-acquired after British occupation in by the last Shah of Iran_ (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi)_.  I remember this only because it happened in the month I returned from Vietnam and then became an Issue only more recently, after my return from the Persian Gulf Region.  For nearly 30 years, it wasn't an issue.  It became an issue when Iran began to exert it influence and threats over the Straits.  







rhodescholar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war.  I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war.  The _(same)_ can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war.  But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities.  That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This is a struggle over the control of the navigable portion of the Straits of Hormus.   And while you are quite correct, that the GCC would be happy to see Iran neutralized as a regional threat, you would not be correct in assuming the GCC would risk a closure of the Straits due to hostilities over the Islands.  Two successive Chairs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the DirCIA/SECDEF have all indicated the potential for a closure of an unspecified duration, should Iran take the action.



> SECDEF & CJCS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our Policy and Position is caution.



> U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says military action against Iran could have unintended consequences. The warning came at a press conference Thursday.
> 
> At a joint conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey, Panetta (SECDEF) warned against any military action. Panetta said he agrees with the assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a military strike would only set the Iranian nuclear program back by three years at most.
> 
> ...



The GCC and the Greater Middle East Community has concerns.



> This broad embargo on Iranian oil, which in effect takes 1.5 million barrels a day off the global market without another producer being able to compensate for it, risks pushing the market price up between 20-30%, which is roughly a $20-30 per barrel increase, a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger an even larger spike than this.
> 
> Saudi Arabia has stepped in to try and compensate for this through increased production however this contingency isn&#8217;t without issue itself given Saudi Arabia&#8217;s geographical position and reliance on Hormuz being open the IMF warned that the Saudi buffer is similarly at risk.
> 
> ...



Having said all that, the closure is a double-edged sword.  It would hurt Iran just as much as it would hurt the US/EU and Indian Ocean/Pacific Nations.  So the outright closure of the Straits are much less likely than one might expect.  And that makes the struggle over the three disputed Islands much less an issue.  

The GCC will not support a war that might threaten to cause supply bottlenecks or severe damage to their critical infrastructure in terms of food, water, and oil export capacity, if the likelihood that Iran will actually close the straits is low.  However that may change as the GCC moves to establish a Region-wide rail system that may become an alternative to the straits.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JStone (May 13, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> rhodescholar,  _*et al,*_
> 
> *BLUF:*  T_he GCC will not risk a war over the Islands unless Iran attempts the closure._
> 
> ...



Why waste valuable bandwidth with your unintelligible gibberish?


----------

