Israel is Nuculear.

Jimmy Carter has confirmed what has long been speculated, that Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, something that Israel has always refused to either confirm or deny. There are no weapons inspectors in Israel and Israel has never been a signatory of the NPT.

Jimmy CarterI am not sure what is more worrying, that there are so many nuclear weapons in such a volatile region, that a nation of the Middle East was able to produce them without weapons inspections or without having to sign up to the NPT or the fact that Israel promises not to use them first.

Israel is not my favourite nation. Any nation built on terrorism, any nation whose first Prime Minister ordered a terrorist bombing on a Hotel on his way to power, and any nation built at the expense of another people is going to be problematic. And Israel is all that and more.

Unfortunately it isn’t possible to correct past mistakes, and the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake, but the fact that after 60 years we are still in the same position is incredible and the fault of only one nation, Israel.

Britain always seems to get the blame for the situation in the Middle East, but Britain, although they initially supported a Jewish home within Palestine, were always opposed to a Jewish state and it is this opposition that caused the Jews to turn on Britain, that and the fact that the British Government tried to limit the number of Jewish immigrants arriving in Palestine each year as it was having a detrimental effect on the Palestinians themselves.

The Jews launched many terrorists attacks on the British, the most famous is the King David Hotel Bombing – the deadliest terrorist attack up until the 1980s. If any blame can be laid at the feet of the British it is at this point, for instead of fighting these Jewish terrorists, the British quit. After World War II the British understandably had no stomach for further fighting, especially against the ‘victims’ of WWII, the Jews.

Israel of course went on to blame Britain for the King David Hotel Bombing:

“And if it is true, as the British liars have announced, that the explosion occurred at 12:37, they still had 22 minutes at their disposal in order to evacuate the building of its residents and workers.
Therefore responsibility for loss of life among civilians rests solely with them.”

This of course demonstrating the sick mentality that pervades the nation of Israel. The bombing was recently commemorated and they even erected a plaque blaming the British in an attempt to shift blame.

I am sure that if I were to suggest that Hitler, having made no secret of his anti-Semitic views and having been quite mean to the Jews for several years, gave ample warning and therefore should be wholly exonerated for the holocaust because, for reasons known only to themselves, the Jews did not evacuate in advance of the Master Plan, meaning that the responsibility for the loss of life rests solely with the Jews – I would be thought of as insane, callous or at the very least anti-Semitic. Yet many had considerably longer than 22 minutes…..

In the aftermath a suggestion was made to round up 100 Jewish men and shoot them, then blame them for not moving out of the way of the bullets quick enough, this was rejected by senior officials on the ground, sadly.

Incidentally there was no warning call to the Hotel, at least none that mentioned a bomb or an imminent explosion. But even if there had been, and it wasn’t something along the lines of “Get out now or you’re all going to die!” it doesn’t excuse the act itself, the very fact that even now, the Israelis celebrate the incident and blame the British for the loss of life, doesn’t instil me with confidence regarding the Israeli claim of ‘not being the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.’

Calling the Syrians and telling them a nuclear missile is on the way is not the same as the Syrians using nuclear weapons first.

If any nation were to blame for the current rise in extremism, the problems of the Middle East and modern day terrorism, it is Israel, after all they started it. By putting their religion before all else the Jewish Zionist’s began this current trend of religious fanaticism. The early Zionists were prepared to sacrifice their own people to make the point, 15 Jews died in the King David Hotel Massacre.

The Israeli’s also displayed, quite clearly, to all of their neighbours that terrorism gets results, if the terrorists are prepared to stoop low enough. The Israeli’s thought it acceptable to use whatever means necessary to get what they wanted, now they complain when their enemies do the same.

The Deir Yassin massacre in which Israeli militants attacked a Palestinian village and killed over a hundred civilians in cold blood, displayed the kind of callousness that would make the Nazi’s proud.

The Israeli’s also captured two British sergeants, in a similar manner to which Hezbollah captures Jewish soldiers today, and hanged them, their crime:

1. Illegal entry into the Hebrew homeland.
2. Membership of a British criminal terrorist organisation known as the Army of Occupation which was responsible for the torture, murder, deportation, and denying the Hebrew people the right to live.
3. Illegal possession of arms.
4. Anti-Jewish spying in civilian clothes.
5. Premeditated hostile designs against the underground.

Those charges were written 60 years ago, yet you could replace Hebrew and Jew with Muslim and it could fit any terrorist group in the Middle East today.

After this incident the commanders could not contain their troops and British soldiers attacked Jews, opening fire on a bus killing five innocent people. I do not condone the murders of innocent people, however the Jews must have known what would happen that night, and shouldn’t have gone out, the responsibility for the deaths rests solely with the Jews themselves.

The Israeli’s have already shown that anything is acceptable to gain the Jewish homeland and once gained, anything is acceptable to keep it. Would the Israeli’s use nuclear weapons even if it meant despoiling their lands and killing their own people? I believe that history answers that question.

Advertisements

36 responses to “Israel is Nuculear.

  1. Pingback: Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons - is that good? « 1southernillinoisprogressive’s Weblog

  2. Pingback: Holy land has hundreds of nuclear weapons : Godless Business

  3. I was shocked to see you over at a blog I linked to today in my news roundup.

    Food for thought and I can’t really argue with you, but, I am much happier aligned with Israel than Iran or its insane lackey’s…

  4. I was reading your blog and followed the link out of interest and I admit I was surprised by the response. It’s ironic that the very people that criticise the extremists for blindly following propaganda and ignoring reason, facts and history, seem quite content to do the same thing for their own ‘side.’ Killing innocents civilians is never justified and certainly shouldn’t be mocked or viewed as payback.

    A large part of my animosity towards Israel is, I admit, personal. Like many in Europe (and the US too) I lost family members during WWII, sadly I also lost some after WWII had ended, to Jewish terrorists in Palestine. The irony of that certainly wasn’t lost on my family.

    It still shocks me how the world appears to have forgotten these events, even though they clearly are a large part of the current problem.

    That said if it were a choice between supporting Iran and its terrorist groups, or supporting Israel, I too would have to say Israel. Despite what many other blogger’s seem to suggest, Iran is no innocent victim of Western propaganda.

    But I don’t think we should just forgive Israel for its past crimes, especially when they refuse to even acknowledge them.

  5. Blah blah blah, spew spew spew…just another wanna-be intellectual from the seditious liberal UK (Islam) crowd….lol. Not even close.

  6. I suppose this is where I am supposed to edit your comment to make it appear that you said something contrary to your real post.

    I am also meant to make childish references to the size of your penis, your sexuality and bizarrely your mothers genitalia.

    Before then posting your email address and location.

    Of course I won’t, I’d need to do that if you actually posted something that proved me wrong, made me look stupid or that I didn’t want to hear, right?

    I won’t post your email address and location, just in case you were stupid enough to use your real ones, and judging by your comments, you probably are.

  7. Sixty years after its establishment by an internationally recognized act of self-determination, Israel remains the only state in the world that is subjected to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels; whose policies and actions are obsessively condemned by the international community; and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged not only by its Arab enemies but by segments of advanced opinion in the West.
    http://www.shimshon9.com

  8. Thanks for the comment.

    Israel has a unique position in history. No other nation was created by terrorism. If you look at the Basque separatists, the Kurdish rebels, even the IRA you see that they all have something in common, they live in the land that they are trying to create, they were born the land that they were trying to create, their fathers and grandfathers were born in the land that they were trying to create. This was not the case with Israel, most if not all, of the Zionists were foreign born, and not just foreign but hundreds of generations of foreign.

    Before the Zionist state, Jews were the minority. Christians accounted for slightly more of the population at about 10%, Muslims about 80%. Today just 2% of those living in Palestine are Christian and 16% Muslim. Where do you think all those people went? More to the point where did all these Jews come from? Then you wonder why the Palestinians, and even the Christians of the region are angry.

    Israel’s policies and actions are the root cause of the consternation of the international community. The sad fact is that the way that Israel was created is no longer the problem, but the way that it still refuses to allow a Palestinian state, the way that it has stolen more and more land from the Palestinians, its borders today are NOT what was internationally agreed but keeping Palestine in a perpetual state of limbo allows it to steal more and more land. This elitism is the problem.

    The worse thing about Israel is the way that it conducts itself. It views Jews as superior, so superior that they can rightfully and in good conscience take whatever land they want, mistreat the Palestinians as much as they want, after all they are lesser beings, and ignore international law. The only nation that Israel is comparable to is Nazi Germany, and the irony of that is not lost on those outside of Israel.

  9. I am not entirely sure that Israeli foriegn policy is predicated on the belief that Jews are in some way superior. The seizure of Palestinian territory in the past combined with the heavy handed tactics of the IDF seem to me, to be more indicative of a nation that acts with the knowledge that it is entirely surrounded by hostile nation states with which could potentially re-unite in military force as in the past.

    In the case of Egypt this would now seem unlikely however in the case of Iran, given the belligerent commentary from Tehran in the past few years, the Isreali`s probably feel that thier stance, especially related to Israel having the nuclear option is well justified.

    I am not saying that these reasons excuse Israel entirely for its actions however I dont agree with simply labelling them as the villians and having done with it.

    If it came to either Tehran or Tel Aviv dictating policy in the wider world I know who I would pick

  10. Charlie, Read this:
    http://www.shimshon9.com/2008/06/06/palestine-in-1695/
    There has been Jews in Israel for several thousand years

  11. shimshon9,

    I did read that, which is why I mentioned what I did about the population. I haven’t read that book so will have to take your word for it that Jews were the majority in Palestine at that time, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they were the minority when the Jewish state was created.

    The Palestinians were removed from their homes using violence and the threat of violence to make way for foreign immigrants and have never been allowed to return to their homes. The Israeli Government passed a law in 1948 disbarring them from being able to return home.

    The Zionists did everything they could to set up the Jewish state, and in some cases sunk pretty low because they thought that the end justified the means, so surely you must understand the resentment and the passion of the Palestinians? All they want after all is their homeland back.

  12. Thank you for the comment Mark.

    While I agree that the situation in Israel is not as clear cut as I may have made it sound, I don’t think that it can be disputed that Palestinians are second class citizens within Israel, and non citizens in the surrounding countries. I do also believe that it is about Jewish superiority, after all, even after thousands of years, the Jews still believe that they have a divine right to live in Palestine, even if that means displacing the current population.

    I also don’t think that the surrounded by enemies line really holds water, although the Israeli’s seem to use it quite a lot. They used violence and intimidation to remove the Palestinians from their homes, and then passed laws preventing them from returning, thus creating the enemies that surround them. It all comes back to Jewish superiority, the reason that the Palestinians were removed is because the Jews did not want to be a minority within their own state.

    I agree with you that the situation isn’t entirely of the making of Israel. The Palestinians put all of their faith into their neighbours aiding them and setting things right, and I honestly do not believe any of the Arab-Israeli wars were for altruistic reasons. Israel’s neighbours didn’t want the threat of a powerful neighbour in the region, and they also saw the opportunity to divide Palestine between them, which they did in 1948. I don’t think this had anything to do with religion, but if the bankers of the world and the most powerful country in the world combined to create a state on your doorstep, you’d understandably be concerned.

    And I’d say that concern was justified, after all Israel now has almost complete control of the region. What other nation can launch invasions and air strikes on it’s neighbours with complete impunity? Can strike facilities (nuclear or otherwise) within a neighbouring sovereign state, without resistance or reprisals? Can fly its fighters over the residence of a neighbouring President in an act of intimidation?

    Egypt, Jordan and Syria and co were just trying to sort out who was the real power in the region, after Turkey of course, they weren’t helping the Palestinians. I am sure that had Israel been annihilated, we’d have had sixty years of wars in the Middle East anyway.

    Likewise I do not believe that Fatah or Hamas have the interests of the Palestinian people at heart, like all terrorism it has now become about power. Like the IRA, Hamas would find it difficult to cope with any sort of peace as it would remove not only their reason for being, but the reason for their support. As the recent civil strife their showed, it is all about power. These kinds of people use conflict and anger for their own ends. The Palestinians really have no one fighting in their corner, their cause has been hijacked by every nut job extremism in the Middle East, all whilst lending no support to the people themselves. If anyone is surrounded by enemies, it is the Palestinians.

    If it came to either Tehran or Tel Aviv dictating policy in the wider world I know who I would pick

    I agree, but it shouldn’t come to that. Do we really want a nation that in its infancy was run by terrorists to control the region? Israel may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still no angel as I am sure six million Palestinians would agree.

  13. The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.

  14. You have to take into account the Palestinian position and situation at the time. They had a choice of having their nation divided up, or not. Is it surprising that they wanted to keep their whole country?

    As Benny Morris puts it:

    “Above all let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumour of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.”

    Would the Israel of today accept the division of modern day Israel, going back to the UN plan of 1947? No, they would not and have not. So it is ironic that the Israeli’s have such a difficult time understanding why the Palestinians made the choices that they did in the 1940s.

  15. Did you know that there was never any country called Palestine? Did you know that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people?

    The ideas that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian land, and that the Palestinian people are fighting for their land, have been accepted by most of the governments of the world and by most of the media in the world. But if you read on, you will see that these two claims are the biggest lies ever deliberately perpetrated on humanity.

    Check out any map of the Middle East and see for yourself. You will find Palestine listed as a region as it always has been, but definitely not a country. We can locate the Mojave Desert on the map, but we still do not recognize it as our 51st state, let alone a country. Similarly, the region of Siberia is a region not a state. Or the Sahara is a region not a state, etc. Neither is Palestine a state. It never was a country, just a region.

    Importantly, the Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic, Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area, he wrote he found nothing but a wasteland.

    The fact simply is that there are no Palestinians. These people are Arabs like all other Arabs, and they happen to live in a region called Palestine. They are not a separate people.

    What makes a separate people? Religion, language, culture, garb, cuisine, etc. The Arabs in Palestine speak the same language, practice the same religion, have the same culture, etc., as all the other Arabs. The few minor differences that exist between them are like the minor differences that exist between the American Northerners and Southerners, Easterners and Westerners… but they are still all Americans. People in the south of France are quite different from the people in the north, but they are still all French. These inconsequential differences do not make a people.

    The Arabs living in Syria or Jordan, etc., are also the same Arabs, but they are each a separate nation because they each have a separate country. The so-called Palestinians want a separate country because they claim to be a separate nation. They are not. They were never a separate people before the new state of Israel. How did they become one now?

    Because of these lies, the so-called “Palestinians” feel justified in sending suicide bombers to kill women, children, babies, old men, old women and noncombatant citizens. Because of these lies, the United Nations and the media of the world are condemning Israel who is acting less harshly than any other country would act in retaliation for such heinous attacks. What is the United States doing in Afghanistan, a totally foreign country? Killing Afghanis. Why? Because they attacked us on Sept. 11. I understand this. But why do they not understand that that is exactly what Israel is doing, only on a much smaller scale?

    Ask yourself this: Should the use of terror ever be rewarded? When is the use of terrorism justified as a military tactic? As a political tactic? As an economic tactic? What implications does this hold for future conflicts?

    Let us examine the truths here:

    1) There never was a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. There are no Palestinian people, per se. Rather, these are Arabs living in a region that historically has been called many things, including “Palestine.”

    2) Israel did not go to war against a Palestinian state and occupy its land. Rather, Israel was attacked by six Arab countries at once. She defended herself, defeated her attackers, and won the so-called territories, not from the Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt.

    3) Jerusalem was never the capital of any state but Israel. It was certainly never the capital of a country that never existed. Why should the Palestinians get any part of it? Because they want it? Because they have terrorists?

    4) Jerusalem, under the current Israeli control, is a free and open city. Israel, as a democracy, guarantees freedom of religion within its borders. Contrast this fact with areas that have come under Palestinian occupation. What percentage of Christians have left in recent years because they cannot stand the harassment and persecution?

    5) Most Arabs living in Palestine today are not indigenous to the region. It was not until after the Jews had changed deserts and swamps into a productive and thriving land that the Arabs started migrating there. Arafat himself was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt. Did you know that?

    The belief that giving the Palestinians a state will bring peace is a delusion. The truth is that they want it all. The short-term goal is a state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. The long-term goal is a state which includes all of “historical Palestine,” including Jordan.

    How do I know this?

    The late Faisal Husseini, Arafat’s Jerusalem representative, a man who was cultured, sophisticated and considered the most moderate of all the Palestinians, shortly before his death on May 31, 2001, expressed his true feelings in an interview with the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav. Husseini said: “We must distinguish the strategies and long-term goals from the political-phased goals which we are compelled to accept due to international pressures.” But the “ultimate goal is the liberation of all of historical Palestine.” Explicitly he said: “Oslo has to be viewed as a Trojan Horse.”

    He even added and clarified that it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as “temporary” steps, as “gradual” goals, because in this way, “We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them.” He also differentiated between “strategic,” long-term, “higher” goals, and “political” short-term goals dependent on “the current international establishment, balance of power” etc.

  16. Thank you for the comment, some interesting points.

    There was a Kingdom of Israel, a Kingdom of Judah and also a Kingdom of Judea but all of these ceased to exist in any real form at least 2700 years ago. The area has been known as Syria/Palestine for about 2000 years, when the Jews were expelled from the area by the Romans. Since then the area of Palestine has been part of many Empires, and Jews were a minority in the region.

    Declaring that there can never be a state named ‘Palestine’ because there never has been a state called Palestine, simply doesn’t follow. In antiquity there was never a state called Greece, there were Greeks, but never a unified nation known as Greece until 1829. That doesn’t mean that the Greeks shouldn’t have had their own nation because they hadn’t had one before does it?

    There was a state called Philistine, which is where the term Palestine comes from.

    Judah, Judea, Galilee and Samaria have all at various times been regions of other empires.

    Siberia gets its name from the Khanate of Sibir (Siberian Khanate) and was an independent state. Incidentally the Mojave Desert is named after the Mojave people who live in the region, although not an independent state, it was still an autonomous region at one point. Most regions get their names from the people that live there, or that have lived there in the past.

    Parts of Palestine were inhabited by Bedouin, but millions of Arabs lived there too. It is a feeble justification that the land was actually unoccupied, the Ottomans and the British kept records, and there are 10 million Palestinian refugees that prove the fact that someone was living there.

    Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan

    Not true, there were 100,000 Bedouin in the Mandate of Palestine at the time of the British census in 1922 and more than 600,000 Arabs over all. There was actually less than 100,000 Jews living in Palestine and Jordan at the same time, in other words there were more Bedouin there than Jews.

    The fact simply is that there are no Palestinians. These people are Arabs like all other Arabs, and they happen to live in a region called Palestine. They are not a separate people.

    I am sorry but that simply does not make sense. You could equally make the same statement about Israel e.g. There are no Israeli’s, they are Jews, they are not a separate people called Israeli’s, they are Jews like other Jews around the world, that just happen to live in a region called Israel. There is nothing that separates an Israeli Jew from a Polish, Russian, or American Jew.

    Whatever these people choose to call themselves is irrelevant, the fact remains that they lived there. You cannot just say that, as they are Arabs, they should live in another Arab country, like the rest of the Arabs.

    Arabs are Arabs and Jews are Jews, Palestinians are both Arab and Jew. The Arabs and Jews that lived in Palestine actually have more in common with each other than with those that have since emigrated there. Arabs are also a semitic people, Arabic is a semitic language.

    What makes a separate people? Religion, language, culture, garb, cuisine, etc. The Arabs in Palestine speak the same language, practice the same religion, have the same culture, etc., as all the other Arabs.

    Ironically, this is what destroys your whole argument. The Israeli’s practice the same religion, have the same language, culture, garb, cuisine, and so on, as other Jews around the world, does that make them less Israeli? You are claiming that the Palestinians are just part of a diaspora whilst saying that the most famous diaspora can have a separate nation but still be Jewish elsewhere.

    Because of these lies, the so-called “Palestinians” feel justified in sending suicide bombers to kill women, children, babies, old men, old women and noncombatant citizens.

    True enough, the Palestinians have been lied to and about, and they are convinced to carry out heinous acts in the name of ‘Palestine’, when in reality they are serving the needs of nations such as Iran and Syria. Palestine is used as a political football by many nations. The Palestinians should have learnt early on that they are on their own, especially when, after the Israeli’s took most of their land, the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians took the rest. I do not condone terrorism, nor do I believe there is ever a justification for such acts, but remember, the Jews were doing it first, they too killed women, children, old men, old women and babies. As you are reading this you’re probably already trying to justify it or somehow say the circumstances were different, which is precisely how the Palestinians justify it to themselves today.

    Israel is very heavy handed, that is what the world sees. The actions carried out by Israel would be a war crime in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other nation. You cannot carry out collective punishment, you cannot cut off water, electricity, fuel from a whole population. You cannot segregate a whole section of the population against their will, not even in occupied countries during a war.

    Ask yourself this: Should the use of terror ever be rewarded? When is the use of terrorism justified as a military tactic? As a political tactic?

    No, which is why I am still frustrated that the terrorist attacks carried out by Zionists in Palestine during the 1940s led to the creation of a Jewish state. That reward sowed the seeds of the current conflict.

    Let us examine the truths here:

    It is funny, if you were to change a few things it would be equally applicable to Israel, allow me to demonstrate….

    1) There hasn’t been a Jewish state for 2000 years, the people living there today are not indigenous to the region and are in fact ‘nationalists’ from many different countries.

    2) Palestine never declared war on the Jews yet it was attacked by Jewish Zionist settlers, its people displaced and it was betrayed by its Arab neighbours.

    3) Jerusalem was a Palestinian city, inhabited by Palestinians, few Jews lived there. Why should they have any part of a city that they abandoned millennia ago leaving just a few thousand people behind?

    4) Jerusalem was a fair and free city under Palestinian rule, all religions lived side by side. Contrast this to the Jerusalem of today, where 70% were Muslim, 18% Christian and 12% Jewish in 1922, now 68% are Jewish, 30% Muslim and just 2% Christian. This conflict is often painted as Judaism Vs Islam, but Christians have also left in droves under Israeli occupation.

    5) Most Israeli’s are not indigenous to Israel, most only moved there to create a nation state or to move into the newly created state of Israel. The vast majority were Eastern European and Russian, including almost all of the early leaders such as David Ben Gurion, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres. Most of the indigenous, i.e. Palestinian Jews have also been displaced, did you know that?

    Let’s be clear, I do not blindly support the Palestinian cause over the Israeli one, I understand both side of the conflict. But whilst Israel mistreats all Palestinians, takes more and more of their lands, demolishes their homes, allows settlers to intimidate and harass ordinary Palestinians, then they are doing 80% of the propaganda for people like Hamas.

    I don’t know anything about Faisal Husseini, but it isn’t surprising that some Palestinians think like this, after all the land was originally their’s and after 60 years of the Israeli’s denying their right to exist, I can see why many Palestinians see the reverse as their ultimate goal.

  17. charlie..
    Fantastic reply.
    The trouble is that history is becoming twisted and convoluted by the newer forces behind the curtain.
    The modern soceity ( worldwide )in general can be duped with lies from powers that run the media.( interesting project for you there….look at who are the influential figures in the media..and what the religion / backgrounds they are).
    You show a understanding of this topic which i find quite brilliant. i can see by your replies/comments that you have approached the subject unbiast and factually based on historys archives.
    I am a british citizen, (christian family ),though i would say i am not at all religious, and have no biast one way or another.
    This i will say, it is Palenstine NOT israel.
    the Israelis are without doubt terrorists in there actions.( They have no reason/excuse for there behaviour ..it is nothing short extreme terrorism on there part)
    Infact never have i seen such propaganda,lies and inhumane treatments as the Israelis dish out.
    It seems that any opposition to the Israelis / jewish people way of thinking is declared as terrorism been born.
    A Dangerous mindset i feel they hold, and with ringfencing there schools,communitys it will only seperate and brainwash the next generation of misguided jews to perpuate this cycle.

  18. Thank you for the comment Kyle.

    It is a difficult subject but unless both sides start to see if from the side of the other, the problems will only perpetuate.

  19. Charlie…i disagree with that comment.

    “It is a difficult subject but unless both sides start to see if from the side of the other, the problems will only perpetuate.”
    ……………………………………………………………

    my view is this
    There will never be a solution that everyone will be happy with!
    this type of situation needs strength and committment to what is right and nothing else.
    whats your view on what is Right…middle ground is for the weak.

  20. this type of situation needs strength and committment to what is right and nothing else.

    But who decides what is right? You cannot boot out the Israeli’s, destroy their state and send them all ‘home’, that too would be genocide and one genocide does not excuse another.

    The only real solution is Middle Ground, a two state solution based on the UN plan of 1947. Palestine should not be restricted to the West Bank and Gaza, nor should the Israeli’s keep Jerusalem.

    But no one should expect the Israeli’s to leave, the time for that was in the 1940s.

    There will never be a solution that everyone will be happy with!

    Agreed. The Israeli’s will have to give up large parts of the lands that they believe are theirs and the Palestinians will have to give up any hope of regaining all of Palestine. Neither side will be completely happy, naturally the Israeli’s will probably be most against it, as they’ll be worse off than today.

  21. charlie.
    I agree that Israeli’s cannott be booted out? but to hold all the cards in a land that is not theres is Wrong.

    I agree with you that 2 state plan is needed as proposed in the UN plan.
    When was this plan proposed?
    What year are we in now?
    Who resists the plan with no room for diplomacy?

    There comes a time when talking and planning needs to be turned into action/committment!
    Would you agree?
    With this in mind Democracy should rule, for the good of ALL, not one set of people over another.

    History proves that it is Palenstine, yet its native people have the least say, and are oppressed in there own country.

    They are killed frequently by the Israeli’s, supported by the west with state of the art weaponry. ( A nuclear power ).

    To me this is a form of genocide.

    Yet the minority views of extremeist israelis win the day time and time again, with support of the Leaders of the West.

    The media gives twisted stories on what is happening with biast views. Propaganda poisions soceity into believing lies.
    people are dumbed down so eventually they vote on issues that they have been given incorrect facts about.
    History gets re-written based on lies.

    It stinks and nobody is doing anything accept propaganda and politics.

  22. Charlie – I have only just looked at this topic and I agree with most of your views. What I would really like to know – and I would welcome your or anyone else’s views – is why we should be SO afraid of Iranian nuclear weapons. Not that this development would actually be welcome (and I certainly do not like the Islamic regime), but everyone in the press – liberals as well as conservatives – seems to take it as read that it is totally unacceptable, even though those sworn enemies India and Pakistan have both got nukes, and of course so does Israel.

    • I think it is just because Iran is so belligerent. I mean, what other nation says things like this:

      “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”
      Times Online

      As a nation, I don’t really think that they are a nuclear threat to their neighbours. But as the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet, would you trust them to never sell/give away a nuclear device to be detonated in Europe or the US, to teach the West a lesson?

      I don’t really have a problem with nuclear weapons, or any nation having them except that it is a dead end weapon, I mean what is the use in destroying the land you’re trying to conquer, or defend for the next 1000 years? I am not really sure why any nation would want them. Pakistan could never use them against India, or vice versa and the fallout would rain on both nations. But these drawbacks make it an ideal weapon for terrorists, especially those serving a far away foreign power.

      Iran is an unstable regime fed on propaganda and led by milita in uniforms, with big sticks and a lot of power, the Revolutionary Guard. I wouldn’t trust them with fire, let alone nuclear weapons.

  23. Thanks Charlie. Well, the president of Iran (I can’t be bothered to spell out his name) certainly makes lots of belligerent and objectionable speeches. Nevertheless, Iran is not historically a belligerent nation, being more the victim of aggression than its originator – it was used as a pawn by the British and Russians in the 19C, and its democratically elected president was removed by a British and US conspiracy in the 1950s in order to install the pro-Western Pahlavi regime; and most notably and recently, it was invaded by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which at that time was being armed by the West. Some aggressor! It may sponsor “terrrorism” now – but this is against Israeli and Western sponsored regimes: I don’t believe it is any worse than any other regimes in the region, which is chronically unstable (actually, Iran is not that unstable and does at least hold elections). I am very disappointed that Obama seems unable to rid himself of the USA’s belief that it has a right to interfere with every other country. Let’s remember that the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons is the USA – against a non-nuclear power and against not one but two defenceless cities.

    • Hi Peter.

      Iran is not historically a belligerent nation, being more the victim of aggression than its originator

      Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it. If you mean Iran as in modern Iran, then I see your point, but I think that it more to do with a ‘victim’ facade that Iran likes to hide behind. Historically Persians have always been a warlike people, just ask the Greeks, Romans, Indians etc.

      Iran may not have ‘attacked’ its neighbours in recent years, but it was fighting other Empires right into the 20th Century. Although the Iraqi’s started the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians certainly seized the opportunity to try and spread the revolution and fought well inside Iraq, long after they could have ended the war. Their tactics, using young boys to clear mine fields by blowing up the mines – with the their feet, and using young girls in unarmed human wave attacks are hardly passive, or those of a benevolent regime.

      As for being pawns, they certainly were not pawns when the wars began, it was a clash of Empires, Russian, Ottoman, and Persian fighting over Georgia. If I recall correctly, all of the wars of that period concerning Persia, were started by Persia.

      I agree that the coup was unjustified, though understandable, and I think that is what started Iran’s international ‘victim’ act. But according to Iran, the democratically elected Prime Minister was himself the architect of the coup and was serving British interests! The coup was really an attack on Shia Islam, at least according to modern Iran. Any nation that lies to its own people to serve the ends of the ruling elite is, in my view at least, not to be trusted.

      It may sponsor “terrrorism” now – but this is against Israeli and Western sponsored regimes:

      But that’s the beauty of it, such actions can be skewed to include whomever the rulers decide, Iraq, Afghanistan, anyone is a ‘puppet of a foreign power’ even their Prime Minister it seems. The Iranians were also sponsoring terrorist attacks in Iraq, and probably still are.

      As for no worse than others in the region, they are far worse. Most of the IEDs and other equipment used against British and US forces in Iraq, was of Iranian origin.

      Then of course there is Lockerbie. Less than six months after the US shot down an Iranian passenger jet, a US passenger jet explodes over Britain. I don’t think that is a coincidence, nor did the DIA.

      I don’t believe it is any worse than any other regimes in the region, which is chronically unstable (actually, Iran is not that unstable and does at least hold elections)

      So did Stalin and oddly the result always came out as he had planned. Seriously though, a stable regime does not suffer several months of bloody protests, nor need to cut off internet and telephones nationwide, in order to remain in power.

      I am very disappointed that Obama seems unable to rid himself of the USA’s belief that it has a right to interfere with every other country.

      I’m not. The only thing different about Obama was his skin colour. I think that Berlusconi had it right when he said that he didn’t understand what the fuss was about, he’s just a normal man with a tan. Obama is a politician, skin colour, sex, nationality are all irrelevant; politicians haven’t changed since Ancient Rome. They serve their own interest first, the nations second.

      Let’s remember that the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons is the USA – against a non-nuclear power and against not one but two defenceless cities.

      Yes, and I think that we are fortunate that they did. It has ensured that no nation has ever wanted to do it again after seeing the carnage and the after effects. With any luck nuclear weapons will never be used again.

      That said, would you trust a nation that uses young boys and girls to clear mine fields, or as cannon fodder, without a care, never to use nuclear weapons? Such a callous disregard for their own people, makes me nervous for their neighbours.

  24. Charlie, I just want to point out that everyone seems to be disagreeing with you on Israel because Israel and Jews since WW1 and especially WW2 (and late 1960s in the USA) have controlled our media and politics. White supremicism is pointed out and conditioned by this propoganda but the fact that society as a whole is not neutral but in reality jewish supremicists and black supremicists is kept secret. The truth is that most people have been conditioned by such propoganda to be pro Jewish without even realizing it.

    George Washington, the first US president, warned the US to not form permanent foreign alliances or get involved in stupid foreign wars. I doubt even 10% of Americans would agree with the wise and prescient warnings of our founding fathers. He is much like the intelligient Winston Churchill.

    • Thanks for the comments Jake.

      Interesting points, and I agree about the biased nature of the media regarding Israeli/Jewish affairs. They seem to be able to break UN resolutions and international laws with impunity.

  25. wow, there is a lot here! Charlie, if you are going back to ancient history (as you are, and why not?) yes, I know that the Persian Empire was a sort of archetypal oriental despotism which, till defeated by Alexander, tried to conquer the Greeks, whom we all love. My comments were meant to apply to relatively recent history; no doubt, the Iranians celebrate their own long-ago imperial successes and at the same time complain about how they have been treated by the Brits, Russians, yanks, Iraqis, and so on – doesn’t that sound like human nature? They are no doubt a warlike people historically – non-warlike peoples tend to just disappear when swallowed up by more aggressive tribes (so that we do not even know of them). There is too much in your various comments for me to respond to immediately, but your last one – justifying the US nuke attacks on Japan – does relate to my initial query. Iranian nukes are arguably justifiable as a deterrent to Israeli nukes – I would not trust Israel not to start a nuclear war if it for once lost a conventional war and if it felt it could not rely on its usual US support. Jake, I sort of agree with you over Israeli propaganda, given the power of the US Jewish lobby, but I am not sure how “black supremacists” fit in – Jews and Blacks have not mixed that well in recent US history (eg Louis Farrakhan).

    • Hi Peter,

      …the Iranians celebrate their own long-ago imperial successes and at the same time complain about how they have been treated by the Brits, Russians, yanks, Iraqis, and so on – doesn’t that sound like human nature?

      Yes, but that kind of hypocrisy really grates on me, particularly every time such a nation starts spouting ‘colonial, imperialist etc’ like the recent comments of an Icelandic minister stating that Britain was once again behaving like a colonial power or something along those lines.

      It is a pet peeve of mine that the Iranians, Greeks, Romans you name it, can be rightly proud of their Empire, and the world marvels at their amazing feats, yet us Brits have to be ashamed of ours,  and still get labelled imperialists colonials each time we mention the dreaded E word. But again, that is a rant for another day!

      The Iranians still think of themselves as those warlike people, I wrote about a parade showing Iranian might, where they were showing of a captured British Dinghy. The trophies may have changed, but the mentality has not.

      I would not trust Israel not to start a nuclear war if it for once lost a conventional war and if it felt it could not rely on its usual US support.

      Me either. The Israeli’s went 2000 years without a nation, but I can’t see them doing it again. I don’t agree with the ‘if I cannot have it, no one shall!’ mentality. I’d rather lose England, than destroy it, which is why I don’t understand why Iran wants a weapon it can never, and should never, use.

      They’d be better off without them. That way Israel could never have an excuse for using them on Iran.  I don’t agree with the deterrent aspect, after all Israel would use them in a war with Iran if it were losing, regardless of whether Iran had them or not.

      Perhaps it is my ‘capital punishment’ way of thinking, but I think any nation that uses nuclear weapons against another nation, should be wiped out by the rest of the nuclear club. There should be zero tolerance. As Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl have shown, no matter where the bombs go off, we’ll all suffer. But I also think that is why no nation will ever officially use them, they’ll be used by paramilitary/terrorist groups.

