Abraham Lincoln on unconstitutional US wars of invasion

[abso]

Abraham Lincoln on unconstitutional US wars of invasion
courageously standing against OBVIOUS lies




Most people do not know that Abraham Lincoln is a hero for his acts as a freshman member of the House of Representatives in the Congress of 1847-1849. Lincoln demanded that the President of the US provide specific evidence justifying the US invading a foreign country, suspecting that the President’s claims of a defensive war were lies to propagandize an offensive war for territorial control against a weaker nation. He did so despite the lack of support from most of his own political party. He demanded the facts despite his being painted by political opponents and the press as “unpatriotic.” The propaganda defeated Lincoln at his next election; his name slurred as “spotty Lincoln.” We now know that Lincoln was correct that the US President had indeed lied about the cause of war.


We find ourselves in a similar situation. US presidents are lying about our Wars of Aggression, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, while lying to cause a third war with Iran. Let’s review the courageous words of truth from Mr. Lincoln, and encourage ourselves to act against these treasonous and cowardly wars that have so-far killed over 5,000 American troops. The following five paragraphs from Mr. Lincoln’s speech in Congress deserve your full attention. They are written in his acclaimed concise and powerful prose.


Part of the speech:
“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.


… This strange omission, it does seem to me, could not have occurred but by design. My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; and there, I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client’s neck, in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the case, which he dared not admit, and yet could not deny…. Let him answer, fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no envasion — no equivocation.


.....................................


Rest of the speech and the article:
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/abraham-lincoln-on-unconstitutional-us-wars-of-invasion-courageously-standing-against-obvious-lies

[darin]

Does that have any relevance to anything current? We haven't 'invaded' (with the intent on capturing land) since...we stole this land from the natives.

[KarlMarx]

We certainly haven't invaded Afghanistan. We are there at the request of the current government....

[Gaffer]

Abso you need to stay well clear of American history unless you really know what your talking about. And be careful of people you read that have an agenda and like to revise history.

The war with Mexico began in 1846 with the invasion of Texas by Mexican troops. Mexico started the war. The US defeated them and then annexed what became our southwestern states. The politics of the day was manifest destiny. They believed the US should extend from one ocean to the next. Lincoln was against that line of thought, but he was in the minority.

[Sweetchuck]

I have a question for Abso. Anti-western Muslims often point out that the west is responsible for X number of deaths in the Muslim world. Can you elaborate?

[abso]

I have a question for Abso. Anti-western Muslims often point out that the west is responsible for X number of deaths in the Muslim world. Can you elaborate?

elaborate what ?, the number of deaths ?

[abso]

Abso you need to stay well clear of American history unless you really know what your talking about. And be careful of people you read that have an agenda and like to revise history.

The war with Mexico began in 1846 with the invasion of Texas by Mexican troops. Mexico started the war. The US defeated them and then annexed what became our southwestern states. The politics of the day was manifest destiny. They believed the US should extend from one ocean to the next. Lincoln was against that line of thought, but he was in the minority.

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

[Sweetchuck]

elaborate what ?, the number of deaths ?

Every time you hear some nutjob like Ahmadinnerjacket rail about how terrible the west is, they state that the west is responsible for deaths of children and all that.

How so? What are these guys basing these statements on?

[SassyLady]

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

Yes, Presidents (actually any leader of any nation) will lie. Sometimes they lie to protect the masses and sometimes they lie to achieve their goals. Sometimes those goals are in the best interests of their nation and sometimes they aren't.

Whether or not Bush lied, or was lied to, or lied to us is beside the point now. We cannot go back and change what has occurred ... what we can do is move forward and make the sacrifices worthwhile.

Abso, are you an American?

[Gaffer]

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

Why did Bush invade iraq? First of all because saddam did not follow the conditions of the cease fire from the first gulf war. He played hide and seek games with the inspectors there to check for WMD's. He completely refused to cooperate concerning the un's demands and orders. He repeatedly fired on the aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. He was financing hamas and hezbo and many other terror organizations. He was, according to intelligence from every nation, building and storing WMD's. Of course he had three months to remove those WMD's before the invasion.

The liberals all took up the cry "Bush lied" when no WMD's were found. The real fact is Bush was wrong. He didn't lie. All the intelligence agencies in the world were apparently wrong too. Or they lied to Bush.

But the facts are he had more reason to go into iraq than just WMD's. He had 12 un resolutions, inspectors kicked out, attacks on air craft and the fact there was a cease fire in place, not a treaty. Hostilities could be resumed at any time. saddam didn't follow his end of the deal and Bush chose to resume hostilities.

[abso]

Every time you hear some nutjob like Ahmadinnerjacket rail about how terrible the west is, they state that the west is responsible for deaths of children and all that.

How so? What are these guys basing these statements on?

ask them not me, i never blamed the west for all the deaths, in every war both sides makes mistakes.

and about who blames the west for everything instead of looking into their own mistakes, then you should ask your self, why some americans blame the muslims for all the terror in the world !!!, its just the hate that consumes some people and make them see only their side, not both sides.

[abso]

Yes, Presidents (actually any leader of any nation) will lie. Sometimes they lie to protect the masses and sometimes they lie to achieve their goals. Sometimes those goals are in the best interests of their nation and sometimes they aren't.

Whether or not Bush lied, or was lied to, or lied to us is beside the point now. We cannot go back and change what has occurred ... what we can do is move forward and make the sacrifices worthwhile.

Abso, are you an American?

No...

[abso]

Why did Bush invade iraq? First of all because saddam did not follow the conditions of the cease fire from the first gulf war. He played hide and seek games with the inspectors there to check for WMD's. He completely refused to cooperate concerning the un's demands and orders. He repeatedly fired on the aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. He was financing hamas and hezbo and many other terror organizations. He was, according to intelligence from every nation, building and storing WMD's. Of course he had three months to remove those WMD's before the invasion.

The liberals all took up the cry "Bush lied" when no WMD's were found. The real fact is Bush was wrong. He didn't lie. All the intelligence agencies in the world were apparently wrong too. Or they lied to Bush.

But the facts are he had more reason to go into iraq than just WMD's. He had 12 un resolutions, inspectors kicked out, attacks on air craft and the fact there was a cease fire in place, not a treaty. Hostilities could be resumed at any time. saddam didn't follow his end of the deal and Bush chose to resume hostilities.

i agree with you, saddam was not a wise leader, but let me just ask you simple questions...

Was Saddam a threat to USA security ?
Did Saddam ever threaten USA ?
was Saddam a threat to your own security or any other american ?

think throughly before answering...

[Gaffer]

i agree with you, saddam was not a wise leader, but let me just ask you simple questions...

Was Saddam a threat to USA security ?
Did Saddam ever threaten USA ?
was Saddam a threat to your own security or any other american ?

think throughly before answering...

Due to his support of terror organizations he was a threat to America. He was a major threat to the region. To oil production and distribution. It's not just the US that benefits from the mideast oil.

saddam threatened the US many times. He spent 12 years firing on US and British air craft patrolling the no fly zone. He was funding terrorist organizations and provided training areas for them. Unleashing terrorists on this country is a direct threat to me and any other citizen.

[abso]

Due to his support of terror organizations he was a threat to America. He was a major threat to the region. To oil production and distribution. It's not just the US that benefits from the mideast oil.

saddam threatened the US many times. He spent 12 years firing on US and British air craft patrolling the no fly zone. He was funding terrorist organizations and provided training areas for them. Unleashing terrorists on this country is a direct threat to me and any other citizen.

the terrorist organization that you mentioned, Hamas and Hizboallah.

are they a threat to USA security, or to israel security, or are both the same to you ?

is the american treasury an israelian owned property to be spent for the security of israel ?

who gave USA the right to patrol in the No fly zone, and who gave it the right to enforce it ?

whats your proof that Saddam was funding terrorists, do you really believe everything that your president tells you ?, i thought the american history has proved many and many times to the american citizens that they can never beleive their own elected presidents.

radicals was never unleashed at US soil until 9/11, they never thought of attacking it, until they got tired of its ongoin support of the criminal acts of israel.

why would america take sides in the conflicts in middle east, there is no benifit for it, america has no benifit at all in supporting israel, if you have got any benifit for the american people in this relation, then please tell me, arabs have oil to offer, whats does israel have to offer to america ?

all the islamic radicals problems was with israel, their fury was always directed towards israel, not america, but america has gained israel's enemies and their fury by supporting israel in everything it does be it right or wrong.

but i assure you, arabs never thought of america as an enemy, and even the most radical muslims never thought of attacking america until they got tired from the blind american policy of supporting israel.

did america have any troubles with muslims at all in the begginings of the last century, it all started just from two or three decades.

[jimnyc]

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

12 years of failed resolutions. Missing chemical weapons when inspectors returned to Iraq in 2001 - and to this day not accounted for. Saddam himself proclaimed at a time that his country possessed the weapons. The resolutions and failure to abide by the cease fire were more than enough, the rest was icing on the cake.

And you have no PROOF that he lied, only that we haven't found said WMD's. For all we know they are buried in the desert somewhere, or were transported to other countries as many believe.

[abso]

12 years of failed resolutions. Missing chemical weapons when inspectors returned to Iraq in 2001 - and to this day not accounted for. Saddam himself proclaimed at a time that his country possessed the weapons. The resolutions and failure to abide by the cease fire were more than enough, the rest was icing on the cake.

And you have no PROOF that he lied, only that we haven't found said WMD's. For all we know they are buried in the desert somewhere, or were transported to other countries as many believe.

i dont have to proof that someone is innocent, according to every known law, the accuser is the one who have to proof that someone is guilty, and the WMD was the main reason for the invasion, so if you cant find it, then you dont have any evidence, or your CIA has failed as usual and provided your adminstration with wrong information :salute:


and btw, i dont even agree with this reason, because even if Iraq developed WMD, USA have no right to invade it, unless USA is willing to disarm Israel from its WMD, then USA have no right to talk about the WMD of any other country.

[Gaffer]

the terrorist organization that you mentioned, Hamas and Hizboallah.

are they a threat to USA security, or to israel security, or are both the same to you ?

Absolutely. hezbo is directly supported by iran and has agents in the US. hamas is also supported by iran and other arab countries. Their main goal is the destruction of Israel. They too have agents in the US.

is the american treasury an israelian owned property to be spent for the security of israel ?

That's a silly question.

who gave USA the right to patrol in the No fly zone, and who gave it the right to enforce it ?


The 1991 cease fire gave the US the right to patrol the no fly zone, which was established to keep saddam from slaughtering the shites in the south and kurds in the north. He still used helicopters and artillery and WMD's to kill them by the thousands.

whats your proof that Saddam was funding terrorists, do you really believe everything that your president tells you ?, i thought the american history has proved many and many times to the american citizens that they can never beleive their own elected presidents.

There were all sorts of government and private reports concerning saddam's funding of terrorists. Once the invasion was complete they found more documents than they could imagine or even get interpreted in a reasonable time. Including oil deals with the russians, germans and french.

I don't believe anything the current president has to say. But past presidents were usually truthful. It was always more telling what they didn't say.

radicals was never unleashed at US soil until 9/11, they never thought of attacking it, until they got tired of its ongoin support of the criminal acts of israel.

ahh ok, korbert towers, lebanon barracks, Cole, embassies. hijackings. They never thought about attacking until 9/11, right. The Us support of Israel is just an excuse for the attacks.

why would america take sides in the conflicts in middle east, there is no benifit for it, america has no benifit at all in supporting israel, if you have got any benifit for the american people in this relation, then please tell me, arabs have oil to offer, whats does israel have to offer to america ?

