Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[Sirotnikov]

[q]Israel has never said any such thing. You want to know why? Because Israel maintains that they do not have any nukes, despite the fact the world knows better.
/q]
nice try but learn your facts.

Israel has numerously said that they won't be the first to 'introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east conflicts'.

They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

There is no Palestine you stupid socialist. And there never was.
There might be, if Israel will be convinced by Abu Mazen / pushed by GW. But there never was.

Did you know what "palestinians" did in 1947? Ran away.

Did you know what the rest of the arab countries did? Began invading.

Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

Only in 1956 and that was due to brittish and french planning...

The rest of the times Israel was provoked and had acted in self defense.

You have to stop reading comissar-rewritten history, and open a real book.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

There is no Palestine you stupid socialist. And there never was.

There was, and you attacked and destroyed it, along with the Arab states, in 1948.

Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

Only in 1956 and that was due to brittish and french planning...

The rest of the times Israel was provoked and had acted in self defense.

You attacked Lebanon after the PLO had observed an 18-month cease fire that only Israel and the US says they violated.

You attacked Egypt in 1967 without justification.

Maybe you need to read something besides your little Israeli fascist histories.

[Winston]

Wasn't this about Iran's nukes - before chegitz guevara got his customary hardon attacking Israel and everyone and everything associated with it?

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

There is no Palestine you stupid socialist. And there never was.[/q]

There was, and you attacked and destroyed it, along with the Arab states, in 1948.

No, there was no state of Palestine in 1948.

You attacked Egypt in 1967 without justification.

No justification apart from the:

• Blockade of the Straits of Tiran, widely acknowledged as an act of war.
• Egypt kicked out the UN troops from the area.
• Egyptian leadership threatened Israel.
• Egypt had put forces on Israel's borders.
• Israel had discovered Egypt's "Operation Dawn", a plan for attacking Israel which was halted at the last minute by pressure from the Societ Union.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
Wasn't this about Iran's nukes - before chegitz guevara got his customary hardon attacking Israel and everyone and everything associated with it?

You asked me what Iran had to fear from Israel. Typical Winston. He asks a question, gets an answer, then goes off on a personal attack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan

There was, and you attacked and destroyed it, along with the Arab states, in 1948.

No, there was no state of Palestine in 1948.

There would have been had Israel and the Arab states not pre-empted it by invading and annexing it.

No justification apart from the:

• Blockade of the Straits of Tiran, widely acknowledged as an act of war.
• Egypt kicked out the UN troops from the area.
• Egyptian leadership threatened Israel.
• Egypt had put forces on Israel's borders.
• Israel had discovered Egypt's "Operation Dawn", a plan for attacking Israel which was halted at the last minute by pressure from the Societ Union.

The Straights of Tiran are completely within Egyptian territory, and thus it was not an act of war to blockade them. The only reason Israel had any right to use them at all was as part of an agreement forced on Egypt when Israel attacked without provacation in '56.

Israel never allowed UN troops on to its territory in the first place. Egypt got tired of having only its territory being used to house the UN.

Egypt was countering the Israeli moves against its ally Syria.

See above.

The U.S. has plans to invade Canada. The existence of plans doesn't mean there will be war. Furthermore, an invasion that doesn't happen cannot be causi belli.

Furthermore, Egypt had just finished losing a war in Yemen. It wasn't ready to fight another war, with a country that everyone knew would kick its ass, including Egypt.

[Winston]

You consider that a personal attack? Then I'd say you're slightly more light skinned than when you're dealing them out yourself.

I asked you what Iran had to fear from Israel if they didn't attack Israel. This because you had previously stated that Iran has a nuclear capable enemy, which I took to mean Israel.

Now, would it be terribly painful for you to cease with the threadjack?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
You consider that a personal attack? Then I'd say you're slightly more light skinned than when you're dealing them out yourself.

It is a personal attack. It's not up to you to determine how the object of your insult should feel. And uh, where did I insult you, since, as you say, I'm "dealing them out" myself?

Now, would it be terribly painful for you to cease with the threadjack?

Piss off. You asked a question, I answered it. Don't act like this is my doing. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

[Winston]

Oh that's rich. You insult any poster you don't agree with on a regular basis. It's part of your personality.

I asked a question in response to a point you made earlier. If you don't want the points that you make debated, then you're the one who should've pissed off a long time ago.

Now get back on the topic, or I shall taunt you a second time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
Oh that's rich. You insult any poster you don't agree with on a regular basis.

Only rarely, actually, and only when they really deserve it. You might notice that despite both you and Siro insulting me in this thread, I have insulted neither of you in return.

I asked a question in response to a point you made earlier.

'Nuff said. I'm not the one complaining about the direction the thread took. Don't ask me to defend my point and then complain that I'm doing so.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There would have been had Israel and the Arab states not pre-empted it by invading and annexing it.
[/qb]

But there wasn't one, and they weren't interested in declaring statehood.

The Straights of Tiran are completely within Egyptian territory,

The straits of Tiran are an international waterway and the blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone

Egypt got tired of having only its territory being used to house the UN.

How convenient.

Egypt was countering the Israeli moves against its ally Syria.

What moves? The ersatz reports that Egypt had that Israel was building up troops on Syria's borders, which both Syrian and Egyptian leadership knew was falsified?

The U.S. has plans to invade Canada. The existence of plans doesn't mean there will be war.

The existence of plans and the intelligence that suggests that they would be implemented soon, certainly suggests that.

[chequita guevara]

Sorry, Edan, Winston doesn't want me discussing it anymore. I therefore concede to you.

[Edan]

BTW, anyone know what the current estimates for when Iran will achieve nukes?

[Winston]

I did not insult you. I just stated the facts about your hatred of Israel.

And I suppose you didn't call Siro a fascist either, hm?

As to your continued beating of that dead horse of yours, maybe I could ask you to keep your rabid anti-Israeli ramblings out of a thread on Iran's nukes altogether?

You do realise that's my complaint wrt. to the threadjack, not a short exchange several hours ago on whether Israel could be considered an enemy of Iran or not.

EDIT: This was X-posted with the two previous posts. This sub-debate is now over for me also.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Winston
I thought we weren't talking about Iran's "logic", by which, granted, they might perceive Israel as having aggressive intentions - but rather whether we, as onlookers, agree with Iran's desire to acquire nukes. Whether it's their "right" so to speak.

If you look at the situation objectively, what are the scenarios where Israel's nukes could pose a threat to Iran - except in the case of an Iranian attack? As long as they don't touch Israel, they'll be safe. Which was the whole point of Israel acquiring nukes in the first place. I say it's worked pretty well...

Nuclear-armed nations who ask that other nations disarm whatever nukes they have, or to ask other nations to stop nuclear weapons development are truly being hypocritical, don't you think?

The world would be a lot better off with nations like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India not having nukes. But until countries like United States and others walk the talk, how can we expect any real progress in convincing nations to give up on nuclear weapons?