  26. Charlie – re the British Empire, I suppose the aminosity is because it is still within living memory, unlike say the Persian empire. Your comments about Iranian terrorism – actually I think the term “terrorism” should be restricted to the targeting of cvilians, not of heavily armed invaders like the US and UK “liberators” of Iraq. State terror is far more damaging than that of non-state groups (whether we call them guerrillas or whatever). Iran’s crimes are in fact pretty minor compared with those of the Americans who did, after all shoot down a civilian plane, backed the Saddam regime in its invasion of Iran, and turned a blind eye to Iraqui gassing of the Kurds. US adventures in Vietnam and Iraq have cost millions of lives, and its attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki count as state terror as far as I am concerned; this action, and the consequent devastation to which you refer, in fact spurred the USSR to make its own nuclear weapons. Acquisition of nukes by small terrorist groups sounds dangerous, but the technology has been around a long time now, and Iran’s own slowness in making them shows that actually producing effective weapons is not a simple matter.

    • Hi Peter,

      ..actually I think the term “terrorism” should be restricted to the targeting of cvilians, not of heavily armed invaders like the US and UK “liberators” of Iraq.

      So you think there is a large difference between sending men into another country with guns and tanks, and sending men in with ideals and bomb making equipment and knowledge? I don’t think the Iraqi’s on the ground saw it quite so black and white. I’d love to see a comparison of the number of civilians deaths after the fighting caused by the invaders, and those caused by the insurgents. But I guess it depends on how you’d measure it, in human lives or in numbers of feet on the ground?

      Personally I think that state sponsored terrorism is worse than an invasion, at least with an invasion there is a visible enemy to fight, a beginning and an end to the conflict. State sponsored terrorism rarely ends, there are no battle lines, no visible enemy, just lots and lots of innocent victims.

      Acquisition of nukes by small terrorist groups sounds dangerous, but the technology has been around a long time now, and Iran’s own slowness in making them shows that actually producing effective weapons is not a simple matter.

      Yes, and very expensive, which again begs the question, why does Iran want them?

      Iran’s crimes are in fact pretty minor compared with those of the Americans

      But is this because Iranians are a better class of people than Americans, with greater morals and ethics, or because Iran doesn’t have the same global reach or toys as the Americans? They are pretty harsh on their own population and invariably when such people move out of their own borders, they tend to be even harsher on their neighbours.

  27. Hi Charlie – Iran versus America on ethics – well no, I do not at all think Iran is better, quite the reverse; America is a progressive country which does have on the whole good ideals but has abused them by using its power to interfere when it should not have. You interpreted my phrase “state terrrorism” to mean state-sponsored terrorism, which is I think quite different (and I had not realised the distinction); what you refer to is what Iran does, ie sponsor informal groups like Hizbollah in Israel/Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq. By state terrorism I meant the targeting of civilians by the state, often in their own country (eg the 1970s terror regimes in various South American countries, and the earlier famous bombing of civilians at Guernica in the Spanish Civil War, also any disproportionate bombing of civilians, as in the Second World War bombing of Dresden and London and the nuking of Japan, or for that matter by the Israelis in Gaza and Lebanon). Your semi-justification of clear-cut invasion as against messy insurgencies: would you apply this to the putative Nazi invasion of Britain and whatever messy resistance our fathers’ generation would have put up against it?

    • would you apply this to the putative Nazi invasion of Britain and whatever messy resistance our fathers’ generation would have put up against it?

      Yes, if say the ‘resistance’ were actually Russian backed communists, Spanish fascists or someone else hoping to take advantage of the situation. It is one thing to stand up and resist an occupation (but I don’t think that we can call Iraq an occupation in the traditional sense, the occupied rarely dance in the street to celebrate being ‘conquered’), quite another for a foreign country to back that resistance with the intent of placing its own puppet on throne, so to speak.

      Such actions are just occupations by the back door. A true resistance can only really be by the people, aided by others, preferably like minded allies. Even Britain during WWII, although it aided the resistances of France, Yugoslavia, and Greece, didn’t hesitate to try and influence them or leave them high and dry when their interests conflicted.

  28. Charlie – as far as Iraq is concerned, the population was and is heavily divided between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, with the Sunnis dominant under Saddam – so, yes, there was initial relief among the other two groups that this loathsome tyrant had gone. But they would have liked to done the job themselves, rather than have foreigners do it for their own reasons (removing the supposed WMD, and controlling the oil industry being the obvious US motives) and the dancing was short-lived. The occupation led to anarchy, with thousands of innocent people being butchered for their religion. Eventually, the majority Shia defeated the Sunni, and al-Qaeda’s extremism upset even the Sunni who formed what support they had. As far as a hypothetical Britain under the Nazis, I assume there would have been a sort of Popular Front which would have included everyone, including Communists – this is what happened in occupied Europe. So it would have been impossible to support one lot and not the other – all would have united against the common enemy.

  29. Pingback: How do you curve objects on google sketchup? – ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FOR EVERYDAY LIFE

  30. Pingback: Holy land has hundreds of nuclear weapons | Godless Business

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s