Let's see, maybe moral benefits. Not letting millions of Israelis be slaughtered. Promoting a democracy in the middle east. Doing the right thing because its right to do.

all the islamic radicals problems was with israel, their fury was always directed towards israel, not america, but america has gained israel's enemies and their fury by supporting israel in everything it does be it right or wrong.

America has allowed Israel to defend itself. That's why America is hated. If Israel were gone tomorrow America would still be hated and attacked. Israel just happens to be the primary focus of the hatred for now. The islamists are so hate filled they will use any excuse to vent their rage. Take away Israel and countries with large jewish populations will be targeted. Any excuse for conquest will do.

but i assure you, arabs never thought of america as an enemy, and even the most radical muslims never thought of attacking america until they got tired from the blind american policy of supporting israel.

They have thought of all infidels as the enemy. The world of islam (I can't spell the arabic name) and the world or eternal war, the non believers. It's all there in that book of peace the koran. The only reason America was not attacked before was they don't have the technology. They had to brainwash people into believing if they killed themselves killing non believers they would go straight to heaven, do not pass go do not collect $200.

did america have any troubles with muslims at all in the begginings of the last century, it all started just from two or three decades.

The first run in with muslims by the US was back in the 1790's with the barbery pirates. It ended with military action and the capture of Tripoli. The arab countries of the middle east were all part of the ottoman empire until after WW1. Britain created the current countries in the region. The arabs of the middle east during WW2 fought on the side of the nazis. They still hold the same beliefs only they see themselves as the super race.

Technology takes a long time to develop. The middle east never developed any. They have had to import it. So its taken a long time to get to a point that they can export their war on the non believers.

You are lucky, you live in a secular country that's not overwhelmed by islam at this point. But like Turkey that could change quickly. Your post here shows your a little more on the radical side than you claim you are. Maybe you don't realize how your coming across, or maybe you just slipped.

[Gaffer]

i dont have to proof that someone is innocent, according to every known law, the accuser is the one who have to proof that someone is guilty, and the WMD was the main reason for the invasion, so if you cant find it, then you dont have any evidence, or your CIA has failed as usual and provided your adminstration with wrong information :salute:


and btw, i dont even agree with this reason, because even if Iraq developed WMD, USA have no right to invade it, unless USA is willing to disarm Israel from its WMD, then USA have no right to talk about the WMD of any other country.

An iraqi general who defected to the US, told all about the WMD's and what became of them. They were shipped out on russian transport planes. What could not be flown out was hauled by truck across the syrian border. There were even photo's of these convoys before the invasion began.

[Abbey Marie]

An iraqi general who defected to the US, told all about the WMD's and what became of them. They were shipped out on russian transport planes. What could not be flown out was hauled by truck across the syrian border. There were even photo's of these convoys before the invasion began.

I remember those photos.

[abso]

An iraqi general who defected to the US, told all about the WMD's and what became of them. They were shipped out on russian transport planes. What could not be flown out was hauled by truck across the syrian border. There were even photo's of these convoys before the invasion began.

showing them to me would be nice...

and also showing me the proof that inside those trucks, there was WMD, that would be more generous of you

[abso]

The first run in with muslims by the US was back in the 1790's with the barbery pirates. It ended with military action and the capture of Tripoli. The arab countries of the middle east were all part of the ottoman empire until after WW1. Britain created the current countries in the region. The arabs of the middle east during WW2 fought on the side of the nazis. They still hold the same beliefs only they see themselves as the super race.

Technology takes a long time to develop. The middle east never developed any. They have had to import it. So its taken a long time to get to a point that they can export their war on the non believers.

You are lucky, you live in a secular country that's not overwhelmed by islam at this point. But like Turkey that could change quickly. Your post here shows your a little more on the radical side than you claim you are. Maybe you don't realize how your coming across, or maybe you just slipped.

As i said before, Quran does not consider christians or jews as infidals, and it doesnt call for their death, there is a complete part in Quran about Mary, mother of jesus, it honors her and her son, jesus (PBUH).

we muslims believe and respect the three holy religions, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and their prophets, Muhammed, Jesus, Moses, Peace be upon them.

[Kathianne]

As i said before, Quran does not consider christians or jews as infidals, and it doesnt call for their death, there is a complete part in Quran about Mary, mother of jesus, it honors her and her son, jesus (PBUH).

we muslims believe and respect the three holy religions, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and their prophets, Muhammed, Jesus, Moses, Peace be upon them.


I really hate disagreeing with anyone's assertions regarding their beliefs, there just is not only an absence of anything to back up the above claim, their is a megatron of evidence saying that your religion indeed encourages the persecution of Jews and Christians, as practiced today and in the past.

[Gaffer]

showing them to me would be nice...

and also showing me the proof that inside those trucks, there was WMD, that would be more generous of you

That would require a lot of searching on my part. Plus its just pictures of trucks, so you could argue they are not even in iraq. As to what was in them. The iraqi general said WMD components. Since no one could see into the trucks we have only his word.

[Kathianne]

i dont have to proof that someone is innocent, according to every known law, the accuser is the one who have to proof that someone is guilty, and the WMD was the main reason for the invasion, so if you cant find it, then you dont have any evidence, or your CIA has failed as usual and provided your adminstration with wrong information :salute:


and btw, i dont even agree with this reason, because even if Iraq developed WMD, USA have no right to invade it, unless USA is willing to disarm Israel from its WMD, then USA have no right to talk about the WMD of any other country.

Well 100% of allies agreed with us, but they, like you disliked GWB. None of which gets rid of the intel from them or others in Middle East, including Saddam himself, MHRIH.

[jimnyc]

i dont have to proof that someone is innocent, according to every known law, the accuser is the one who have to proof that someone is guilty, and the WMD was the main reason for the invasion, so if you cant find it, then you dont have any evidence, or your CIA has failed as usual and provided your adminstration with wrong information :salute:


and btw, i dont even agree with this reason, because even if Iraq developed WMD, USA have no right to invade it, unless USA is willing to disarm Israel from its WMD, then USA have no right to talk about the WMD of any other country.

Here you go again not making any sense. If the CIA passed along bogus information, and GWB reported and acted on what he believed to be the truth - then he didn't lie, did he? And maybe the CIA had good information but it changed (WMD's being moved). Maybe their information was outdated. There are many reasons to explain what transpired without it equating to someone having lied - it just makes it more fun and easier for you to scream GWB lied - but also makes you look foolish as usual.

[abso]

That would require a lot of searching on my part. Plus its just pictures of trucks, so you could argue they are not even in iraq. As to what was in them. The iraqi general said WMD components. Since no one could see into the trucks we have only his word.

so let me ask you,

will you consider my opinion justified if i say that he might be lying?

[abso]

Here you go again not making any sense. If the CIA passed along bogus information, and GWB reported and acted on what he believed to be the truth - then he didn't lie, did he? And maybe the CIA had good information but it changed (WMD's being moved). Maybe their information was outdated. There are many reasons to explain what transpired without it equating to someone having lied - it just makes it more fun and easier for you to scream GWB lied - but also makes you look foolish as usual.

you didnt account the possibility that the WMD may have never existed in the first place, isnt that a possibility too ?

[abso]

I really hate disagreeing with anyone's assertions regarding their beliefs, there just is not only an absence of anything to back up the above claim, their is a megatron of evidence saying that your religion indeed encourages the persecution of Jews and Christians, as practiced today and in the past.

the problem is that you dont know anything about the Islamic history except what you are being told from people who hate it, or what you read about it from the wrong sources, when you want to know anything about a religion, talk to someone who actually is in that religion, and who loves it, only he can explain it to you, but if you talk to someone who hates Islam, how can you expect to learn the truth about something from someone who hates it ?

at least listen to both sides.

Islam have never encouraged persecution of other religions, actually christians helped Muhammed and protected him, i will post later some verses from Quran which honors christianity and judaism.

[jimnyc]

you didnt account the possibility that the WMD may have never existed in the first place, isnt that a possibility too ?

Sure it's a possibility. But we had intel that stated otherwise. Other countries shared intel with us that stated otherwise. There were defectors from Iraq who stated otherwise. And lastly, Saddam himself stated they possessed the weapons. But in your little corner of the world I guess we were supposed to ignore all of these warning signs, 12 years of failed resolutions and Iraq's refusal to account for tons of chemical weapons that were tagged and accounted for in 1998 and were nowhere to be found in 2001.

[Sweetchuck]

ask them not me, i never blamed the west for all the deaths, in every war both sides makes mistakes.

and about who blames the west for everything instead of looking into their own mistakes, then you should ask your self, why some americans blame the muslims for all the terror in the world !!!, its just the hate that consumes some people and make them see only their side, not both sides.

That's my point, and I'm glad you got it.

It's a two way street. You, YOU are equally guilty of what you accuse.

[Abbey Marie]

Sure it's a possibility. But we had intel that stated otherwise. Other countries shared intel with us that stated otherwise. There were defectors from Iraq who stated otherwise. And lastly, Saddam himself stated they possessed the weapons. But in your little corner of the world I guess we were supposed to ignore all of these warning signs, 12 years of failed resolutions and Iraq's refusal to account for tons of chemical weapons that were tagged and accounted for in 1998 and were nowhere to be found in 2001.

As did several other countries.

[abso]

That's my point, and I'm glad you got it.

It's a two way street. You, YOU are equally guilty of what you accuse.

true, both sides are guilty, but not equally, when you are stronger, your responsibility will always be greater, when a country acts like model of the free world, and start punishing every country for its internal mistakes or outer mistakes, then it must accept the fact that by doing so, it has more responsibility for its own actions, more than anyone else, by acting like a model for other countries, you are not allowed to do mistakes, thats just the way it is, and your mistakes will always be greater than the others.

if USA wants to act like a model for the free and democratic world, then it should stop doing mistakes, there is no room for error.

If iraq didnt really have WMD, and it was an error, then that would be an error which caused the loss of more than 1 million human life, so thats what i mean, there is no room for error when you have so much power at your disposal, am i right ?

[abso]

Sure it's a possibility. But we had intel that stated otherwise. Other countries shared intel with us that stated otherwise. There were defectors from Iraq who stated otherwise. And lastly, Saddam himself stated they possessed the weapons. But in your little corner of the world I guess we were supposed to ignore all of these warning signs, 12 years of failed resolutions and Iraq's refusal to account for tons of chemical weapons that were tagged and accounted for in 1998 and were nowhere to be found in 2001.


i didnt say that saddam should have been ignored, but an assasination should have been enough, is that too hard for the CIA ???

please provide me with the source about saddam revealing his WMD inventory.

please provide me with a source which contain the intel which lead to iraq war.

please tell me, do you really think that defectors from Iraq can be trusted and their word should be believed ?

--------------------------------------------------------------
how many justified UN resolutions have USA used the VETO right to stop, just for israel ?

how many UN resolutions have israel ignored ?, should i provide you with the list ? :salute:

[jimnyc]

i didnt say that saddam should have been ignored, but an assasination should have been enough, is that too hard for the CIA ???

The entire government deserved to be removed, and the citizens given an opportunity at freedom and their own democracy.


please provide me with the source about saddam revealing his WMD inventory.

Read specifically the first paragraph, and I can quote you more if necessary. Too bad he gave his reasoning for lying AFTER he was captured.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/07/in_fbi_interviews_saddam_husse.html


please provide me with a source which contain the intel which lead to iraq war.

