Israel - Bullies to the world..

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm the one talking out of my ass when you're the one who said Iran doesn't have enough oil to supply its energy needs?....You are an absolute belter. It's really not me that needs to get my facts right here although I think it's extremely funny that you conveniently skipped over all that.

A newspaper?...Will I post it to you?...Belter.

Still.

From

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Which was made on Israel's 60th birthday in 2008 and was reported by the IRNA news agency.

The Jerusalem post had the "wiped out" quote. It was made on December 11th 2006 at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust.

Rueters had the "Israel will disappear" quote. It was made on the 19 anniversary of the assassination of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Sohrab Mahdavi (One of Iran's top translators) and Siamak Namazi (Bilingual MD of a Tehran consulting firm) both translated the original speech as saying "wipe off" of "wipe away" rather than "vanish".

He also used the term "wiped off" in a speech made on 27th January 2009 at a Holocaust conference at the Sharif University of Technology

As Charles Manson wrote..."Look at your game, girl".

As recently as June 11th this year he said Israel is "doomed". Also hinting clearly several times that his interest in nuclear power has to do with weapons by saying that the US "Clearly isn't against nuclear weapons in the area as they have a Zionist regime with Nuclear weapons"

The article, apart from perpetuating the ridiculous ''Israel off the map'' thing that has never be said, quotes Ahmadinajad as, again, referring to regime of Israel not Israel itself.

But what else could we possibly expect from newspapers and people on different side of the world that freely fund Jundullah in Iran.

And seriously, the fact that you even doubt Iran has enough energy, shows you known nothing about Iran, nor the history outside of the searching up few phrases and copying paragraph or two from wikipedia.
The fact that you even suggested it was ME who suggests Iran has not enough energy, in the spirit of ''defending Iran'', clearly indicates you are not well versed in Middle Eastern politics.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

The fact that you even suggested it was ME who suggests Iran has not enough energy, in the spirit of ''defending Iran'', clearly indicates you are not well versed in Middle Eastern politics.

Yeah, cos you didn't say the following.

Iran does NOT have enough oil to power up its country.

I evidently know a considerable amount more than you do.

I had a large response typed out but there's not point. You came in to this thread with an attitude problem calling me ignorant and arrogant. You made silly claims and got caught out and now you're trying to scrape back some semblance of respectability by saying the exact opposite and claiming that I am all the things you've displayed.

Quite sad really.

Here's an issue, Iran's got a shitload of oil, but they export much of is; this is were much/most of their revenue and government's budget is paid with.

-Not building reactors and lowering their oil exports will net them the fuel they [supposedly] need to power themselves, but it will ruin their income/budget. That's not good for them, someone's gotta feed the monkey; I think we can all sympathize with them here.

-Building reactors will give them the power, and would allow them to continuing to export mass oil for profit; likely even increasing the export amount and thereby increasing their income. Sounds like a legit plan/idea.

Here's the thing though, building their [planned] multiple nuclear reactors would cost several billion to build and then several billion to maintain, year after year. It could literally end up costing them more than their oil exporting brings in, even with an increase in exports.

So something's not right.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here's an issue, Iran's got a shitload of oil, but they export much of is; this is were much/most of their revenue and government's budget is paid with.

-Not building reactors and lowering their oil exports will net them the fuel they [supposedly] need to power themselves, but it will ruin their income/budget. That's not good for them, someone's gotta feed the monkey; I think we can all sympathize with them here.

-Building reactors will give them the power, and would allow them to continuing to export mass oil for profit; likely even increasing the export amount and thereby increasing their income. Sounds like a legit plan/idea.

Here's the thing though, building their [planned] multiple nuclear reactors would cost several billion to build and then several billion to maintain, year after year. It could literally end up costing them more than their oil exporting brings in, even with an increase in exports.

So something's not right.

Does it really take that much to maintain a powerplant?

You need to build a dedicated area to house the used materials, keep a constant staff paid well, (around 1200 regular and another 1000 on standby) pay for the materials, etc. It's at least a few hundred million a year per power plant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does it really take that much to maintain a powerplant?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does it really take that much to maintain a powerplant?

My bad, [high] millions, not billions to maintain. Though they cost around 3-6 billion to build, depending on size; that a conservative number, as construction projects of this magnitude generally do go over-budget.

Edit: Though Iran is planning to build 6 reactors, iirc. So the combined cost to maintain 6 will likely be in the [low] billions per year.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here's an issue, Iran's got a shitload of oil, but they export much of is; this is were much/most of their revenue and government's budget is paid with.

-Not building reactors and lowering their oil exports will net them the fuel they [supposedly] need to power themselves, but it will ruin their income/budget. That's not good for them, someone's gotta feed the monkey; I think we can all sympathize with them here.

-Building reactors will give them the power, and would allow them to continuing to export mass oil for profit; likely even increasing the export amount and thereby increasing their income. Sounds like a legit plan/idea.

Here's the thing though, building their [planned] multiple nuclear reactors would cost several billion to build and then several billion to maintain, year after year. It could literally end up costing them more than their oil exporting brings in, even with an increase in exports.

So something's not right.

I understand the dodgyness you speak of. I also absolutely support investigations into Iran's business. Wasn't there a report by US intelligence in 2008 or 2007, (I'm not sure exactly), and NIE report has allegedly stated that Iran appears to not be as determined to make any weapons as US previously thought? Obviously, Israel has rejected this assessment (as they have the right to do so and to be suspicious of their enemy).

However, could we not argue the fact that Israel refuses to join NPT and allow inspections of its own warheads as threatening, if we were Iran? Would it make sense that Iran allows absolute transparency into their nuclear business, while Israel refuses to be inspected?

On the other hand, should Israel allow itself to be inspected if its enemy is not adhering to total transparency? Would knowledge of Israel's arsenal give an upper hand to it's enemies?

This is a situation that is not best solved through a war. And I don't believe sanctions will help.

Given, Iran is now not a country it once was - it is a religious dictatorship akin to 7th century practices and mentality. Kamenei declared fatwa against nuclear weapons. I am betting he doesn't know what nukes are, yet he contributes to political world...in his own dangerous way.
Should leadership change in Iran? YES. Not just leadership, but whole structure of the government.

I understand the dodgyness you speak of. I also absolutely support investigations into Iran's business. Wasn't there a report by US intelligence in 2008 or 2007, (I'm not sure exactly), and NIE report has allegedly stated that Iran appears to not be as determined to make any weapons as US previously thought? Obviously, Israel has rejected this assessment (as they have the right to do so and to be suspicious of their enemy).

Here's the Nov 2009 report by the IAEA.

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Report_Iran_16November2009pdf_1.pdf

And a section from it regarding possible nuclear weapon's development activities.

Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern, which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. It is now well over a year since the Agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues. Unless Iran implements the Additional Protocol and, through substantive dialogue, clarifies the outstanding issues to the satisfaction of the Agency, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

Given, Iran is now not a country it once was - it is a religious dictatorship akin to 7th century practices and mentality. Kamenei declared fatwa against nuclear weapons. I am betting he doesn't know what nukes are, yet he contributes to political world...in his own dangerous way. Should leadership change in Iran? YES. Not just leadership, but whole structure of the government.

I agree...Leadership change is neccesary in Iran but I believe that the Iranian people will enact that soon enough. Whether the process is promoted in an underhand way by western governments is highly likely in that they will push for another revolution. But I think all out war is highly unlikely.

This is a situation that is not best solved through a war. And I don't believe sanctions will help.

Specific sanctions related to weapons and multi use materials will be effective.

On the other hand, should Israel allow itself to be inspected if its enemy is not adhering to total transparency? Would knowledge of Israel's arsenal give an upper hand to it's enemies?

I think Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons may be small to non existant now. This is a strong reason for not allowing inspectors because if they found a weak or non existant nuclear weapons programme in Israel then it's likely their enemies in the middle east would launch all out war on them. Surely when Iraq attacked Israel during the 1st gulf war with scud missles with potentially WMD biological and chemical weapons then Israel, if they had the potential to attack, would have done so at that point with WMD's of their own.

However, could we not argue the fact that Israel refuses to join NPT and allow inspections of its own warheads as threatening, if we were Iran?

It's considerably less threatening than Iran's rhetoric.

they sure are bullies to the world.thanks for posting that Deano.great stuff. 👆

Originally posted by Mr Parker
they sure are bullies to the world.thanks for posting that Deano.great stuff. 👆

Isn't he also the guy who believes that the Earth is controlled by lizard people? 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't he also the guy who believes that the Earth is controlled by lizard people? 😆

yeah but that doesnt change anything that he has FACTS here that cant be refuted in this article. people around really need to stop listening to what the corporate controlled media says-the newspapers and THE idiot box in the living room that you turn on and listen to, and start reading newspapers that report REAL news like this such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS,ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS and MEDIA BYPASS. and they DONT talk about Lizard people just so you know. 😄

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah but that doesnt change anything that he has FACTS here that cant be refuted in this article. people around really need to stop listening to what the corporate controlled media says-the newspapers and THE idiot box in the living room that you turn on and listen to, and start reading newspapers that report REAL news like this such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS,ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS and MEDIA BYPASS. and they DONT talk about Lizard people just so you know. 😄

Why don't the lizard people take care of the Jews?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why don't the lizard people take care of the Jews?

You know, some Jews are not supportive of Israel's policies contra Palestinians.

And this David Ike - even if he posts some good arguments against banking and financial institutions, he soils it all with the lizard crap.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, some Jews are not supportive of Israel's policies contra Palestinians.

I realize that.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And this David Ike - even if he posts some good arguments against banking and financial institutions, he soils it all with the lizard crap.

It is kind of hard to take David Ike seriously.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah but that doesnt change anything that he has FACTS here that cant be refuted in this article. people around really need to stop listening to what the corporate controlled media says-the newspapers and THE idiot box in the living room that you turn on and listen to, and start reading newspapers that report REAL news like this such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS,ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS and MEDIA BYPASS. and they DONT talk about Lizard people just so you know. 😄

damn your eloquent and insulting logic

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, some Jews are not supportive of Israel's policies contra Palestinians.

And this David Ike - even if he posts some good arguments against banking and financial institutions, he soils it all with the lizard crap.

yeah very true and thats very true about Icke as well.

I think Israel is the most powerful Middle Eastern country by far, I mean it has rumoured to have around 300 nukes perhaps even more. That guarantees Israel its security and the Arab countries are just too damn weak to do anything about it. Pakistan has nukes in Saudi Arabia to counter Israel & they know it, i also believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a serious threat to Pakistan because if it wasn't bad enough to have India with its nuclear weapon on the eastern border but to have Iran with it's future nukes on the south western border then i dont know what is

And remember Iran is one of India's closest allies and would let India use it's airbases to attack Pakistan.
Iran also supports militant shia terrorism in Pakistan and i guess i would probably support an Israeli attack on Iran because they would doing Pakistan a huge favour.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I realize that.

It is kind of hard to take David Ike seriously.

thats why alot of people think he is a disinfo agent. that he mixes 90% truth with 10% fantasy to steer people away from this kind of stuff

Originally posted by Deano
thats why alot of people think he is a disinfo agent. that he mixes 90% truth with 10% fantasy to steer people away from this kind of stuff

90% to 10%? Meh, giving that man way too much credit on "the truth".