Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Spy on Iran's nuclear facilities with Google Earth
ogleearth.com — New satellite images show where Iran is building its underground nuclear processing facilities. These images are available as overlays on top of Google Earth's base imagery, so you can compare construction progress from a few years ago. We used to have to take governments at their word - now anyone can buy satellite images and check for themselves.
belmeloro- 1164 diggs
- digg it
- gamblore, on 10/12/2007, -89/+29blow them up
- tanxadillo, on 10/12/2007, -80/+29Shut up you moran.
- compuXP, on 10/12/2007, -33/+46"Shut up you moran."
I believe you mean, "MORON", moron.... - xur17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Mirrored:
http://www.epicconstructions.com/mirror/ogleearth/ - tanxadillo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41Wow, I guess people didn't pick up on the irony or the internet term.
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Get+A+Brain+Morans%22&btnG=Search - jer4202, on 10/12/2007, -33/+3lmao, i love ironic people. I will call you a word that I can't even spell myself.
- Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -41/+42Blow them up for what?
Iran is abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty! They have the right under the treaty to pursue nuclear technology for power generation purposes. Should their rights be eroded because another nation makes baseless accusations? I would also remember before you answer that that nation has lied repeatedly in order to justify wars. It is also the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, on civilians, without warning, twice, in a war they provoked.
The U.S. on the other hand is the one planning to further violate the treaty by building more nukes... This is a classic case of deception through mis-direction.
This is not to say that they will not use this tech to produce nukes, I would put the probability very high that they will. But pre-emptively charging people for things is not what America is supposed to stand for. I can also understand their desire to have nukes, America has been a bully for far too long in the middle east(and the world). They are seeking to even the odds. Knowing the history of what the U.S. has done to these countries(and how it makes 9/11 look like a drop in the bucket), I can understand their desire. - tanxadillo, on 10/12/2007, -28/+20"Blow them up for what?"
They took 'r jerbs! - SpannerX, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1Nevermind, someone beat me to it.
- boxomojo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19"Should their rights be eroded because another nation makes baseless accusations?"
i'm not for invading iran but it's really many nations that are making accusations and i think the word baseless is generous. when you have the whole western world holding its breath because of iran there's probably some underlying problem that should be thoroughly explored before they allow it to even have the potential to build nuclear weapons. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"Why then, exactly, is it safe for us to have them but no one else?"
No one else? France, Israel, US, Russia, UK, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe North Korea. The list is even longer if you include possible nuclear states -- states that could become nuclear if given the need to do so within a very short time. (Places like Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.)
Truth is, it is different for democracies to have nuclear weapons than non-democracies, like Iran. (Iran is not a true democracy, although better than some -- like Saudi Arabia.) Why? Because democracies almost never war with other democracies. Almost all true international (non civil wars) conflicts in the world are between dictators and the like -- or between these states and democracies. As such, I think it's reasonable to say that democracies can have them to protect themselves from non-democracies. Non-democracies are too dangerous to be trusted.
Oh yeah, and that "whipe Israel off the map" comment -- that too. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37"Iran is abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!"
And your evidence is the pronouncements of the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Council?
"They have the right under the treaty to pursue nuclear technology for power generation purposes. Should their rights be eroded because another nation makes baseless accusations?"
As has already been pointed out, there are several nations, even those who oppose santions against Iran, who agree that Iran has violated the terms of the NPT. The accusations are not baseless.
"I would also remember before you answer that that nation has lied repeatedly in order to justify wars."
Which war would that be? Chechnya? Ivory Coast? Tibet?
Which war are you referring to?
"It is also the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, on civilians, without warning,..."
If you are referring to the US, we warned the Japanese on both occasions of our intent to bomb the Japanese mainland. In fact, we killed more Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of the nuclear bombings.
Would you rather the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed to death?
"..twice, in a war they provoked."
The US provoked Japan into war? Sure they did.
"The U.S. on the other hand is the one planning to further violate the treaty by building more nukes... This is a classic case of deception through mis-direction."
No, Iran signed the NPT. Now they want it both ways. They CAN just walk away from it. North Korea did. But they also give up the right to legally purchase technology related to nuclear energy production.
See how that works?
"This is not to say that they will not use this tech to produce nukes,"
Bingo.
"I would put the probability very high that they will. But pre-emptively charging people for things is not what America is supposed to stand for. I can also understand their desire to have nukes, America has been a bully for far too long in the middle east(and the world). They are seeking to even the odds."
Is that why they have funded Hamas to blow up Isreali civilians? Is that why they support global terrorism?
You are one sick ***** if you think that is how you even the odds.
"Knowing the history of what the U.S. has done to these countries(and how it makes 9/11 look like a drop in the bucket), I can understand their desire."
Great! Then if we live up to your hateful view of the US we should just nuke the ***** out of Iran until it glows.
Hate America some more pal. You probably live in some eurotrash country that has lived under our protection for decades and resents having been neutered. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12I am glad you made the distinction of the "western world". These are the countries that rely on controlling the middle east's oil. They can't take the chance of not having %100 control of the exploitation supplying their black habit.
- Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13"And your evidence is the pronouncements of the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Council?"
Iran has repeatedly said they seek to refine for power generation purposes, and nothing else. They are entitled to that by law.
"As has already been pointed out, there are several nations, even those who oppose santions against Iran, who agree that Iran has violated the terms of the NPT. The accusations are not baseless."
Nations which are all have a very good MO for staying in complete control.
"If you are referring to the US, we warned the Japanese on both occasions of our intent to bomb the Japanese mainland. In fact, we killed more Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of the nuclear bombings."
If by warning you mean the standard propaganda leaflets that were dropped by planes throughout the whole war then yes. There was no specific warning nor a valid reason to test the bombs on non-military targets.
"Would you rather the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed to death?"
Howabout a simpler solution, the U.S. quits provoking other countries into wars...
"The US provoked Japan into war? Sure they did."
Declassified in 1994, known about for a lot longer. Here is the document:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/mccollum.htm
"No, Iran signed the NPT. Now they want it both ways. They CAN just walk away from it. North Korea did. But they also give up the right to legally purchase technology related to nuclear energy production."
They have the right to their own research for their stated purpose. Clear and simple. Read the NNTP before you comment further on this.
"Is that why they have funded Hamas to blow up Isreali civilians? Is that why they support global terrorism?"
Is that why the U.S. funds Israel to blow up and intimidate the entire region? I guess it's not terrorism if Uncle Sam or the 51st state does it.
"You are one sick ***** if you think that is how you even the odds."
The west has held absolute power for too long and has been corrupted. Millions have died for our lust for oil, power, and money. I thinkn it is time that our stranglehold is loosened. What we are doing is wrong.
"Great! Then if we live up to your hateful view of the US we should just nuke the ***** out of Iran until it glows."
How is it hateful to own up to a history of terror through foreign policy? I was speaking of their desire to have a viable means to defend themselves. They have repeatedly demanded to be left alone, we keep on doing the opposite, finally after years of our terror they repay us with a miniscule percentage in return.
"Hate America some more pal. You probably live in some eurotrash country that has lived under our protection for decades and resents having been neutered."
Keep on living in your dichotomy fantasy world. Your country whom you love so much will chew you up and spit you out one day too. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22"Iran has repeatedly said they seek to refine for power generation purposes, and nothing else. They are entitled to that by law."
But radionuclides don't lie. The isotopes found by IAEA inspectors prove that the way that Iran is using nuclear material is not just for power production.
"Nations which are all have a very good MO for staying in complete control."
Yeah, we control Russia really well.
"If you are referring to the US, we warned the Japanese on both occasions of our intent to bomb the Japanese mainland. In fact, we killed more Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of the nuclear bombings."
"If by warning you mean the standard propaganda leaflets that were dropped by planes throughout the whole war then yes. There was no specific warning nor a valid reason to test the bombs on non-military targets."
No, by warning I mean we were already bombing the ***** out of the Japanese mainland.
"Howabout a simpler solution, the U.S. quits provoking other countries into wars..."
Yes, it is the "Blame America" crowd.
"Declassified in 1994, known about for a lot longer. Here is the document:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/mccollum.htm"
Oh, I see. The US *forced* Japan to bomb Pearl. Did they also force Japan to slaughter people in Manchuria? I must have missed that in the paper you have linked to.
You see, all the "Blame America" crowd would like people to believe is that Japan was a peaceful country just letting off a bit of steam on a weekend free-for-all.
Are there any Chinese or Korean posters who can set Nichevo straight? After all, I'm sure Nichevo will tell you that your countries provoked the Japanese into invading and slaughtering your families.
"They have the right to their own research for their stated purpose. Clear and simple. Read the NNTP before you comment further on this."
I have. They can do research. But when evidence is uncovered of activities outside of the NTP, they are referred to the UN Security Council for action.
As I said before, they CAN pull out of the NPT but it means losing legitimate access to nuclear technology.
"Is that why the U.S. funds Israel to blow up and intimidate the entire region? I guess it's not terrorism if Uncle Sam or the 51st state does it."
I don't support the use of US dollars for destruction of Palestinian homes. As for blowing up an entire region, Iraq and Iran did a pretty good job on their own without any help from Israel. What part of the region is Israel responsible for destroying again?
Oh, that was just your pointless rhetoric.
"The west has held absolute power for too long and has been corrupted. Millions have died for our lust for oil, power, and money. I thinkn it is time that our stranglehold is loosened. What we are doing is wrong."
No. You mis-read history. To have ABSOLUTE power, we would have destroyed the Arabs long ago and taken their land. That is what conquering nations do. Take a look at every empire before us. Provide me with one other historical example of what the US did in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII.
"How is it hateful to own up to a history of terror through foreign policy?"
Own up, or just parrot the Hate America crowd?
"I was speaking of their desire to have a viable means to defend themselves."
Defend themselves? When was Iran invaded by Israel or the US last?
Oh, it wasn't! It was invaded by a Soviet-supplied Iraq!
Don't look now, but your excuses are lame.
"They have repeatedly demanded to be left alone, we keep on doing the opposite, finally after years of our terror they repay us with a miniscule percentage in return."
So you support the murder of thousands at the hands of terrorists because of some perceived slight to the Arab world? Let me know so that I can disabuse you of that notion too.
"Keep on living in your dichotomy fantasy world."
Which one would that be?
"Your country whom you love so much will chew you up and spit you out one day too."
Perhaps. But your country is safe because my friends and family stand ready to take bullets for your family and friends. - j0c1f3r, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1omg tanxadillo your funny dood.......as for compuXP....with a llama name like that ...what do you expect eh...and jer4202....your just slow man...AHAHAHAHAHAHAH....o well....everyone cant be clued in.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11@geomon
Your responses were well parsed - nicely said.
Relative to terorists and extremist nations that support them:
- If the west does nothing - we are hated (and then bombed).
- If we reach out to them to broker peace- we are hated (and weakened).
- If we fight back, we are hated all the more.
- In a region where hatred has flourished for thousands of years, we didn't create that hatred and we surely won't end it.
Can we just sit back and let Iran develop Nuclear Weapons? With their current stated geo-political ambitions, hell no.
One thing is clear to me - we cannot act alone in this conflict. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran. When does it stop and how does it stop?
Yet, the further the human race moves down the collective nuclear path, the more likely our extinction surely becomes (especially with mad-men ~yearning~ to use this dark force of war).
What's the solution here? The US, the EU, Russia and China must adopt a common (no-nonsense) approach to this problem and then execute it consistently. If the US fails to develop that solidarity - then we will lose... even if we 'win.' - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12geomon is spot on here. Also, I guarantee you less Japanese people died in the bombing of Japan than would have died had the United States invaded Japan and fought its meager land army off, forcing the Japanese to use their multi-million man untrained reserves.
- koshak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Nichevo...just stop with the "They are doing it for power generation purposes." No they aren't. And if you truly think they are, you SERIOUSLY are certifiably insane.
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@ p9s50W5k4GUD2c6
"What's the solution here? The US, the EU, Russia and China must adopt a common (no-nonsense) approach to this problem and then execute it consistently. If the US fails to develop that solidarity - then we will lose... even if we 'win.'"
China and Russia have more to lose with militant Islamic groups obtaining nuclear capabilities. It would seem that the task of convincing them of the need to containing the spread of nuclear weapons in the region would be an easy one. But China sees a nuclear-capable Pakistan as a buffer against India, and anything that pre-occupies China is something that Russia would find useful. Courting radical Islam to further geo-political ambition is a dangerous game, only more so for those who live closest to the Middle East.
Russia and China need to step up and recognize the threat from radical Islam. - olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"Perhaps. But your country is safe because my friends and family stand ready to take bullets for your family and friends."
you really don't get it do you, the rest of the world wants you to STOP blowing the ***** out of other countries because this DOESN'T lead to peace. it doesn't lead to threats to other countries either, just to yours - don't try and make it sound like you're defending the rest of the world in this warmongering quest, you're trying to defend US interests in the most uncivilised manner possible. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12"But radionuclides don't lie. The isotopes found by IAEA inspectors prove that the way that Iran is using nuclear material is not just for power production."
The enrichment process for fuel and bombs is the same. I have not heard of this but before I call it propaganda please provide a link.
"Yeah, we control Russia really well."
Russia has no MO since they are also an oil exporter.
"No, by warning I mean we were already bombing the ***** out of the Japanese mainland."
So bombing a place in a war you started also gives you the right to nuke. I see...
"Yes, it is the "Blame America" crowd."
You mean the informed crowd that doesn't see black and white.
"Oh, I see. The US *forced* Japan to bomb Pearl. Did they also force Japan to slaughter people in Manchuria? I must have missed that in the paper you have linked to."
The provisions outlayed were followed, the Japanese people were eating tree-bark, yeah they were forced out of necessity.
"You see, all the "Blame America" crowd would like people to believe is that Japan was a peaceful country just letting off a bit of steam on a weekend free-for-all."
Black and white yet again, only a fool or a slanderer could deduct that. I am saying they were certainly no more evil than the U.S.
"Are there any Chinese or Korean posters who can set Nichevo straight? After all, I'm sure Nichevo will tell you that your countries provoked the Japanese into invading and slaughtering your families."
More lies and slander. Thanks for showing your true colors. I truly don't understand how you came up with this tangent. The U.S. certainly didn't go to war to save the Koreans or the Chinese.
"I have. They can do research. But when evidence is uncovered of activities outside of the NTP, they are referred to the UN Security Council for action."
Provide a link. All I have seen so far is that the council is asking for Iran to give up their rights. If you previous statements are any indications this is more lies.
"As I said before, they CAN pull out of the NPT but it means losing legitimate access to nuclear technology."
Prove that their current research isn't legitimate. This is more "Iraqi WMD" lies, who care if the west is "suspicious"?
"I don't support the use of US dollars for destruction of Palestinian homes. As for blowing up an entire region, Iraq and Iran did a pretty good job on their own without any help from Israel. What part of the region is Israel responsible for destroying again?"
Iraq had a lot of help from the U.S. during their war. They also had the green light to invade Kuwait from the U.S. I'll let you do your own research on this.
Israel launches missiles into foreign countries on a regular basis. Their nuclear presence is more than enough though.
"Oh, that was just your pointless rhetoric."
Are you denying Israel has led wars of aggression in the region? I suppose with your demonstrated lack of history knowledge that would be expected.
"No. You mis-read history. To have ABSOLUTE power, we would have destroyed the Arabs long ago and taken their land. That is what conquering nations do. Take a look at every empire before us. Provide me with one other historical example of what the US did in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII."
There are many more ways to subjugate and control, why destroy the Arabs when you can turn them into slaves economically.
The U.S. did nothing compared to Canada and others in terms of rebuilding. Thats in part why the terrorist let Canadian hostages go, that and they mind their own business. It has nothing to do with hating freedom.
"Own up, or just parrot the Hate America crowd?"
You feel the need to apply labels?
"Defend themselves? When was Iran invaded by Israel or the US last?"
Iran had their democracy overthrown by the U.S. who put the oppressive Shah in power. Iran was at war with Iraq(a U.S. proxy at the time) only 25 years ago. Bombed by the U.S. in 87. Iraq was bombed by Israel awhile back as well. You must live in a parallel reality or just be a typical ignorant sheep.
"Oh, it wasn't! It was invaded by a Soviet-supplied Iraq!"
Don't forget uncle sam supplying the chems for the WMD's and the heli's...
"Don't look now, but your excuses are lame."
Only to those with blinders on.
"So you support the murder of thousands at the hands of terrorists because of some perceived slight to the Arab world? Let me know so that I can disabuse you of that notion too."
More slander, your tactics are cheap. I would say that millions of Arabs dieing as a result of U.S. foreign policy is not a "perceived slight".
"Which one would that be?"
The one where you are the knight in white armor, and everyone else is evil.
"Perhaps. But your country is safe because my friends and family stand ready to take bullets for your family and friends."
You and your country are more dangerous than you realize, also give up the tired old speeches. If you believe that ***** your worse off than I thought. I'll let you in on the truth: you fight only to make the rich richer. Which explains why your draft dodging elite keep on finding producing new enemies. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"geomon is spot on here. Also, I guarantee you less Japanese people died in the bombing of Japan than would have died had the United States invaded Japan and fought its meager land army off, forcing the Japanese to use their multi-million man untrained reserves."
This is the logic of madmen.
Even less would have dies had you not provoked a war to begin with. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5"Yes, it is the "Blame America" crowd."
I forgot to add: Nice dodge! - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7""But radionuclides don't lie. The isotopes found by IAEA inspectors prove that the way that Iran is using nuclear material is not just for power production."
The enrichment process for fuel and bombs is the same. I have not heard of this but before I call it propaganda please provide a link."
You haven't heard of it before but call ***** on it non-the-less.
Go do your own research. Start with the IAEA's own website and then do some research on radionuclides.
As for the rest of your comments, I consider them to have the same level of veracity as the one you posted above. You put absolutely no thought in your comments and have the tumerity to dispute information you ADMIT you don't understand.
And then you call *my* comments propaganda.
Wow. You take the cake. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Even less would have dies had you not provoked a war to begin with. "
Nichevo's defense strategy for despots: Blame the Victim.
He would convict a rape victim for being the wrong place at the wrong time and for being "too seductive". "She was asking for it!", said Nichevo. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8"you really don't get it do you, the rest of the world wants you to STOP blowing the ***** out of other countries because this DOESN'T lead to peace."
Yeah, I remember the rest of the world bitching that the US didn't do enough to stop the slaughter in Kosevo. So the US stepped in and stopped it.
Is this the intervention the US is supposed to stop? - Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4>The U.S. on the other hand is the one planning to further violate the treaty by building more nukes...
The nukes the US will be building are replacement ones for those that have aged past their usability date. Tritium degrades quickly.
And under the SALT, SALT II, and START treaties the US has reduced its nuclear arsenal from a high of about 20,000 weapons in the 1980s, to now about 3,000 weapons. And the number gets smaller every year.
And I can find nothing in the NNPT that forbids the United States from building nuclear weapons, especially as replacements for older ones. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7"""But radionuclides don't lie. The isotopes found by IAEA inspectors prove that the way that Iran is using nuclear material is not just for power production."
The enrichment process for fuel and bombs is the same. I have not heard of this but before I call it propaganda please provide a link."
You haven't heard of it before but call ***** on it non-the-less."
I have looked for news clips and not found any. So I call *****.
"Go do your own research. Start with the IAEA's own website and then do some research on radionuclides."
I know what they are, I just can't find a link to an Iranian plot.
"As for the rest of your comments, I consider them to have the same level of veracity as the one you posted above. You put absolutely no thought in your comments and have the tumerity to dispute information you ADMIT you don't understand."
Another dodge, you are the one who has shown an utter lack of understanding, I asked for proof and you cannot provide it! I fully understand the science, I just can't find your accusation! Which is all this whole thing is: accusations(just like Iraqi WMD's)
"Wow. You take the cake."
I have provided ample evidence, you have not. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Geomon:
Why do you think that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is the way to go with this? I'm more scared of Bush's reaction than what Tehran are going to do. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5SLANDER ALERT:
""Even less would have dies had you not provoked a war to begin with. "
Nichevo's defense strategy for despots: Blame the Victim.
He would convict a rape victim for being the wrong place at the wrong time and for being "too seductive". "She was asking for it!", said Nichevo."
Poor logic, coherance, and morals. You spin things pretty nicely, do you work for the Govt?
I proved my case, the U.S.'s actions were pure evil, your either bitter at the loss of your fantasy world or a govt shill. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Geomon:
And the IAEA have found radionucliodes?
Rubbish. Uranium needs to be enriched to 2.5% for use as fuel. Weapons grade plutonium is much higher. So what you're saying is that the IAEA has found weapons grade plutonium in Iran. We know that isnt the case. Iran has every right to use nuclear power if they wish. Oil isnt going to last forever.
Yes the Iranian president is mouthing off about Israel but you'd actually have to be insane to nuke Israel. It's just hardline rhetoric.
Israel is the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons. Iran has the American army camped in Iraq. North Korea have been untouched because they may have nuclear weapons. And the response to Iran wanting nuclear weapons as a deterent from the Bush administration?
"We wouldn't rule out a nuclear preemptive strike"
If that's not going to accelerate a nuclear weapons program then I dont know what will. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"I have looked for news clips and not found any. So I call *****."
You won't find anything in detail about nuclear physics in news stories, dumbass.
"Go do your own research. Start with the IAEA's own website and then do some research on radionuclides."
I know what they are, I just can't find a link to an Iranian plot.
***** dumbass.
"I have provided ample evidence, you have not."
You haven't provided anything more than hot air.
Get a textbook and come back when you can refute anything that the IAEA (a group of nuclear engineers) has written about Iran's activities.
Otherwise you are nothing more than an obnoxious twit. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@nichevo "I proved my case, the U.S.'s actions were pure evil, your either bitter at the loss of your fantasy world or a govt shill."
"the U.S.'s actions were pure evil"
--> Nievo - you obviously have no idea what 'pure evil' is. Besides, I would not use the word 'pure' anything to describe any instance of human society/nation-state. It simply isn't real, and therefore has no argumentative value.
"I proved my case"
--> Your case is 'proven' only within your own mind. I don't think you helped you cause (whatever that may be) when you ket your ego speak ahead of your intellect. But I think there is potential in your current argument. However, your (really sad) revisionist view of history calls the rest of your line of thinking into question.
Geomon is a "govt shill"
As for whether geomon is a "govt shill"- I laughed at that one! I sort of agree with you (in a way).
Given the lucidity of his arguments, I think geomon would make a damned improvement over what we currently have! I HONESTLY was wondering if this guy shouldn't work for the tell-it-like-it is division of the State Department. Do we even have one of those? :)
Today was the first time I read any of his posts. My reaction? Sign geomon up for the captain of the debate team! Sorry to say it, but he kicked your intellectual ass, Nievo.
I know, I'm gonna get modded for this. Mod-hammer accepted.
Have a good one, dude. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Geoman and his puppet account p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 still haven't provided any evidence. Because they can not.
There is no reference to any proof of NPT laws being broken by Iran, just suspicion. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@Nichevo
LOL. I'm laughing at your puppet line.
If anything, you are entertaining, dude!
Agreeing with someone does not make one a puppet - it just means I agree with his line of thinking.
If you want to continue to insult me - all I ask is that you be entertaining at it (thumbs up: you're doing good so far!). I'm going to mod you up for your insult to me (cause I'm still laughing!).
This is my last comment to ya. Have a good evening, Nichevo.
Funny guy... :) - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"And the IAEA have found radionucliodes? Rubbish."
Really?
"Uranium needs to be enriched to 2.5% for use as fuel."
2.5% of what?
"Weapons grade plutonium is much higher."
Higher than what?
"So what you're saying is that the IAEA has found weapons grade plutonium in Iran."
No, I said they found radionuclides that indicated Iran was not abiding by the NPT.
"We know that isnt the case."
No, you don't know *****:
Uranium has isotopes (radionuclides) that include U-238 and U-235. Plutonium has NOTHING to do with uranium (initially). So your comment that the IAEA didn't find radionuclides is busted. Even if they didn't find any suspicious activities, the fact that they are, as you have stated, enriching uranium PROVES that they have *some* radionuclides. So much for the rubbish comment, eh?
Your comment about plutonium only convinces me that you don't know jack about nuclear weapons production. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So come on then geomon, what did the IAEA say about iran's nuclear weapon capability?
I don't have a text book
Yeah the plutonium was a typo. Thinking about Back to the Future.
Care to point me to this evidence that Iran isnt abiding by the NPT on the IAEA website? - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And if you don't know what enrichment means that it's obviously you who doesnt understand nuclear weapons? Or are you a nuclear physicist too?
Something from wiki to help you out
Enriched uranium is uranium whose uranium-235 content has been increased through the process of isotope separation. Natural uranium consists mostly of the 238U isotope, with about 0.72 % by weight as 235U, the only isotope existing in nature in any appreciable amount that is fissionable by thermal neutrons.
Reactors use 20% U235 and weapons 85%U235.
What what IAEA find? U235 is present in both. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Nichevo
"Geoman and his puppet account p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 still haven't provided any evidence."
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml
I know you will just ignore it because you can't understand what they are saying.
Refute evidence, dumbass. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"Uranium has isotopes (radionuclides) that include U-238 and U-235. Plutonium has NOTHING to do with uranium (initially). So your comment that the IAEA didn't find radionuclides is busted. Even if they didn't find any suspicious activities, the fact that they are, as you have stated, enriching uranium PROVES that they have *some* radionuclides. So much for the rubbish comment, eh?"
Your pitiful attempt to ***** your way out of this only makes you look foolish. Iran has been enriching concentrations of U-235 radionuclides legally. They are allowed to have that provided it is under a certain percentage concentration(many other non-nuclear countries do this as well), these are no smoking gun. What other "indicator" isotopes are you talking about? Or should I ask: do you even know what you are talking about? - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5"Geoman and his puppet account p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 still haven't provided any evidence."
Puppet account means you're the same person in case you didn't get it. My guess is that you're yet another ignorant child playing on the internet, judging from your display of knowledge and logic so far.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml
HAHAHA Nice link, to nothing. Iran is allowed to have a nuclear program, IAEA confirms they have one! Wow!
Whats next? I think you guys should invade Iran ASAP, I hear they also have c-14 radionuclides and they are producing more!
"Refute evidence, dumbass."
Provide it first, dumbass.
Until you can show they have done something illegal: You lose! - Auress, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@nichevo. You are nothing more than a stooge for Iran.
Everything you have written is just full of *****. So do us all a favor - and shut the ***** up! - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@Nichevo
"Your pitiful attempt to ***** your way out of this only makes you look foolish."
Still waiting for you to refute the IAEA.
" Iran has been enriching concentrations of U-235 radionuclides legally."
You forgot to add "in laboratory-scale experiments".
"They are allowed to have that provided it is under a certain percentage concentration(many other non-nuclear countries do this as well), these are no smoking gun."
Yeah, you are a ***** douchebag.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-67.pdf
Refute the evidence.
"What other "indicator" isotopes are you talking about? Or should I ask: do you even know what you are talking about?"
Can't you read? - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"You forgot to add "in laboratory-scale experiments"
They are legally entitled to both lab-scale and mass scale. WTF is the difference?
Your crappy link only shows that the IAEA has complained about Iran's poor record keeping in the past, it says nothing about Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. YOUR LINK IS BOGUS!
Niether you nor your precious IAEA have anything to support your claim. Come back when you get something tangible shill. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@Nichevo
The thread has gotten unmanagable.
I moved my comments to the end.
"Come back when you get something tangible shill."
At least my comments come with evidence.
Yours come with something that I could fertilize my lawn with. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Geomon:
THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR LINK! NO EVIDENCE!
Are you dense? You have provided nothing! If you think there is anything of value that I did not already cover please quote it.
I will repeat it one more time since you are obviously not getting it:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IRAN PRODUCING OR PLANNING WMD'S IN YOUR LINK.
Your claims have been rebuffed, pitiful try, liar. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@Nichevo
"Geomon: THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR LINK! NO EVIDENCE!"
Except everything outlined in the reports from September 2004 onward. But hey, you can refute everything when you don't read.
"Are you dense? You have provided nothing!"
To you? You're right. I can't prove anything to the ignorant. If you refuse to read the reports and take up their points, each one, and discuss them, then there is nothing more to say.
"If you think there is anything of value that I did not already cover please quote it."
I already have. Comment on the sections regarding contamination.
"I will repeat it one more time since you are obviously not getting it:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IRAN PRODUCING OR PLANNING WMD'S IN YOUR LINK.
Your claims have been rebuffed, pitiful try, liar."
No, you are just ignorant.
And there is a tremendous difference. So far you have not produced one significant counter argument of your own. All you have done is call me a liar and a fraud (government shill as well), but you have not produced one bit of evidence to refute what the IAEA has produced.
Why has the IAEA bothered to dedicate an entire webpage to the situation with Iran? Because of something I have said? Or is there something in the reports, SEVERAL reports, that indicate that the Iranian government has been lying to international inspectors at every turn?
No, instead you attack me as though that will make the IAEA reports disappear.
You are a ***** imbicile.
And everyone on this forum knows it. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I just can't stay away from this thread. Here is a quote about the particles of HEU they found out of your precious link under the contamination section:
"12. On 21 May 2005, the Agency received from another Member State a number of centrifuge
components, environmental sampling of which was thought might provide information on the origin of
the LEU and HEU particle contamination found at various locations in Iran. The analysis of swipe
samples taken from those components, which was carried out at the Agency’s Safeguards Analytical
Laboratory (SAL), was completed in early August 2005. Based on the information currently available
to the Agency, the results of that analysis tend, on balance, to support Iran’s statement about the
foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination."
THE IAEA AGREES WITH IRANS STATEMENT THAT THE TUBES THEY IMPORTED WERE CONTAMINATED WITH MINISCULE AMOUNTS OF HEU!
You lost you idiot, you even provided the evidence against yourself.
This also has nothing to do with indicting radionuclides...
LOL - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Nichevo
"I just can't stay away from this thread."
Glutton for punishment.
Take your abuse like a good turd.
I put your beating on the end of this article (That's *clear* at the bottom of the webpage, Nichevo).
Enjoy! - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I spotted it and easil y refuted it like all your other tripe.
Enjoy. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Nichevo
"I spotted it and easil y refuted it like all your other tripe."
Oh, is that the comment where you refuted the IAEA's reports?
Next you'll be taking on the UN, right?
Nichevo, next President of the World. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Haha Backtracking!
I will ask you what I have been debating:
Is there any hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program? - 0x2a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow... it all started out with an innocent "blow them up" from gamblore...and we haven't got to the second actual comment yet, just replies... talk about a touchy subject
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Nichevo
"Haha Backtracking!"
Whatever that is supposed to mean. Are you changing your story?
Or did your medication kick in or something?
"I will ask you what I have been debating:"
Look back at your posting history I doubt you can find one single point you've been "debating".
"Is there any hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program?"
We don't know, and neither do you. The Iranians will not give the IAEA access to the areas where they need to inspect, nor will they provide access to documents or scientists so that the several important questions can be resolved - questions you choose to ignore or minimize.
What I find facinating about folks like you, Nichevo, is that prior to the invasion of Iraq much was made of the weapons inspections and the fact that the Bush Administration wouldn't give inspectors enough time to do their jobs. I agreed with those who said that the weapons inspections should continue until we could not guarantee that the Iraqi government was not engaged in a covert, and illegal, WMD programs.
Now that these same weapons inspectors have found irregularities with Iran's nuclear program, you and other Hate America ***** want to ignore what the IAEA reports are saying and want to imagine the problems away. You accuse me of inconsistency and hypocrisy, but you are such a baffoon that you can't even see your own duplicity.
I would feel sorry for you but you are beyond pity. You are willfully ignorant and blind to fact. If there is nothing to hide then the Iranians should welcome the transparency that the IAEA has recommended with open arms. But they don't. Instead they stonewall and lie - much like you do.
Good luck arguing against the IAEA Nichevo. I don't think there is much more value in my trying to convince you that the Iranian's program is not all you wish it were. You hate the US so much you can't stand it. You will even ignore historical fact to preserve your fantasy view of the US as the Evil Empire.
You aren't arguing against me, Nichevo. You are arguing against the pronouncements of the IAEA. The UN isn't going to meet because Geomon wrote a bunch of stuff on Digg.com about Iran's weapons programs. Or is that really what you believe?
Bye bye Dork. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Boy are you ever a sore loser, you can't even answer a question straight. The debate was focused on that one question and you lost. Thanks for playing.
- Jeffeh, on 10/12/2007, -24/+5I'm surprised theres not a little mroe censorship on Google Earth or maybe they just don't realize what kind of stuff is available for viewing. I have a question for all Europe and Asia users. Is google the most popular search engine over the big pond or is there another service that takes the search award?
Jeff - http://jeffeh.com - eschompthis, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12If we are making nuclear bombs then why does everybody get all offensive when someone else does it? every country need to stop making these *****.
- compuXP, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Umm.... maybe because we're not laughing in countrys' faces saying "Nananana boo-boo! We have nukes and we can bomb you.... hahaa....."
- baldr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6There is a reason for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...
- monkeymad2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Where have you been living?
- jer4202, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9the reason behind the US getting mad is because Iran is rejecting some of the laws regarding nukes. They arent following the regulations, meaning they could be developing one giant nuke to destroy the earth and nobody knows. True the US has nuclear weapons and technology, but we atleast follow the regulations and what not (I guess we do :p)
- mordain, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7The US is getting "mad" (how appropriate) because Iran is not a friend of the US. The US are trying to prevent themselves getting nuked.
- txrat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61. if someone fires a nuke at us they won't have a country left... we have more of them than they do
2. iran is using a "he just might be crazy enough" type of message about going nuclear
3. are they crazy enough? - olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"the reason behind the US getting mad is because Iran is rejecting some of the laws regarding nukes. They arent following the regulations, meaning they could be developing one giant nuke to destroy the earth and nobody knows. True the US has nuclear weapons and technology, but we atleast follow the regulations and what not (I guess we do :p)"
Iran does stick to the law, the US doesn't - you sell nukes illegally to your favourite countries to increase your political influence. Iran has no legal obligations other than to stick to or pull out of the NNPT. Iran's nowhere near making a single weapon yet... and your country literally does have enough to blow up the world. Wonder why the rest of the world's worried about Bush being in power?
Admittedly the current Iranian leadership is pretty dodgy at the moment hence all the fuss, but they're still nowhere near stupid enough to use a nuke - Iran would be a big glass bowl in a matter of hours and they know it.
"Although I will point out that the recent NY Times front page showing the Iranians displaying their uranium was laughable... those costumes, *doves*, etc... what are they thinking?"
HAHAHAHA AREN'T FOREIGNERS STUPID!!! HAHAHAHAAHAH USA USA USA!!!!
look at your own customs and weird-ass kiddy-fiddling religious figures in their white dresses some day, and your president for that matter. what are YOU thinking? - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Because the US wants everyone to shut up and let them become the rulers of this world.
- Insolence, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1"We used to have to take governments at their word - now anyone can buy satellite images and check for themselves." I don't know where you were for the American, French, and Russian revolutions...
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I picked up on this as well. When was this magical era when spying didn't exist?
- sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Despite all the rhetoric, I have a feeling that this "war" will be a cold one.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Not too sure about that....no one wants the legacy of being in a position to do something about the Iranians and balking....not Israel, not the US, not the Coalition....
- olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10there is no coalition.
it's the US vs. the world again on this one.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Not too sure about that....no one wants the legacy of being in a position to do something about the Iranians and balking....not Israel, not the US, not the Coalition....
- xur17, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9This site is dying.
- yensed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Sounds like the perfect easter game for any family!
- syko21, on 10/12/2007, -8/+91. Images are not up to date.
2. This digg is absolute crap even for a lazy Easter Sunday.
no diggs for you- belmeloro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The new images are from a few weeks ago. Google Earth's base images are from a few years ago. Hence the ability to make the comparison.
- agneovo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2sundance we hope you are right, these crazies are a little more scary than the current group. Can't we all just get along!
- TechknowPagan, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11This reminds me of the bushtards UN presentation on Iraq's imaginary WMD facilities.
Satellite imagery with little arrows and pointers claiming "nerve gas facility", " anthrax storage", trucks marked "Mobile biological weapons labs".
Then, after we bombed a milk pasteurization plant, instead of reevaluating our obviously flawed intelligence, we invade!
They say history repeats itself, I just didnt realise it had such short turnaround.- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10"This reminds me of the bushtards UN presentation on Iraq's imaginary WMD facilities."
THe FACTS are we saw them moving via satellite, Israel saw them moving via satelitte, and Saddams own people have told us as much...
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/talk_tikriti.htm
Yeah, and while we're at it let's ignore the admission from Saddam himself on the recently released tapes and the documents released on the web....
To ignore all that evidence is disingenuous at best....friggin' 'tard at worst.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10"This reminds me of the bushtards UN presentation on Iraq's imaginary WMD facilities."
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10you still have to take the government at their word about what they are building.
there is no dispute over what they are doing as far as their facilities, construction, etc.
they say it's for good, we say it's for evil. at what point do these photos change this. THEY DON'T!!!
i'll give you some google earth overlays that show you are busy building a nuclear silo on your property. can i invade you? - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13For bonus points see if you can spot the easter eggs hidden around the facility
- filovirus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6RAAAAMONE, give Israel the green light...
- badbox, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Keep in mind that if this spying w/ imagery was done against the US, not only would it be blurred out and Google not allowed to show, but it would be considered "terrorism".
- belmeloro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Not true. The US is one of the most detailed regions in Google Earth, and that includes the White House, Area 51 and military bases.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Um yeah like the above poster said, you can see pretty much every military installation in america with google earth. Area 51 in particular.
- wrldpc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7give Israel the green light.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting that this is the first time you've ever made a comment without the line "worldpeace" at the end...
- Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4At the very least Inspectors need to get in there and see whats really happening.....they won't even let them in.....Irans President has made statements like the Holocaust never happened, Supports Terrorism, had Terrorist Training camps among other things. If it was a peaceful pursuit of creating energy then they would let Inspectors in to Validate and monitor it.
"i'll give you some google earth overlays that show you are busy building a nuclear silo on your property. can i invade you?"
The Government has every right to invade anyone that was building a Nuclear Slio!!! - otherland, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Iran as a soveign nation has every right to have nuclear weapons. In recent history Iran has not started wars, has not stolen land, has not built illegal settlements and has not brutally occupied an indigenous people for nearly 60 years, all of this in order to establish an illegal, apartheid colony in the Middle East.
Iran stays on Iranian land.
So they shouldn't have to build expensive underground nuclear power facilities because they aren't aggressive and shouldn't be attacked.
But they do have to because there's a double standard here when Israel has nuclear weapons and no protests or official debate is allowed. That hypocricy is a result of the global media's specific ownership...- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Maybe they are not aggressive because they know with their current military they could not win if they tried to expand their borders. Have you not listened to the Iranian president talk again and again about destroying countrys and how it is his job to destory all the jews (now that sounds like hitler). He makes saddam sound like a nice man. Also israel is only interested in keeping the land they have, this has been stated again and again. They are currently at war with the palestenians who claim the same land is theirs - however the israelis did give them back the gaza strip and might pull out of the west bank so there is some progress at the moment.
- otherland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11The European Jews in Israel have no claim to any land in the Middle East. They won it in a war but keeping land taken in warfare is illegal under the Geneva Convention.
The Palestinians deserve their land back so they can establish a state but Israel was too interested in doubling the size of its stolen land with more stolen land in 1967 and occupying Arab East Jerusalem because they are greedy and they want the whole city. Now the Palestinians are willing to accept just 22% of Palestine (The West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem) while letting the Jews keep the 88% of Palestine they stole.
Israel is a destablizing presence in the middle east.
There should be one state for everyone to live in, not the racist apartheid entity that is Israel. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8"Iran as a soveign nation has every right to have nuclear weapons."
Fair enough. Then then must also suffer the consequences of the bellicose statements of their President. If Iran gets nukes then it is the soverign right of the US and Israel to defend themselves against a country that has sworn to destroy them.
According to your "Right Of Nations" philosophy, we have a first-strike right due to the threats made by President Ahmadinejad against the US and Israel.
Bye bye Tehran. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6They are only destablizing because they are different - they are not islamic. Land should not be decided based on whose religion is "better". As for when israel gained more land, wasnt that because they were attacked by like 4 arab states and beat them ALL back? Also your geneva convention point is pretty much invalid because who in the middle east even attempts to abide by it besides the United States in Iraq (Atleast we acknowledge that it exist). There are ununiformed suicide bombers everywhere, assisinations, killing of civlians on purpose, in Iraq the United States faced an army of plain clothes fighters using civilians as shields. Both groups want the land and both are entitled to it this is where the problem is, atleast Israel is giving back some land to the palesenian government.
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"The European Jews in Israel have no claim to any land in the Middle East."
Which I agree with but has nothing to do with Iran having nukes.
You are beating a dead horse. - otherland, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7geomon@ please, stop associating America with Israel. Israel is not the 51st state even though it seems to dictate US foreign policy for the last 50 years.
A threat to Israel is not the same as a threat to the USA. You can't even call Israel an ally. But the pro-Israel propagandists want us to think so.
But we can't forget when unmarked Israeli warplanes attacked the USS Liberty killing dozens of US sailors, or the Jewish spy Pollard that stole thousands of state secrets.
And the Iranian's leaders words to his own people do not add up to a casus bellum for Israel and especially not America, no matter how you spin it like you spin everything.
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." -- Jesuit priest John Sheehan, S.J. - - otherland, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8mirunit@
Israel launched a sneak attack in 1967 on Egypt. Please stop with the rewriting of history. Then it illegally kept the land it conquered, moved its population onto the stolen land, and ethnically cleansed portions as well. All of those acts are outlawed by the Geneva convention. Israel also violates countless UN decrees.
As for you claiming well nobody follows the Geneva Convention, well it is Israel that claims to be a "light unto all nations" yet demands special treatment to protect its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Ok otherland you are an anti-semitist but thats ok because I live in America where you can do whatever you want.
USS Liberty
Israel's, the CIA and NSA positions on the incident is that it was a case of mistaken identity and was entirely due to error. Israel contends that it was assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area, and that its air and naval forces wrongly identified the Liberty at various stages as either a Russian intelligence ship that was providing information to the Arabs, or as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir.
If irans presidents comments are hollow then why is he saying them, Why does he demand for the destruction of Israel and the United States. History has taught us to always take threats seriously. - otherland, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Mirunit, when you have to play the pathetic anti-semitism card you lost, this debate is over.
And I'm not anti-semitic, I never said anything negative about Arabs. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Um Pakistan has nuclear weapons in the middle east, and I have a question does Hamas even know there is a geneva convention. I am so sick of people like you pulling the "But you violated the geneva convention card" when most of the wars that are fought both sides violate the convention. As for the causes of the Six-Day war didnt Egypt cut off Israels shipping in the Straits of Tiran and the deploy troops around the Israeli border?
Edit - What are you talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism "And I'm not anti-semitic, I never said anything negative about Arabs." - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"geomon@ please, stop associating America with Israel."
I will when Ahmadinejad does.
"Israel is not the 51st state even though it seems to dictate US foreign policy for the last 50 years."
Neither is Ireland the 51st state, but if you head to Massachusetts you will get an earfull of what they think of British rule in the northern counties.
We are a nation of immigrants. Deal.
"A threat to Israel is not the same as a threat to the USA."
We have treaties. A threat to our ally is a threat to America.
"You can't even call Israel an ally."
Why not?
"But the pro-Israel propagandists want us to think so."
Take a look at the UN voting record again, dude. The US has never had a more reliable friend in foreign policy throughout the world than Israel.
"But we can't forget when unmarked Israeli warplanes attacked the USS Liberty killing dozens of US sailors, or the Jewish spy Pollard that stole thousands of state secrets."
Yes, let us compare Israel to our other "friends": the British attacked and burned the US Capitol, the French have left us hanging in votes in the UN (and sank a Greenpeace vessel in the South Pacific), Germany allied with Japan to declare war on the US, Russia and China both adopted governments that swore to destroy the US....
Why should we look at the Liberty incident and the Pollard spy case as more than what they are? They are isolated incidents that do not add up to a conspiracy.
Your rant sounds just like the crap I used to hear from people I knew as a kid growing up in Northern Idaho.
"And the Iranian's leaders words to his own people do not add up to a casus bellum for Israel and especially not America, no matter how you spin it like you spin everything."
Yeah, why should we take the President of Iran at his word?
I didn't put those words in his mouth. - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8"Israel launched a sneak attack in 1967 on Egypt."
Yep. And if they hadn't, the Arabs would have slaughtered every Israeli they got their hands on.
Looks like the Arabs got sloppy. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
- sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10FYI: I am an history student, being educated at a liberal American university. I am in the last semester of my education, and one of the foci of my studies is the modern history of Palestine.
Israel, of course isn't perfect, but has done little except to attempt to defend herself against overwhelming odds. All of her neighbors claim that Israel stole land from the Palestinians. However, the land that Britian granted to the state of Israel was nearly uninhabited at the time of the founding of the state of Israel. These nationless "Palestinians" are the direct result of Arab agression against Israel. The only land that Israel has seized, has been from neighbors that have aggressed against her. This was done in an attempt to create a buffer-zone, so that Israel might more effectively defend herself against further aggression. The nationless people that we have come to know as Palestinians have been abandoned by their countries of origin, and purposely left in abject poverty ... to be used as a propoganda tool against Israel.
Frankly, claiming that Israel is reponsible for the Palestinians' plight is indicitave of ignorance, bigotry, or both. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Frankly, claiming that Israel is reponsible for the Palestinians' plight is indicitave of ignorance, bigotry, or both."
That is a dangerous generalization.
Over 80 U.N. violations(the most of any country), countless executions without trial, illegal settlements, mass punishment, apartheid citizenship, indescriminate mortar retaliation, etc. ad nauseum. has nothing to do with the Palestinian plight? Even before the intifada hundreds of Palestinian children were being murdered, that is before a single Israeli child was harmed!
The truth of the matter is that if the Zionists had accepted any of the prior alternative locations none of this would have happened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that putting together 2 groups who have been involved in a feud for thousands of years(since Jacob+Esau) wouldn't end nicely. The early Zionists are to blame for the current woes plain and simple.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Well you see its not ok for Iran to have them because isnt it almost every day that their president talks about how israel needs to be "blown off the map" and "removed from the face of the earth". Irans president also claims that the holocaust never happened and boast about training 400 suicide bombers. India nukes - ok, israel nukes - ok, pakistan nukes - ok but iranian nukes are not ok. About the use of nuclear weapons to end world war II, it was either drop 2 bombs or lose 1m + americans and 1m + japaneese PLUS the result was only 2 citys destroyed instead of the entire island in shambles - just think if there had of been fighting and carpet bombing all over the island for ~6 more monthes. I think the nuclear weapons there were justified as the united states was fighting to end the evil in which hitlers germany started.
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Putting the genie back in the bottle, is a damn sight harder than letting the little ***** out. Anyone for magic mushrooms.
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Why was pakistan alowed to get them. They are a islamic fundamentalist state.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Pakistan is in a "cold war" with India at the moment. They are abit fundamentalist but not to the point where they are a serious danger to the world.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Pakistan got the technology illegally from Germany
- sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The reason that their acquisition of the technology wasn't looked upon with as much dread is that:
They don't daily threaten a close ally of ours with annhilation.
They haven't threatened the US.
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No way im watching the t.v and some bloke was playing missle defence no lie, That eighties video game.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6@Declin
"I think we all need to remember that the United States is the first and only country in the world to ever use a nuclear weapon against another nation. Why then, exactly, is it safe for us to have them but no one else?"
Might have something to do with the fact they were used in self-defense and the fact that we haven't threatened to wipe any countries off the map.
It is also probably related to the reason WE host the UN...- sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4A sensible reply.
Too bad that many here on Digg are so quick to overlook some of these characteristics of the US. Think about it, we were loathe to become involved in other nations' politics before WWII. Some may see us as arrogant, but by observing our track record ... it becomes clear that we largely attempt to deal with other nations fairly and compassionately. (We aren't perfect, and some of our actions have been selfish. However, I'd wager that we've been far more compassionate than any other superpower in history.)
- sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4A sensible reply.
- 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Here are two oft repeated quotes from the rallies held in Tehran every Friday for the last twenty plus years:
Death to Israel!
Death to America!
And then they say that they will only use nukes for peaceful uses?
Are we that stupid?- JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8they said they are using the nuclear technology for power plants only, they are not able to create nukes for now.
also, remember that israel and usa are threating iran regularly with air and nuclear strikes, because iran does not recognize israel rights
israel and usa have nuclear nukes, nuclear submarines
usa have nuclear missiles in their submarines that can wipe life out of earth in a few hours.
if i was a president of such threateend country, i would develop nuclear nukes to preserve my country independance
- JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8they said they are using the nuclear technology for power plants only, they are not able to create nukes for now.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@Nichevo
Chomskyite lies.- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Gonna mod me down for telling the truth eh?
Here, read it yourself;
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf
And keep in mind these are only the TOP 100...there are plenty more - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Prove it,
I think the reason why we don't see eye to eye is that I don't get my info from FOX or whitehouse press releases.
WAKE UP YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.
History will record you sheeple as fools. Mark my words.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Gonna mod me down for telling the truth eh?
- eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Oh my god do people actually beleive that iran is a threat to the U.S.!!!!!???
GWB propaganda machine 1 , common sense 0- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Oh my god do people actually beleive that iran is a threat to the U.S.!!!!!???"
You're joking right? I assume you were alive on 9-11-2001?
Are you claiming you would not agree that Iran is more capable than the Taliban ever dreamed about being?
You've not read about them threatening to unleash a terror war on the West if ONLY sanctions are imposed upon them?
Sheep. Islamofascist fodder.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Oh my god do people actually beleive that iran is a threat to the U.S.!!!!!???"
- molinarobrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Google Earth anywhere on Earth
http://www.apponusb.com - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@@Nichevo
"I am glad you made the distinction of the "western world". These are the countries that rely on controlling the middle east's oil. They can't take the chance of not having %100 control of the exploitation supplying their black habit."
*****. It's the Leftists that continually block our effort to tap our own oil. Why? Because Leftists want western wealth redistibuted.- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Did you know that the United States has 60-70% of the worlds Oil Shale reserves but we cant harvest it due to the wildlife so we must keep buying oil from the middle east. Alaska has huge ammounts of crude but we cant harvest that because of some snow owl. Good point about not being able to use our own oil.
- eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Did you know that the United States has 60-70% of the worlds Oil Shale reserves but we cant harvest it due to the wildlife so we must keep buying oil from the middle east."
No, we don't "harvest" oil shale. We dig it up and process it.
"Alaska has huge ammounts of crude but we cant harvest that because of some snow owl. Good point about not being able to use our own oil."
Neither of your points is true. The reason that we don't pump oil from Alaska (other than the North Slope fields) or produce oil from shales is that it is CHEAPER TO PUMP IT FROM A BOAT IN GALVESTON, TEXAS.
Pure and simple economics - no conspiracy. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Regardless you have to remove the oil shale from the earth and to do that disrupts wildlife, this is why we cant use these reserves. It is cheaper to pump the oil from a boat in texas but that does not change the fact that we are dependate on middle eastern oil.
- lithium41, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3When did Digg become a political site? I thought it was a tech site
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Digg as far as im concered is a site for any news>
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah great let pakistan and india get nuclear weapons, two countries most likley to use them on each other.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"Can't we all just get along!"
What part of "annihilation" and "wipe you off the map" don't you understand?
Do you really want to stand there saying that as the Iranians charge right ahead and commit near genocide on a race of people when you could have done something to prevent it?
They watched Saddam play this game and now they employ the same tactic...We *will* evetually have to hit them first, their propoganda protocol calls for it as it allows them to continue with the victim passive/agressive BS....- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10You might wanna look at the history of Israel. They attacked other nations claimed the land and kept it illegally. Oh yea they commited genocide too... So why aren't you all gung-ho for hitting Isreal when they have done all the things Iran has? AND they already have nukes.
To paraphrase an above poster U.S. propaganda machine 1 , common sense 0 - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Iran is Israel's problem. Isreal should take care of it themselves. The US is bogged down in a war in Iraq right now with no end in sight. It would be suicide to attack Iran. We'd set off a regional war that could rapdily get out of hand and turn into a global conflict. The stupidity and risk of invading Iran when they're years, if not decades, away from a bomb is mind boggling.
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10You might wanna look at the history of Israel. They attacked other nations claimed the land and kept it illegally. Oh yea they commited genocide too... So why aren't you all gung-ho for hitting Isreal when they have done all the things Iran has? AND they already have nukes.
- 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 The last thing im gonna say is that the middle east is the wests achilles heal of the world. western culture is all about democracy, principles and morales, and since WW2 western influence in the middle east has been mostly a greedy glutinious farce.
Oh yeah M.A.D mutualy assured destruction that acronyme always cracks me up.- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I seriously doubt Israel is going to drop bombs on Iran, because it would trigger a full-blown war against Israel, most likely (although they have a history of winning such conflicts). Most likely, the US will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. The wild card here is what Iran plans on doing--if they make nukes and use them against Israel, we'd probably do a full scale air bombardment while Israel would probably respond with some missiles of their own. I doubt this would happen because the other Islamic countries don't really want to fight, they want the oil money to keep flowing.
One thing's for sure, we will not invade Iran by land. The Iranians are not some fragmented country with a hated dictator. They have a strong Persian cultural identity, and though their government may be disliked by many Iranians, they will back their own government against a Western invasion force. Their armies aren't likely to fade away at the sight of advancing troops like in Iraq. China and Russia would probably oppose such a land invasion, causing all kinds of diplomatic problems. I don't think Bush plans on starting Armageddon. - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@3leggedhorse
"and since WW2 western influence in the middle east has been mostly a greedy glutinious farce."
This one cracks me up....OK...
If not oil, what? They had it, we needed it...the get energy resources, they get rich and buy our companies...And you think it's a bad deal for them!
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I seriously doubt Israel is going to drop bombs on Iran, because it would trigger a full-blown war against Israel, most likely (although they have a history of winning such conflicts). Most likely, the US will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. The wild card here is what Iran plans on doing--if they make nukes and use them against Israel, we'd probably do a full scale air bombardment while Israel would probably respond with some missiles of their own. I doubt this would happen because the other Islamic countries don't really want to fight, they want the oil money to keep flowing.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@Nichevo
The McCollum Memo never reached anybody in high command. It was the opinion of one intelligence officer in the US Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo
You are a liar and everything you have said in this comment section is suspect.- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wikipedia is a trusted source that couldn't possibly be tampered with to slant information in ones favor ever?
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@syowr - Please do not rely solely upon the Wikipedia entry I posted.
Feel free to investigate this through other web sources. Because we all know that Wikipedia is full of false information lol...
not. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's odd how its recommendations matched foreign policy with Japan. Let me guess McCollum was psychic right?
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wikipedia is a trusted source that couldn't possibly be tampered with to slant information in ones favor ever?
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6@otherland
"The European Jews in Israel have no claim to any land in the Middle East. They won it in a war but keeping land taken in warfare is illegal under the Geneva Convention."
The League of Nations created that territory after WWII. The Arab states created agreed to its establishment. At Arab insistence the so-called borders were not made permanent and therefore not part of any soveriegn entity. Israel took control of the disputed territory after it was attacked by hostile armies.
The Jewish claim to the land is at least equal to if not stronger than the Palestinians as the terrotiry is far more significant in Jewish history than it is in Arab or Palestinian history. There have been Jews in the region for 2500 years.
"The Palestinians deserve their land back so they can establish a state but Israel was too interested in doubling the size of its stolen land with more stolen land in 1967 and occupying Arab East Jerusalem because they are greedy and they want the whole city."
Emotional based opinion, not fact.
"Now the Palestinians are willing to accept just 22% of Palestine (The West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem) while letting the Jews keep the 88% of Palestine they stole."
Lie. All of it. Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and Fatah does the same behind closed doors. The "stolen" bit is a lie also. Palestine was created specifically as a place for Europeans Jews to return to, their traditional homeland. Palestine was not created only for so-called Palestinians.
"Israel is a destablizing presence in the middle east."
The Middle Eastern Arab states are destablizing the presence (existence) of Israel.
"There should be one state for everyone to live in, not the racist apartheid entity that is Israel."
The Palestinians are the racists as they wish to engage in ethnic cleansing and make no secret of it, as is expected given their Nazi background.- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Grats on playing Godwin to offically end this thread!
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3boner4linux is correct.
I was listening to BBC radio last month and they were interviewing a member of Hamas. The BBC reporter kept trying to reason with the Hamas person about Israel. The Hamas member repeatedly said that Israel does not deserve the right to exist. The BBC reporter asked the Hamas member: since Ariel Sharon recognized Palestine and was willing to concede land to the Palestinians why couldn't Hamas do likewise? Hamas guy just said "Israel is not a legitimate state" and cannot be bargained with.
The Palestinians cooked their own goose by electing savages as their leaders. Despite Israel's desire to get out of this bloody war, I think things will become worse rather than better. I am no friend to Israel, but they have finally come to terms with the fact that they cannot end the bloodshed by being the neighborhood bully.
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Grats on playing Godwin to offically end this thread!
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@otherland
"Israel launched a sneak attack in 1967 on Egypt. Please stop with the rewriting of history."
ROFLMAO....In reaction to what?
"Following Egypt's blockade of Israeli shipping in the Straits of Tiran and the deployment of its troops in the Sinai near the Israeli border.." Just the blockade could be considered an act of war!
This goes back to the victim propoganda the Arabs are so fond of engaging in. - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@geomon
"it is CHEAPER TO PUMP IT FROM A BOAT IN GALVESTON, TEXAS."
Interesting. And plausible. I'd like to read on that....point me in a direction?
I'm having trouble figuring out how that could be with all this cheap labor we got....;)- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hi! Would you like another strawman to go with your argument?
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Interesting. And plausible. I'd like to read on that....point me in a direction?"
World Oil. It is a periodical that documents world oil prices.
Developing domestic supplies, even without regulatory burden, is not cheap. Logistics in Alaska are expensive and the window for doing exploration work is narrow.
Oil shales require more refinement than just pumping the oil from a barrel. There is mining, processing, and refining that must occur before you can even start to refine the processed crude into gasoline, propane, butane, and the other umpteen-hundred products.
Oil is cheapest from the boat. It has already been pumped, loaded, and shipped to the refinery. Don't believe me? Contact any of the major oil producers or any oil trader and they will confirm what I am telling you.
That doesn't mean that the price territory where these other options are becoming economic isn't quickly approaching.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@syowr
"You might wanna look at the history of Israel. They attacked other nations claimed the land and kept it illegally."
I've already addressed that up in the thread...
I'm gonna need a reference more specific thatn "they did it too" to know what you are refering to...
They have nukes and have shown that they are responsible enough to have them. They are not threatening to aninihilate anyone or wipe them off the planet. They have not denied any nation its right to exist. They do not send suicide bombers out on a regular basis....IOW, they engage in defense, pre-emptive if necessary.
Correction: Communist backed Islamofascist propoganda machine 1, common sense 0 - syowr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Here ya go because it must be SO hard to google from that far right of your keyboard.
In general, accusations against Israel relate to systematic killing of hundreds of civilians during the war of 1947-1948, as well as the forcible expulsion of many Palestinians from their homes in what became Israel. The Palestinians point to Israeli forces' destruction of over three hundred Palestinian villages that they had fled or been expelled from by Jewish forces in what they view as an effort to prevent their return to the areas conquered by Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Other acts and policies of the Israeli government that have also been seen by the Palestinian side as promoting ethnic cleansing and/or genocide:
* Opposition to what they view as a Palestinian Right of return, at least in part for the purpose of preserving Israel as a majority Jewish state.
* Collective punishment of Palestinians, e.g. punishment of family members of alleged terrorists, or general restrictions on all Palestinians as a response to violence committed by individuals.
* Establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and creation of the Israeli West Bank barrier, which has been ruled as illegal in a non-binding decision by the International Court of Justice, and which Palestinians and their supporters consider to be a "land grab" or outright ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from captured areas.- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1That's not genocide. You might have an outside chance at making an argument for ethnic cleansing. I wouldn't agree with it of course, but I'll concede at least that much. It's not like there are no Arabs living in Israel, so the ethnic-cleansing argument isn't going to go very far.
They'd do well to heed, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Boner what the ***** are you talking about? You going to apply the same principle to the holocaust or Rwanda or Bosnia? There's still some of them left so that ethnic cleansing argument isnt going very far?
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1That's not genocide. You might have an outside chance at making an argument for ethnic cleansing. I wouldn't agree with it of course, but I'll concede at least that much. It's not like there are no Arabs living in Israel, so the ethnic-cleansing argument isn't going to go very far.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/16/iran.wrapup.reut/index.html
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From a purely strategic point of view it is a good way to keep someone from attacking your borders. Especially when you don't have military superiority.
Essentially they are just very smart guided missles. Kamikaze without a plane or hachimaki.
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From a purely strategic point of view it is a good way to keep someone from attacking your borders. Especially when you don't have military superiority.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@syowr
"Wikipedia is a trusted source that couldn't possibly be tampered with to slant information in ones favor ever?"
Being that both sides get to edit the information, generally, yes. Anything slanted one way or the other is generally challenged and correct at speeds Brittanica could only dream about.- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I figured since you guys felt free to use it so should I
I can find ya LOTS of other sources if you like.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-isr/news
This one lists off the point of international law involved
http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis1.html
There are more but ill let you do some homework.
- syowr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I figured since you guys felt free to use it so should I
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@syowr
"Grats on playing Godwin to offically end this thread!"
Don't don't trying to end the thread with that lame mule just when we are getting at the heart and thruth of the matter.- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@boner4linux "The Palestinians are the racists as they wish to engage in ethnic cleansing and make no secret of it, as is expected given their Nazi background."
@syowr "Grats on playing Godwin to offically end this thread!"
@boner4linux "Don't don't trying to end the thread with that lame mule just when we are getting at the heart and thruth of the matter."
Is this playing Godwin? Stating fact? http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/
p.s. When I used the phrase "ethnic cleasing" there I meant it "with genocide" involved...this needs clarification
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@boner4linux "The Palestinians are the racists as they wish to engage in ethnic cleansing and make no secret of it, as is expected given their Nazi background."
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"I forgot to add: Nice dodge!"
What am I supposed to say in response to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@geoman
"World Oil. It is a periodical that documents world oil prices."
edit: p.s. All the more reason to develop the hydrogen and bio-diesel technologies....And we should be dumping a load of money into wind and solar....but first things first.
I think I've seen that....um....around (usenet)...I'll check it out. Thanks. - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@syowr
"I figured since you guys felt free to use it so should I"
p.s. I modded you up on your "purely strategic" pov on the suicide bombers...:)
We were speaking on Wikipedia specifically....not communist backed propoganda fronts...follow the money - 5abi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2finally someone to teach bush a lesson, just go straight for the whitehouse
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@5abi
"finally someone to teach bush a lesson, just go straight for the whitehouse"
Unfortunately for you misguided souls, the lesson will be the same that Japan, Germany, Britian, Spain, the Taliban, Saddam's Iraq, etc., learned....
If you're going to pick a fight with us, be prepared to take a beating. The negotiation table is always open, we're friggin' capitalists afterall. Negotiation is what we do. But, if you want us to pick up the big stick, we can go that route also. It's your choice. Too bad you let communists talk you into fighting us all the time, we keep hoping someday you'll learn not to listen to them.
- boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@5abi
- mikal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sooo, belmeloro, how much is a job at Hill & Knowlton paying these days? Because this is part of "softening the public" program, isn't it?
- belmeloro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's interesting to see how both sides of the debate see the original dugg post as some kind of threat to their position. ISIS, the publisher of the images, is a peace studies think tank. it believes, like I do, that the best way to defuse this situation is to disperse as much information as widely as possible. This makes it harder for both the US and Iran to merely make claims. We, the public, can now begin to verify them.
or is that not sufficiently conspiratorial for you?:-)
- belmeloro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's interesting to see how both sides of the debate see the original dugg post as some kind of threat to their position. ISIS, the publisher of the images, is a peace studies think tank. it believes, like I do, that the best way to defuse this situation is to disperse as much information as widely as possible. This makes it harder for both the US and Iran to merely make claims. We, the public, can now begin to verify them.
- markos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"We used to have to take governments at their word"
Still do. - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@PapaLazarou
"Boner what the ***** are you talking about? You going to apply the same principle to the holocaust or Rwanda or Bosnia? There's still some of them left so that ethnic cleansing argument isnt going very far?"
Look, if this discussion is going to go anywhere you have to try to keep genocide and ethnic cleansing seperate or at least acknowledge a difference in the two.
So, no, a couple of hundred people killed is not genocide. Making them move and destroying their villages would border on the mildest fronge of ethnic cleansing in realtion to what went/goes on in Rwanada, Bosnia and the Holocaust as there is no question that there was genocide (1000's, tens of 1000's) involved in the ethnic cleansing.
Are you going to suggest that there are mass graves of Palestinians somewhere on Israeli soil?- PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Boner try looking at the internal law definition of genocide. No mention of numbers there;
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You dont need to kill 6 million people for it to be genocide - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And the mass murder of palestinians in 1982 :
On 6 June 1982, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in what it described as 'retaliation' for the attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador Argov in London on 4 June. The invasion, soon dubbed "Operation Peace for Galilee," progressed rapidly. By 18 June 1982, Israel had surrounded the Palestine Liberation Organisation's (PLO) armed forces in the western part of the Lebanese capital. A cease-fire, mediated by United States Envoy Philip Habib, resulted in the PLO evacuation of Beirut on 1 September 1982.
On 11 September 1982, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the invasion, announced that "2,000 terrorists" had remained inside the Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. On Wednesday 15 September, the day after the assassination of Israeli-allied Phalangist militia leader and Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the Israeli army occupied West Beirut, "encircling and sealing" the camps of Sabra and Shatila, which were inhabited by Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. By mid-day on 15 September 1982, the refugee camps were entirely surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, who installed checkpoints at strategic locations and crossroads around the camps in order to monitor the entry or exit of any person. During the late afternoon and evening of that day, the camps were shelled.
Around mid-day on Thursday 16 September 1982, a unit of approximately 150 Israeli-allied Phalangists entered the first camp. For the next 40 hours members of the Phalangist militia raped, killed, and injured a large number of unarmed civilians, mostly children, women and elderly people inside the encircled and sealed camps. The estimate of victims varies between 700 (the official Israeli figure) to 3,500. The victims and survivors of the massacres have never been deemed entitled to a formal investigation of the tragedy, since Israel's Kahan Commission did not have a judicial mandate and was not backed up by legal force.
You can read eye witness reports etc at http://www.indictsharon.net
Why not read up on international law before typing your generalised statements.
Obviously there has been mass murder on both sides but lets not get carried away. Israel arent exactly whiter than white. And they did elect a war criminal to president (Sharon)> Any different to Hamas being elected? - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@PapaLazarou
"You dont need to kill 6 million people for it to be genocide"
Textbook definition...pretty generalized at that. Using that definiton practically any group anywhere could claim genocide was being commited against them....3000 people in NY come to mind.
Using that definition Israel can claim the same when one considers all the suicide bomber caused deaths alone.
I note it says "Article II of the present convention". Which "present" would that be? It implies it was not there at some point. Just curious. - PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So rather than use the international law definition of genocide and ethnic cleanising, we should just use yours? Just pointing out that it definately is ethnic cleanisng.
Is it genocide? If you read into it further, it could well be called that. If you look at what points are addressed I don't think it's quite as generalised as you believe. Transfer of children, prevention of births etc.
- PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Boner try looking at the internal law definition of genocide. No mention of numbers there;
- PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Forgot this bit:
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@PapaLazarou
"Geomon: Why do you think that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is the way to go with this?"
Who said I did?- PapaLazarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Scan read something and mis read it. I apologise. But you're wrong on the uranium dude.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by