Try doing a search at Google yourself. The intel discussed in Congress in the USA and the Intel shared by other countries (which I stated basically came to the same conclusions) can easily be found. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate on the intel - when this was debated non-stop years ago. If you want to learn more than your display of ignorance, search and learn.


please tell me, do you really think that defectors from Iraq can be trusted and their word should be believed ?


I think anyone stating proof of WMD's should be taken seriously, and the intel looked into for corroboration. But dismiss it simply because they DEFECTED? Absolutely not. This is called evidence from direct witnesses. But again, their words were just a miniscule part of why we went into Iraq. Hell, people make it sound like we solely went in for WMD's. We likely would have went in before long anyway since they outright refused to work with the UN investigators - the very same investigators who reported the chemical weapons missing and Iraq's refusal to account for them.


how many justified UN resolutions have USA used the VETO right to stop, just for israel ?

how many UN resolutions have israel ignored ?, should i provide you with the list ? :salute:

You likely have a point here, but I fail to see what Israel/USA has to do with what took place in Iraq. It's just your ignorance once again trying to cloud the issue. Comparing Israel and it's leaders to the likes of Iraq and Saddam possibly possessing WMD's is like comparing bugs bunny to Adolph Hitler with deadly gas.

[abso]

You likely have a point here, but I fail to see what Israel/USA has to do with what took place in Iraq. It's just your ignorance once again trying to cloud the issue. Comparing Israel and it's leaders to the likes of Iraq and Saddam possibly possessing WMD's is like comparing bugs bunny to Adolph Hitler with deadly gas.

Sorry, but i am not comparing the leaders, i am just comparing the reasons, if USA thinks that everyone should comply with the international law, then it should start by making its allies comply with it, or is Israel above the law ?, when we wish a change to happen, we must start with ourselfs, then the ones closest to us, right ?

So i can find you alot of unanswered UN resolution which was directed towards israel, when a USA ally ignores whats USA is trying to force people to do,which is respect of the law, how does that make USA looks like ?

and when USA VETO's right is used solely for the purpose of preventing any UN resolution against Israel, so isn't that a little biased ?, when USA have never voted in favour of any UN resolution against israel, does that mean that Israel is a GOD who never make mistakes ???, i agree that arabs makes mistakes, none is perfect, but is Israel really that perfect in the standards of USA ?

how can USA ask others to comply with the law while Israel is breaking it daily ?

How can USA ask people not to have WMD while Israel have them and refuse to join any treaty about WMD ?

How can USA ask any country to allow the inspectors to enter its nuclear reactors while Israel never allowed it ?

when people feel injustice, they tend to rebel, so everywhere around the world, people feel injustice for the double standards which USA uses in treating countries, so when USA start treating Israel like its treating Iran, when it force it to accept the inspectors and threaten it with war if it does not comply with the law, only then, people will start see justice in US actions.

and please understand my argument, i am not deflecting from the subject at all, its the same, i am just explaining to you the reasons that some countries is rebellious of the US politics including Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, but i am not comparing the leaders, i am just comparing the reasons, if USA thinks that everyone should comply with the international law, then it should start by making its allies comply with it, or is Israel above the law ?, when we wish a change to happen, we must start with ourselfs, then the ones closest to us, right ?

So i can find you alot of unanswered UN resolution which was directed towards israel, when a USA ally ignores whats USA is trying to force people to do,which is respect of the law, how does that make USA looks like ?

And now you completely drop the questions you asked of me and zone in on Israel again. How about we address the questions YOU asked of me first, which I answered. I guess you ignore the FACTS and DIFFICULT realities that are proved to you and fall back on blaming/condemning the US/Israel relationship.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, but i am not comparing the leaders, i am just comparing the reasons, if USA thinks that everyone should comply with the international law, then it should start by making its allies comply with it, or is Israel above the law ?, when we wish a change to happen, we must start with ourselfs, then the ones closest to us, right ?

So i can find you alot of unanswered UN resolution which was directed towards israel, when a USA ally ignores whats USA is trying to force people to do,which is respect of the law, how does that make USA looks like ?

Furthermore:

Did Israel use WMD on it's own people?
Did Israel refuse entry to UN inspectors, in defiance of resolutions?
Does Israel's leader claim to want to use WMD's on it's neighbors (Like the Iranian asshole, or Saddam)

Yes, Israel ignores resolutions and defies UN related governments - but the comparison between Israel and what took place in Iraq is not only 100% different, but also off subject.

[abso]

Furthermore:

Did Israel use WMD on it's own people?
Did Israel refuse entry to UN inspectors, in defiance of resolutions?
Does Israel's leader claim to want to use WMD's on it's neighbors (Like the Iranian asshole, or Saddam)

Yes, Israel ignores resolutions and defies UN related governments - but the comparison between Israel and what took place in Iraq is not only 100% different, but also off subject.

You dont apply the law basing your judgement on the intentions of other, if its illegeal to posses WMD, then its illegal, what ever the intentions from having it.

Iran never admitted that it wants WMD, and never threatened to use WMD against its neighours, how can they threaten to use WMD while they only admitted that they want peaceful nuclear technology, and please dont tell me that they want it for WMD, thats not the issue, what i am saying is that they didnt admit that even if its true, so how come that they have threaten to use WMD against anyone !!!

none in the modern world will even use WMD, not saddam not North Korea, not Iran, and not even USA and certainly not Israel, so it does not matter who have them, they are useless weapons, only used as a weapon of fear, but the current situation makes it useless to have them, everyone have them now, so none can fire them.

in the international law which USA is trying to apply, is there any rule that allows countries to have WMD if they arent going to use it ???

you cant argue that israel wont use them, its illegal to have them in the first place, and israel is not allowed to have them, USA said many times that it want to create a WMD free zone in ME, so how can that happen while israel have them ???

[Kathianne]

You dont apply the law basing your judgement on the intentions of other, if its illegeal to posses WMD, then its illegal, what ever the intentions from having it.

Iran never admitted that it wants WMD, and never threatened to use WMD against its neighours, how can they threaten to use WMD while they only admitted that they want peaceful nuclear technology, and please dont tell me that they want it for WMD, thats not the issue, what i am saying is that they didnt admit that even if its true, so how come that they have threaten to use WMD against anyone !!!

none in the modern world will even use WMD, not saddam not North Korea, not Iran, and not even USA and certainly not Israel, so it does not matter who have them, they are useless weapons, only used as a weapon of fear, but the current situation makes it useless to have them, everyone have them now, so none can fire them.

in the international law which USA is trying to apply, is there any rule that allows countries to have WMD if they arent going to use it ???

you cant argue that israel wont use them, its illegal to have them in the first place, and israel is not allowed to have them, USA said many times that it want to create a WMD free zone in ME, so how can that happen while israel have them ???

Iraq's Saddam did use WMD on Iranians and on his own people.

[abso]

And now you completely drop the questions you asked of me and zone in on Israel again. How about we address the questions YOU asked of me first, which I answered. I guess you ignore the FACTS and DIFFICULT realities that are proved to you and fall back on blaming/condemning the US/Israel relationship.

what you fail to recognize is that US/Israel relationship has a very big role in shaping todays event, and in shaping the relation with arabs and USA, and everyone else, even North Korea.

when USA starts to treat Israel like its treating eveyone else, you wont find any rebellious contries who refuses to comply with the law, but leave someone out of the equation, and everyone will just follow israel in ignoring tha law.

[abso]

Iraq's Saddam did use WMD on Iranians and on his own people.

ok, but does that mean that israel can have them ?

[Kathianne]

ok, but does that mean that israel can have them ?

Who says they do? You don't question what the Iranian President claims, right? Israel has never said they have nuclear weapons, nor other WMD. If ok not to doubt Iran, why doubt Israel?

[jimnyc]

You dont apply the law basing your judgement on the intentions of other, if its illegeal to posses WMD, then its illegal, what ever the intentions from having it.

Iran never admitted that it wants WMD, and never threatened to use WMD against its neighours, how can they threaten to use WMD while they only admitted that they want peaceful nuclear technology, and please dont tell me that they want it for WMD, thats not the issue, what i am saying is that they didnt admit that even if its true, so how come that they have threaten to use WMD against anyone !!!

none in the modern world will even use WMD, not saddam not North Korea, not Iran, and not even USA and certainly not Israel, so it does not matter who have them, they are useless weapons, only used as a weapon of fear, but the current situation makes it useless to have them, everyone have them now, so none can fire them.

in the international law which USA is trying to apply, is there any rule that allows countries to have WMD if they arent going to use it ???

you cant argue that israel wont use them, its illegal to have them in the first place, and israel is not allowed to have them, USA said many times that it want to create a WMD free zone in ME, so how can that happen while israel have them ???

Saddam used WMD on his own people. Achminichijackoff stated on numerous occasions he would like to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. How did he plan on doing this, with a sword and some shariah law stoning?

Some countries are considered to be responsible with major weapons - then we have some islamic countries full of nutjobs, and worse - ran by nutjobs - and these people shouldn't be allowed to have a slingshot let alone a WMD. I don't care for your belief - I don't worry much about Israel, Great Britain, the USA possessing WMD's - I worry about the radical muslims who kill in the name of allah possessing anything more than something that can cause a paper cut.

[Noir]

i agree with you, saddam was not a wise leader, but let me just ask you simple questions...

Was Saddam a threat to USA security ?
Did Saddam ever threaten USA ?
was Saddam a threat to your own security or any other american ?

think throughly before answering...

This reminds me so much of what Eddie Izzard said about going to war...We don't really mind when leaders of nations kill there own people, it's only when they start killing folks next-door we really take notice...

[the izzard clip that's in - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

[abso]

Who says they do? You don't question what the Iranian President claims, right? Israel has never said they have nuclear weapons, nor other WMD. If ok not to doubt Iran, why doubt Israel?

Have israel ever denied it ???, they have never said that they dont have nuclear weapons, and they never allowed any inspectors into their nuclear facilities, at least Iran as delusive they maybe, they say that they dont have nuclear weapons and dont want them, and they allow inspectors to go in, while israel never do that, so how come that USA never asked israel to allow inspectors to its nuclear facilities,

[Gaffer]

Have israel ever denied it ???, they have never said that they dont have nuclear weapons, and they never allowed any inspectors into their nuclear facilities, at least Iran as delusive they maybe, they say that they dont have nuclear weapons and dont want them, and they allow inspectors to go in, while israel never do that, so how come that USA never asked israel to allow inspectors to its nuclear facilities,

What makes you think inspectors are being allowed in to all their facilities?

[NightTrain]

Saddam used WMD on his own people. Achminichijackoff stated on numerous occasions he would like to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. How did he plan on doing this, with a sword and some shariah law stoning?

Some countries are considered to be responsible with major weapons - then we have some islamic countries full of nutjobs, and worse - ran by nutjobs - and these people shouldn't be allowed to have a slingshot let alone a WMD. I don't care for your belief - I don't worry much about Israel, Great Britain, the USA possessing WMD's - I worry about the radical muslims who kill in the name of allah possessing anything more than something that can cause a paper cut.

Bingo.

Read that answer slowly and carefully, Abso.

[Kathianne]

Have israel ever denied it ???, they have never said that they dont have nuclear weapons, and they never allowed any inspectors into their nuclear facilities, at least Iran as delusive they maybe, they say that they dont have nuclear weapons and dont want them, and they allow inspectors to go in, while israel never do that, so how come that USA never asked israel to allow inspectors to its nuclear facilities,

Israel never claimed to have them, they have no reason to 'allow in' inspectors for non-existent facilities.

