• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast: report

creation said:
Why do you find its existence a problem?
Click to expand...
-I- do not.

But then, I am not stating that Israel's nukes are the #1 threat to the ME, or agreeing with that statement.

The statement itself is utterly unsupportable.
 
Gardener said:
I think anybody reading your postings realizes that.
Click to expand...

I realized that when I tried to refute myself that there was a massive palestinian/left wing conspiracy that permeates all media and information on the planet not allowing me to refute the facts I have posted sources for.

My posting of these facts is obviously from the secret desire in me to see israel destroyed.

I get it now.
 
creation said:
Why do you find its existence a problem?
Click to expand...

You yourself say it's why Israel is to blame for all of the conflicts over there.
 
Harshaw said:
You yourself say it's why Israel is to blame for all of the conflicts over there.
Click to expand...

Granted.

However its removal is not possible. Nor is it desirable.
 
Goobieman said:
-I- do not.

But then, I am not stating that Israel's nukes are the #1 threat to the ME, or agreeing with that statement.

The statement itself is utterly unsupportable.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that its ok for all nations to have nukes as long as they are nations you like?
 
creation said:
Are you saying that its ok for all nations to have nukes as long as they are nations you like?
Click to expand...
I dont understand how you could have possibly interpreted my post in such a manner.
 
creation said:
Are you saying that its ok for all nations to have nukes as long as they are nations you like?
Click to expand...
This statement has absolutely no connection to Goobieman's post or reasoning.
 
Goobieman said:
I dont understand how you could have possibly interpreted my post in such a manner.
Click to expand...

You seem to imply that despite the power of the nuclear weapon, since it is Israel holding it in the Middle East then it is ok.
 
creation said:
You seem to imply that despite the power of the nuclear weapon, since it is Israel holding it in the Middle East then it is ok.
Click to expand...
He has explained his reasoning, why would you assume that it is simply because he 'likes' Israel?
Please do re-read his post.
 
Who care what El Baradei says he is just another puppet, as for Israel the last time I looked they have never threaten to use Nukes on anyone and they aren't saying that they would sell Nuke items to Rouge Nations or Terror Groups unlike a other Middle East Country(s).
 
Charles Martel said:
ElB is exactly right. And every Iranian Mullah, Shiite Cleric, Sunni terrorist organization, and Pakistani Premier.....need to understand this as well. Your actions...Gentlemen...your jihads and your threats...need to realize, nukes are the biggest threat. And yer gonna have some inserted in orifices you don't want blocked and then ignited, they'll make a whole new Jewish holiday at your expense. They'll give it some fancy name and party for weeks on your tombstones.

What say we concentrate on a Palestinian State and genuine peace in the region. Let's agree Israel is gonna be there every morning..and move on.

Otherwise.....:july_4th:
Click to expand...



El Baradei is a terrorist supporter. Nothing he says can be taken seriously.
 
SE102 said:
Kidnapped because they intended to free palestinian men held without trial.



Doh my irony meter over modern history's wars just explodinated. Halucinating... MAI LAI... over again... pant wheeze cough


"And they rain rockets on homes its true. But Israelis knock homes and villages in half (literally) with an illegal wall and illegal territory grabs"

"In response to rockets, yeah, so let's keep firing those."

Pfft, cause the rational thing to do to stop a rocket that flies hundreds of feet in the air is build a cement wall. You just proved against yourself that the actions israel takes are not to defend itself but marginalise palestine.


"I believe Israel has been quite tolerant to the Palestinians..."

It's like you don't get that israel is an expansionist zionist state who believes that it has the right to all the land that the palestinians occupy thus expanding itself aggressively through the use of neighborhood projects geographically designed to undermine the economy of the palestinians. They don't allow aid to enter the country they don't allow imports or exports to happen and they are poor as dirt as a result. They control the utilities, like the electricity and the water and they shut them on and off with impunity. You don't get that the israeli army is made up of conscripted racist kids who run over cars with their tanks out of mean-spiritedness, who take pot shots at the civilians of palestine over the walls of the security fence - daily - so they cannot farm the lands they have occupied for centuries.

I watch BBC and Al-jazeera because al-jazeeras foreign corespondency is superior to any domestic american service (who simply do not have the money for a good number of foreign correspondents)
Click to expand...


The term "Zionist" is racist and uncalled for. This is proof of your bias. As such, nothing you say will be taken seriously.
 
creation said:
You seem to imply that despite the power of the nuclear weapon, since it is Israel holding it in the Middle East then it is ok.
Click to expand...
How do I imply that?
Or, perhaps it was your inference?
Either way, not sure how you derived it from my statement.
 
Vader said:
El Baradei is a terrorist supporter. Nothing he says can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Oh, so he's a terrorist and a terrorist supporter? Still waiting for you to prove these bold assertions. I wait with baited breath, though I'm sure I set myself up for disappointment.
 
EgoffTib said:
Oh, so he's a terrorist and a terrorist supporter? Still waiting for you to prove these bold assertions. I wait with baited breath, though I'm sure I set myself up for disappointment.
Click to expand...

He's attacking Israel instead of doing his job. That shows support for terrorists. He's attacking Israel instead of working with to disarm Iran. That makes him a terrorist.

Now stop with your psycho-babble.

El Baradei supports Iran:

ElBaradei Downplays Uranium Find in Iran

The European Union heads into Monday Iran Rejects Incentives in order to entice Iran from its nuclear program and uranium enrichment activities. But before even making it to the table, Iran has rejected it, reminding once again that its nuclear program is not for sale, regardless of economic and security incentives that may be offered it by Friday of this week. Offers to Iran have been made for nearly two years, all of them summarily dismissed. They simply are not interested.

