I think Israel has the right to nuke Iran !!!!
Gerry Lintonice
Israelis have the balls to do what has to be done.
Although I think that the Europussies deserve to be nuked, it's better
to protect them, because they are like little children and don't know
what they're doing ...
The Rev~d
<miami...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
'Israeel' not Eye-ran, should be the next target in the war on terror.
Ben Cramer
"The Rev~d" <reneg~de@anglic~n.org> wrote in message
news:43168981...@news.onetel.net.uk...
Can't have that. Peace in the Middle East is not good for the US economy.
>
The Rev~d
Ragheads (Izzy or otherwise) are incapable of peace. All semites are
irrational and hysterical most of the time.
Ben Cramer
Too right. If ever I'm hurt or ill, don't sent an ambulance for me. Such
panic already.
>
clangunn...@hotmail.co.uk
That fact that you think anyone should be nuked demonstrates that you
are a Dick,
Europussies??
it takes a dick to know a pussy
ari...@37.com
will be a better place with iran wiped off the map.
Sheldon Liberman
How eloquently stated. The problem is that many, if not most, Iranians
support Israel more than their own government, and would welcome
intervention to overthrow the ayatolladom.
Sheldon Liberman
Most of the intelligent world wouldn't want that, Rev. They look to
Israel, given its record, of discovering a cure for 400 lb. fat-headed
anti-semetic fake reverends.
The Rev+d
>the sooner they nuke iran the better for (civilised) mankind. the world
>will be a better place with iran wiped off the map.
'Israeel' is the place with the WMDs. Therefore 'Israeel' has to go
first.
Norma
"The Rev+d" <reneg~de@anglic~.org> wrote in message
news:4317d3c6.3100488@news.onetel.net.uk...
Nonsense. There has never been any question about Israel using them on her
neighbors or anywhere else in the world. The Arabs use the possession of
what weapons they have and are planning to acquire as a means of threat. If
you don't believe that, then you had been get to know the Arab worldview,
watch/read things from the Arab media, and listen to how they are discussed.
You don't hear that from Israel...and won't unless they are threatened, and
then one could expect the same response any other nation would intiate.
Norma
Norma
"Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
news:1125631787.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
That is impressive. I hadn't even heard about that...
The R+evd
>
>"The Rev+d" <reneg~de@anglic~.org> wrote in message
>news:4317d3c6.3100488@news.onetel.net.uk...
>> On 1 Sep 2005 19:42:07 -0700, ari...@37.com wrote:
>>
>>>the sooner they nuke iran the better for (civilised) mankind. the world
>>>will be a better place with iran wiped off the map.
>>
>> 'Israeel' is the place with the WMDs. Therefore 'Israeel' has to go
>> first.
>
>Nonsense. There has never been any question about Israel using them on her
>neighbors or anywhere else in the world.
Not in your shabbos goy country, you mean.
The rest of the world knows that Izzy ragheads are just as irrational
as their Arab neighbours.
>The Arabs use the possession of
>what weapons they have and are planning to acquire as a means of threat. If
>you don't believe that, then you had been get to know the Arab worldview,
>watch/read things from the Arab media, and listen to how they are discussed.
>You don't hear that from Israel...and won't unless they are threatened, and
>then one could expect the same response any other nation would intiate.
What does Eye-ran have to do with A-rabs?
Ben Cramer
"Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
news:1125631787.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
It's a pity israel couldn't sort out its 400 lb, fat-headed, zionazi,
ex-terrorist leaders.
>
Ben Cramer
That's always had me more than a little confused.
The coalition of the conned went into Iraq predicated on the "fact" there
were WMD in the country, and also that Iraq had ignored countless UN
Resolutions. Of course, no WMD were found.
Israel, on the other hand, has WMD, and has ignored every UN Resolution in
their history, apart from 181. Based on this premise, surely israel should
also have been attacked.
>
Ben Cramer
"Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:m8RRe.22542$1g2....@fe05.lga...
>
> "The Rev+d" <reneg~de@anglic~.org> wrote in message
> news:4317d3c6.3100488@news.onetel.net.uk...
>> On 1 Sep 2005 19:42:07 -0700, ari...@37.com wrote:
>>
>>>the sooner they nuke iran the better for (civilised) mankind. the world
>>>will be a better place with iran wiped off the map.
>>
>> 'Israeel' is the place with the WMDs. Therefore 'Israeel' has to go
>> first.
>
> Nonsense. There has never been any question about Israel using them on
> her neighbors or anywhere else in the world.
There was never any question of Saddam using them either. Supposing of
course, he had them.
The R***
'Israeel' is indeed next.
Komin
Israel has the Israeli nukes , in the Israeli diesel subs .
So Israel should make the first move .
Iran is waiting .'
Israel' s foriegn minister has met with the Pakistani foriegn minister
,
I wander if they have aleardy fukked each other ?
Tilly
> President Bush waits to see the pre-emptive Israeli strikes on Iran ,
>
> Israel has the Israeli nukes , in the Israeli diesel subs .
>
> So Israel should make the first move .
>
> Iran is waiting .'
ROFL.
The Iranains don't have a show against the Israelis.
>
> Israel' s foriegn minister has met with the Pakistani foriegn minister
> ,
>
> I wander if they have aleardy fukked each other ?
Do you feel left out?
Komin
Tilly
> I think the Iranians should fukke the Israeli instead .
LOL.
Like they did the Iraqis?
Sheldon Liberman
Not at all. They have none. Problem solved. Easy, huh?
>
>
>
> >
jgarbuz
This has been explained by me many times, but I'll try again. Israel,
like the US, UK, Russia and China developed its nukes BEFORE 1969, that
is, before there was a NonProliferation Treaty. So even if it was a
declared nuclear power, like the US or France, it would still not be in
contravention of that international treaty. But it has officially
denied having them, which everyone knows is not true, but still it
would not be in contravention even it had admitted it as such. SOme
nations, like Pakistan and INdia never signed the NPT either but
finally admitted to being nuclear powers by both exploding theirs
underground. The problem is with nations who SIGNED the NPT, but have
done things to violate the treaty that they signed. For example, a
signatory is allowed to purchase nuclear materials and knowledge
PROVIDED that it is used for peaceful purposes, such as power plants
and NOT used to develop bombs. However a nation that has signed the
treaty but violated it by clandestinely trying to develop bombs, or if
a nation SELLS such materials to a signatory knowing that it would be
used to circumvent the NPT. Althought Pakistan has denied official
knowledge of Ayub Khan's clandestine sale of nuclear knowledge and
materials to Iran, Libya, North Korea, etc., it is hard to conceive of
the Pakistani secret service not knowing about what its chief nuclear
scientist was doing. The point is that neither Pakistan nor any nuclear
power was supposed to be selling bomb-making knowledge of materials to
NPT signatories, and the latter were not supposed to be trying to
develop bombs.
In theory, every sovereign nation has the sovereign RIGHT to build
nuclear weapons PROVIDED that (a) it did sign the NPT, and (b) it is
able to do so using ONLY indigenous materials and knowledge. If Iran
had not signed the NPT, and has all the uranium and nuclear
bomb-building knowledge need internally to build them, then it would be
within its legal right to have them. But if we allow nations who signed
the NPT to back out, and using the materials and knowledge they have
illicitly gained to build bombs in the basement, it will mean a total
breakdown and will make nuclear war a CERTAINTY in the future. Japan,
Germany, Italy, Brazil, and soon Argentina, MExico, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and anyone else with a few nuclear scientists and enough money
to buy materials in the open market will have a bomb. And the more
countries that have them, the more CERTAIN that nuclear war will be
coming very soon for sure, with no doubts about it. THe NPT is the
finger in the dike that is holding back nuclear inundation, and if it
is pulled out, we are all St. Louis.
That is why Bush is rightly adamant that neither Iran, North KOrea, or
anyone else who signed the NPT not be allowed to get away with it.
Disarming ISrael is not the answer, and not possible to do anyway. The
answer is not to allow such important international treaties like the
NPT to be violated with impunity. Israel broke no treaties in doing
what it did, and is not guilty of anything in that regard. So there is
no more legal basis to prosecute ISrael than there is to prosecute
France, Russia, the UK or the US for that matter. Only suspected
violators of the NPT are the ones open to prosecution.
jgarbuz
I doubt Israel wants a nuclear war, though I don't know what the
Ayatollahs running Iran really want. As for Israel and Pakistan warming
up slightly, it is because Pakistan knows how much Israel has helped
India in acquiring many sophisticated weapons systems, but the most
recent INdian government has been less warm towards Israel and buying
more arms from the US instead of Israel. Pakistan would like to take
advantage of this and also to make "nice" towards ISrael both to divide
Israel off a bit from its close association with India, and to make
itself seem more moderate in the eyes of Jewish groups and
people of influence in Washington. It also wants to get the F-16s it
originally paid Washington for some two decades ago, but Israel and
India had placed a roadblock especially because of the F-16s nuclear
bomb-carrying capabilities which could threaten both India and Israel.
If Israel feels less threatend by Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, it might
lessen resistance to its acquiring the F-16s.
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <bencr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There was never any question of Saddam using them either.
Halabja rings a bell, dopehead?
You're such a dimwit.
RJ.
Ben Cramer
He's still in power, you dill.
Ben Cramer
"Tilly" <Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:i_YRe.8080$iM2.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Komin wrote:
>> President Bush waits to see the pre-emptive Israeli strikes on Iran ,
>>
>> Israel has the Israeli nukes , in the Israeli diesel subs .
>>
>> So Israel should make the first move .
>>
>> Iran is waiting .'
>
>
> ROFL.
>
> The Iranains don't have a show against the Israelis.
Like the Sunnis in Iraq have no show against the US? Been doing pretty well
to date.
Ben Cramer
"jgarbuz" <jga...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1125677494.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> "The Rev+d" <reneg~de@anglic~.org> wrote in message
>> news:4317d3c6.3100488@news.onetel.net.uk...
>> > On 1 Sep 2005 19:42:07 -0700, ari...@37.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>the sooner they nuke iran the better for (civilised) mankind. the world
>> >>will be a better place with iran wiped off the map.
>> >
>> > 'Israeel' is the place with the WMDs. Therefore 'Israeel' has to go
>> > first.
>>
>> That's always had me more than a little confused.
>>
>> The coalition of the conned went into Iraq predicated on the "fact" there
>> were WMD in the country, and also that Iraq had ignored countless UN
>> Resolutions. Of course, no WMD were found.
>>
>> Israel, on the other hand, has WMD, and has ignored every UN Resolution
>> in
>> their history, apart from 181. Based on this premise, surely israel
>> should
>> also have been attacked.<
>
> This has been explained by me many times, but I'll try again. Israel,
> like the US, UK, Russia and China developed its nukes BEFORE 1969, that
> is, before there was a NonProliferation Treaty.
It's nothing to do with treaties whatsoever. It is about the reason Iraq was
invaded. Israel more than meets those criteria.
Ben Cramer
> Komin wrote:
>> I think the Iranians should fukke the Israeli instead .
>
>
> LOL.
>
> Like they did the Iraqis?
They would have, had the US not been supporting Iraq. Such a turn of events
already.
Tilly
Ben Cramer
The US military at the time, firmly were of the opinion that Iran was
responsible for Halabja. I had a photocopy of the military documents stating
this, but am unable to locate them now. Someone on here may be able to
produce them.
Ron Jacobson
Tilly <Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>Ron Jacobson wrote:
>> In article <1125651610.e0ff0575c097cbd51b5442a46cc9d11c@teranews>,
>> Ben Cramer <bencr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> There was never any question of Saddam using them either.
>> Halabja rings a bell, dopehead?
>>
>> You're such a dimwit.
> It's a case of selective memory.
> They also used gas against the Iranians.
Methinks that benjie the nazi dopehead was programmed by
its "revisionist" masters to deny any usage of poison gas --
not only by the Nazis, but by Saddam as well. With only
one working neuron, it was impossible to teach it to make
the distinction.
RJ.