[Noir]

Israel never claimed to have them, they have no reason to 'allow in' inspectors for non-existent facilities.

Wikipedia would suggest otherwise...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel?wasRedirected=true

Just sayin'

[Gaffer]

Wikipedia would suggest otherwise...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel?wasRedirected=true

Just sayin'

wikipedia, the edit your own encyclopedia.

[Kathianne]

Wikipedia would suggest otherwise...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel?wasRedirected=true

Just sayin'

Contradicts? Doesn't look like it:


Nuclear weapons and Israel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Israel is widely believed to be the sixth country in the world to have developed nuclear weapons[5] and to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the others being India, Pakistan and North Korea.[6] Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regarded Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons,[7] but Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguous whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, or will not make first use of the weapons. Israel has refused to sign the NPT despite international pressure to do so, and has stated that signing the NPT would be contrary to its national security interests.[8]

They do not admit to having them. IF they have them, they've not used them. Indeed, as shown above, IF they should have them, they'd never use in first strike, but then again, we 'all know' that Saddam too never had WMDs, right?

[Noir]

wikipedia, the edit your own encyclopedia.

Yes, the edit your own site that (on this page) contains 'not able to edit' links to reputable newspapers like the Times and Daily Express ect.

[Gaffer]

Yes, the edit your own site that (on this page) contains 'not able to edit' links to reputable newspapers like the Times and Daily Express ect.

I just don't trust in wiki. while they may have a lot of good facts, any site where agnapostate types can spout their warped ideas just isn't a reliable source for me. As for reputable newspapers, there might be a few out there. The times isn't one of them. Just another fact that makes me leery of the site.

[abso]

I just don't trust in wiki. while they may have a lot of good facts, any site where agnapostate types can spout their warped ideas just isn't a reliable source for me. As for reputable newspapers, there might be a few out there. The times isn't one of them. Just another fact that makes me leery of the site.


Global Security
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke.htm

Nuclear Weapon Archive
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/israels-nuclear-weapon-status

Air University
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Policy: From South Africa to Iran
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19459

Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/

Israel and weapons of mass destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Israel's nuclear weapons policy is helping Iran
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/israels-nuclear-weapons-p_b_593778.html

Clinton: Israel's Nuclear Weapons Aren't A Threat
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/clinton-israel-not-threat-nuclear-wea

Israel's nuclear weapons: Time to come clean
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/25/israel-nuclear-weapons-editorial

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revealed: The Secrets of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal
http://www.peaceheroes.com/MordecaiVanunu/mvanunubio2.htm

Mordechai Vanunu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

[NightTrain]

I personally think that Israel does have nukes.

The difference is that they haven't started wars and have acted with considerable restraint despite the many acts of aggression the surrounding countries have made against them.

Here's another Fun Fact : Israel hasn't made statements to the effect that they are committed to wiping Egypt off the map. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or any other country.

Israel isn't run by fanatic nutjobs - and you and your Arab brethren can thank your lucky stars for that, Abso, or you'd have your 3 headed camel parked on a sea of glass that used to be desert.

[Kathianne]

Global Security
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke.htm

Nuclear Weapon Archive
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/israels-nuclear-weapon-status

Air University
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Policy: From South Africa to Iran
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19459

Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/

Israel and weapons of mass destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Israel's nuclear weapons policy is helping Iran
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/israels-nuclear-weapons-p_b_593778.html

Clinton: Israel's Nuclear Weapons Aren't A Threat
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/clinton-israel-not-threat-nuclear-wea

Israel's nuclear weapons: Time to come clean
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/25/israel-nuclear-weapons-editorial

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revealed: The Secrets of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal
http://www.peaceheroes.com/MordecaiVanunu/mvanunubio2.htm

Mordechai Vanunu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu


That there's an assumption of Israel's possessing nukes, I'd not disagree. However there is no proof, no acknowledgments, no statements that they wish to.

Only the statements along the lines they'd never be first to use in the ME. So if all that are assuming are correct, so far Israel has kept their word.

[Noir]

That there's an assumption of Israel's possessing nukes, I'd not disagree. However there is no proof, no acknowledgments, no statements that they wish to.

Only the statements along the lines they'd never be first to use in the ME. So if all that are assuming are correct, so far Israel has kept their word.

But if they let weapons inspectors in then there would be no 'maybes' we would know.

[NightTrain]

But if they let weapons inspectors in then there would be no 'maybes' we would know.

There aren't any weapons inspectors trying to get in to inspect them.

[abso]

There aren't any weapons inspectors trying to get in to inspect them.

Everyone asked them to join NPT, and they refused, so why is that ?

[abso]

That there's an assumption of Israel's possessing nukes, I'd not disagree. However there is no proof, no acknowledgments, no statements that they wish to.

Only the statements along the lines they'd never be first to use in the ME. So if all that are assuming are correct, so far Israel has kept their word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu is not an assumption, for him to be kidnapped from Rome, and sent to prison for 18 years in israel, is that an assumption ???

Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement. Released from prison in 2004, he became subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been arrested several times for violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel. He says that he suffered "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the hands of Israeli authorities while imprisoned, and suggests that his treatment would have been different if he were Jewish (Vanunu is a Christian convert from Judaism).

In 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to six months in prison for violating terms of his parole. The sentence was considered unusual even by the prosecution who expected a suspended sentence. In response, Amnesty International issued a press release on 2 July 2007, stating that "The organisation considers Mordechai Vanunu to be a prisoner of conscience and calls for his immediate and unconditional release." In May 2010, Vanunu was arrested and sentenced to three months in jail on suspicion that he met foreigners in violation of conditions of his 2004 release from jail.

[Gaffer]

Everyone asked them to join NPT, and they refused, so why is that ?

Unless they admit to having nukes they have no need to join NPT. Whatever they have developed they have done so with no fanfare or threats against anyone. Innuendos are not proof of anything.

[NightTrain]

Everyone asked them to join NPT, and they refused, so why is that ?

Because they didn't feel it was in their best interests, evidently. I wouldn't have, either.

[NightTrain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu is not an assumption, for him to be kidnapped from Rome, and sent to prison for 18 years in israel, is that an assumption ???

Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement. Released from prison in 2004, he became subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been arrested several times for violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel. He says that he suffered "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the hands of Israeli authorities while imprisoned, and suggests that his treatment would have been different if he were Jewish (Vanunu is a Christian convert from Judaism).

In 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to six months in prison for violating terms of his parole. The sentence was considered unusual even by the prosecution who expected a suspended sentence. In response, Amnesty International issued a press release on 2 July 2007, stating that "The organisation considers Mordechai Vanunu to be a prisoner of conscience and calls for his immediate and unconditional release." In May 2010, Vanunu was arrested and sentenced to three months in jail on suspicion that he met foreigners in violation of conditions of his 2004 release from jail.

WTF does that have to do with anything being discussed?

[Kathianne]

WTF does that have to do with anything being discussed?

All I can find on the guy are op-eds in Guardian, and other pro-Muslim conspiracy outlets.

[Noir]

There aren't any weapons inspectors trying to get in to inspect them.

...but it's the weapons inspectors job to check =/

Saying 'they don't let anyone check if they have nukes or not because they don't have any' is a pretty weird line to follow...

[Kathianne]

...but it's the weapons inspectors job to check =/

Saying 'they don't let anyone check if they have nukes or not because they don't have any' is a pretty weird line to follow...

Not really. If they don't 'exist', there's nothing to inspect.

[Noir]

Not really. If they don't 'exist', there's nothing to inspect.

But the point of the inspection is to see if they exist.

[Kathianne]

But the point of the inspection is to see if they exist.

No, the point of the inspection is to inspect the nuclear facilities and arms, if any.

[Noir]

No, the point of the inspection is to inspect the nuclear facilities and arms, if any.

Yeah, they inspect the arms...looking for WMDs and report back on their findings.
But to just say 'we don't know if the have nukes, but we shouldn't look cus I don't think they're there' ain't right.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, they inspect the arms...looking for WMDs and report back on their findings.
But to just say 'we don't know if the have nukes, but we shouldn't look cus I don't think they're there' ain't right.

So, you advocate trampling on both states and personal rights, because a 'controlling body' assumes something?

[Noir]

So, you advocate trampling on both states and personal rights, because a 'controlling body' assumes something?

Isn't that what the UNs there for? And given Isreal is a member you'd think they somewhat agree with that notion.

[abso]

WTF does that have to do with anything being discussed?

If you just openned the article in Wiki, you would know that he was the one who told the world about the Israelian Nuclear weapons program, but of course you are just replying without even reading anything at all.

[abso]

Not really. If they don't 'exist', there's nothing to inspect.

Inspectors must check every nuclear reactor in the world, thats the rules, not just the ones that they suspect to be developing nuclear weapons, even its for energy or medical research, all reactors must be inspected, or otherwise many countries will develop their own nuclear weapons like North Korea, and of course the world doesnt need anymore WMD, we already have enough weapons to tear that planet apart, we need to stop right now, and to stop everyone from developing WMD, then we must inspect everyone, not just the muslims, so israel must be inspected, or none have any right to inspect Iran.

[NightTrain]

If you just openned the article in Wiki, you would know that he was the one who told the world about the Israelian Nuclear weapons program, but of course you are just replying without even reading anything at all.

You really have a problem with backing yourself up with credible sources.

[Noir]

You really have a problem with backing yourself up with credible sources.

>,>
Typical anti-wiki tosh is typical. Look at the bottom of the wiki page to find the credible links that have been used for sources as the information provided, anything without a source will have *citation needed* beside it.
kk?

[jimnyc]

You really have a problem with backing yourself up with credible sources.

He earlier inferred we shouldn't take the word of Iraqi defectors who made claims of WMD's in Iraq. Now, what does he give us as his evidence? An Israeli defector.

Like I said, abso is an American/Israel hater and woman beating quran/hadith lying supporter.

[jimnyc]

>,>
Typical anti-wiki tosh is typical. Look at the bottom of the wiki page to find the credible links that have been used for sources as the information provided, anything without a source will have *citation needed* beside it.
kk?

They could be entries from the presidents personal log, but it's still just the word of one man coming out of Israel. Those reporting are simply reporting what he told other media.

Now, I personally think Israel probably does have nuclear capabilities, and rightfully so. Being surrounded by muslim filth trying to attack them from all sides - I would be prepared too. Again, there is a HUGE difference between the US, UK or Israel having the capabilities - as compared to North Korea, Iran or any other Islamic country where they are lead by cuckoo extremists (which is 95% of islamic crap countries)

[NightTrain]

>,>
Typical anti-wiki tosh is typical. Look at the bottom of the wiki page to find the credible links that have been used for sources as the information provided, anything without a source will have *citation needed* beside it.
kk?

Typical Noir being deliberately obtuse is typical.

This is all you really need to read to understand where this all comes from.


Now it appears that Vanunu may have a higher target — Israel's very right to exist.

"There is no need for a Jewish state," he told Shin Bet officials in a jailhouse interview leaked to the press Monday, April 19. "There should be a Palestinian state. Whoever wants to be Jewish can live anywhere."

This guy is not credible, my statement stands. kk?

[Noir]

Typical Noir being deliberately obtuse is typical.

This is all you really need to read to understand where this all comes from.



This guy is not credible, my statement stands. kk?

And what about the rest of the sources?

[NightTrain]

And what about the rest of the sources?

You mean the rest of the sources quoting Vanunu and his story?

Really?