Last week’s revelation that equipment from Iran’s razed Lavizan plant tested positively for highly enriched uranium could prove quite problematic for the persistent Iranian regime. While Ahmadinejad has outright denied the test results are true, it is expected that Iran will eventually claim that the equipment swabbed by the IAEA was used and that the residue of HEU trace back to the equipment’s origin, Pakistan.

While that may prove true, just as did the tested samples from Natanz earlier, it puts Iran’s denial that its military is involved in their clandestine nuclear program squarely on its head, as the Lavizan site was a military facility, also suspected of carrying out explosives tests consistent with testing nuclear detonators.

For the IAEA’s part, Iran’s state-run media arm, IRNA, noted that IAEA head Mohamad ElBaradei has already said the HEU find was of little significance and likely traceable to Pakistani centrifuges again.

Full Article: http://threatswatch.org/inbrief/2006/05/elbaradei-downplays-uranium-fi/

ElBaradei CANNOT be allowed to muddy the message about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. He is trying to do exactly that! Therefore, he clearly has sided with the terrorist government of Iran. This makes his a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
He's attacking Israel instead of doing his job. That shows support for terrorists. He's attacking Israel instead of working with to disarm Iran. That makes him a terrorist.

Now stop with your psycho-babble.
...
ElBaradei CANNOT be allowed to muddy the message about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. He is trying to do exactly that! Therefore, he clearly has sided with the terrorist government of Iran. This makes his a terrorist.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I frankly, having studied nuclear deterrence theory think that Iran has the right to deter a nuclear strike from Israel. This will keep either side from launching a nuke. Iran will not be able to launch a nuke without a guaranteed strike by a nuclear Israel. Neither side can fire. Two bad countries with bad nukes is better than one bad country with a nuke.( I studied it years ago Im prolly rusty but the concept is basic ) Sounds to me like alot of things people say around you probably strikes you as support for terrorists.
 
SE102 said:
I'm sorry I frankly, having studied nuclear deterrence theory think that Iran has the right to deter a nuclear strike from Israel. This will keep either side from launching a nuke. Iran will not be able to launch a nuke without a guaranteed strike by a nuclear Israel. Neither side can fire. Two bad countries with bad nukes is better than one bad country with a nuke.( I studied it years ago Im prolly rusty but the concept is basic ) Sounds to me like alot of things people say around you probably strikes you as support for terrorists.
Click to expand...

This is preposterous.

This assumes that without a nuclear deterrent holding Israel in check, they're an offensive nuclear threat.

Yet, if they do have nukes, they've had them for decades, with no neighbors having a nuclear deterrent against them.

If they were an offensive threat, we'd know by now. This moral equivalence game is sheer buffoonery.
 
SE102 said:
I'm sorry I frankly, having studied nuclear deterrence theory think that Iran has the right to deter a nuclear strike from Israel. This will keep either side from launching a nuke. Iran will not be able to launch a nuke without a guaranteed strike by a nuclear Israel. Neither side can fire. Two bad countries with bad nukes is better than one bad country with a nuke.( I studied it years ago Im prolly rusty but the concept is basic ) Sounds to me like alot of things people say around you probably strikes you as support for terrorists.
Click to expand...

You haven't really kept up have you?

Rafsanjani laid out the Mullah point of view several years ago in regards to nuking Israel. The Mullah point of view is that the potential cost of retaliation is worth it as they can wipe out the Jews, but the Jews cannot prevent the Ummah from eventual triumph.
 
Gardener said:
You haven't really kept up have you?

Rafsanjani laid out the Mullah point of view several years ago in regards to nuking Israel. The Mullah point of view is that the potential cost of retaliation is worth it as they can wipe out the Jews, but the Jews cannot prevent the Ummah from eventual triumph.
Click to expand...

I need a source on that. plz.

This is preposterous.

This assumes that without a nuclear deterrent holding Israel in check, they're an offensive nuclear threat.

Yet, if they do have nukes, they've had them for decades, with no neighbors having a nuclear deterrent against them.

If they were an offensive threat, we'd know by now. This moral equivalence game is sheer buffoonery.
Click to expand...

It's not preposterous its a squarely laid out theory. HAVING NUKES AND BUILDING AN INFASTRUCTURE WITH A POTENTIAL TO STRIKE ANOTHER NATION is a threat to the other nation. Youre calling everything humans know about nuclear conflict from the cold war to be preposterous.

Its kindof like ...if Iran acquires a nuke it will be one of the 'respectable' nations that cannot be invaded by the other 'respectable' nations. Nations acquire nuclear weapons for the economic benefits of structurally adding the people and logistics (educational and economical) to provide for a nuclear infrastructure, and even moreso a nuclear infrastructure that can issue a nuclear response once an attack has been made.

I do not accuse Israel of wanting to nuke its neighbors, your assumption is buffoonery it is not about the moral equivalence of 'if you gottem, I gottem' theres alot more that goes into the acquisition of a nuclear deterrent than just the animosty towards other nations you see in the news. Having a nuke means Iran wont just be an invade-able chunk of meat on some strategists table.

And why would Iran listen to the USA about not getting a nuke, the US broke the non-proliferation treaty and escalated the nuclear arms standoff between pakistan and India if I remember correctly.

From what is known about nukes you can only nuke countries that don't have them. If you're gonna convince me that the leaders of iran would sacrifice their own people in a nuclear war i would need a source. Until then I will assume no nation is irrational enough to use a nuke on another state with deterrent response capabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom