It's Official! Israel Has Nuclear Weapons!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

IT'S OFFICIAL! OLMERT CONFIRMS ISRAEL HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Quote:

Dec. 11, 2006 20:23 | Updated Dec. 11, 2006 21:28
Olmert indicates Israel has nuclear capability
By JPOST.COM STAFF

In a move unprecedented by any Israeli leader, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday included Israel in a list of nuclear nations.

In an interview with the German television network SAT 1, Olmert was asked about the statement by newly-appointed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding Israel's nuclear capability.

The prime minister became enraged when he was asked if the fact that Israel possessed nuclear power weakened the West's position against Iran...

Continued...

This is not news to anyone who has been following Israel's history for any length of time, but it is a major problem for the Israel-firsters in the US, who justify the billions sent to Israel on the need for poor little Israel to defend itself against those mean ol' Arabs.

But now it is confirmed, Israel isn't defenseless. It has nuclear weapons, not subject to any controls at all, with which to threaten their neighbors.

Remember the invasion of Iraq? Remember the REASON we were told we had to invade Iraq, because Iraq had NOOKULAR BOMBS! Of course, as it turned out, they didn't. The nukes are down in Israel, where the Arab nations, Mordecai Vanunu, and assorted bloggers have been telling you they were all along.

So, Olmert has just exposed the total hypocrisy behind the invasion of Iraq.

Needless to say, this also pounds a huge dent in Bush's rush to attack Iran because they MIGHT have a nuclear weapon in ten years, versus Israel's now officially admitted nuclear arsenal and a history of attacks against neighbor nations.

In finally admitting that Israel has had nuclear weapons all along, Olmert has made every US Politician who ever stood up and portrayed Israel as a weak and helpless nation deserving of our billions in tax dollars look like a total blithering idiot at best, at worst complicit in a defrauding of the American taxpayer for the benefit of a foreign nation.

Every politician who ever stood up in Congress supporting yet another appropriations bill for Israel with the claim, "Israel must be defended", must be categorized as a liar. Israel didn't need defending. They just wanted more of our money any way they could get it. And with a few contributions from Israel's spies, they got it.

You, the taxpayer, have been SWINDLED! Israel has had a nuclear deterrent to protect itself all along, but still tricked you into paying for its "defense". And your Congresscritters helped them do it.

UPDATE: Already this story has been "orwellized" to try to pull back from Olmert's comment about Israel's nuclear weapons. The current spin is that even though Olmert openly talked about Israel's nuclear weapons, that this is not an "official" admission that Israel has them.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,963 • Replies: 20

No top replies

Hasn't Isreal had nuclear weapons for the last 40 years or so? Nothing new here. The only difference is the way in which Isreal has used or not used its weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is a terrorist state who has funded terrorism for the last 20 years plus. Israel has never been a state sponsor of terror like Iran or Iraq.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Hasn't Isreal had nuclear weapons for the last 40 years or so? Nothing new here. The only difference is the way in which Isreal has used or not used its weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is a terrorist state who has funded terrorism for the last 20 years plus. Israel has never been a state sponsor of terror like Iran or Iraq.

Instead, many of Israel's founding fathers perpetrated terrorism through their two major terrorist organizations, the Irgun and LEHI, in the name of advancing their cause, the establishment and imposition of an ethnocentrically bigoted country in a land populated with a people of a different ethnicity.

0 Replies

http://www.christianpost.com/upload_static/cartoons/cartoons_622_1.jpg

0 Replies

Maybe Iran will think twice before lobbing a nuke into Israel. If ever a country needs extra protection from it's enemies, it's Israel, they're completely surrounded by nations that want them dead.

0 Replies

Well, the threat inherent in a Mexican stand-off has prevented the outbreak of a nuclear war in the world so far.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Maybe Iran will think twice before lobbing a nuke into Israel. If ever a country needs extra protection from it's enemies, it's Israel, they're completely surrounded by nations that want them dead.

Iran will definitely think twice about giving up its nuclear weapons programme. Thats for sure.

Do you not agree that they also have a right to protect themselves ?

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Maybe Iran will think twice before lobbing a nuke into Israel. If ever a country needs extra protection from it's enemies, it's Israel, they're completely surrounded by nations that want them dead.

Iran will definitely think twice about giving up its nuclear weapons programme. Thats for sure.

Do you not agree that they also have a right to protect themselves ?

You mean the country that supports terrorism has to protect themselves? Why would that be?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Zippo wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Maybe Iran will think twice before lobbing a nuke into Israel. If ever a country needs extra protection from it's enemies, it's Israel, they're completely surrounded by nations that want them dead.

Iran will definitely think twice about giving up its nuclear weapons programme. Thats for sure.

Do you not agree that they also have a right to protect themselves ?

You mean the country that supports terrorism has to protect themselves? Why would that be?

Supporting terrorism does not invalidate a country's right to defend itself.

For example, we supported terrorism right here in the US during the 80's through financing of anti-Russian rebels and selling chemical weapons to Saddam. Should we be invalidated from our right to defend ourselves?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Supporting terrorism does not invalidate a country's right to defend itself.

For example, we supported terrorism right here in the US during the 80's through financing of anti-Russian rebels and selling chemical weapons to Saddam. Should we be invalidated from our right to defend ourselves?

Cycloptichorn

Oh yeah, excellent point Cycloptichorn, you've nailed that one.

Besides, Iran has never invaded the US and killed over 500,000 people in the name of democracy.

Baldimo ? ?

0 Replies

http://www.erichufschmid.net/MasqueradeParty/laughing-wall.jpg

Just shut up and keep sending them money!!!!! Dumb goyim!!!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Zippo wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Maybe Iran will think twice before lobbing a nuke into Israel. If ever a country needs extra protection from it's enemies, it's Israel, they're completely surrounded by nations that want them dead.

Iran will definitely think twice about giving up its nuclear weapons programme. Thats for sure.

Do you not agree that they also have a right to protect themselves ?

You mean the country that supports terrorism has to protect themselves? Why would that be?

Supporting terrorism does not invalidate a country's right to defend itself.

For example, we supported terrorism right here in the US during the 80's through financing of anti-Russian rebels and selling chemical weapons to Saddam. Should we be invalidated from our right to defend ourselves?

Cycloptichorn

As noted here several times, there is a difference between being a rebel and being a terrorist. Rebels don't kill innocent people where terrorists do. The 80's was about fighting Commumism in Afghanistan.

Iran has only supported terrorism. Should a country that supports terrorism be able to defend themselves against countries that want to end that support?

You are only making it so that they can do as they wish and the world not interfer with them.

0 Replies

Iran attacked Iraq and they each killed about 1M of each other.

0 Replies

Quote:

90149: Pakistan Aid Cutoff: U.S. Nonproliferation and Foreign Policy Considerations

The basic nonproliferation provision affecting Pakistan is Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (an expanded version of what was formerly Section 669 of the FAA). This provision forbids aid to countries that acquire nuclear enrichment facilities that are not under the inspection and safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Carter Administration, in April 1979, invoked Section 669 and suspended aid to Pakistan after intelligence information confirmed that Pakistan was building a secret uranium enrichment facility.

Here is why Olmert is trying to back away from his admission that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Under UNITED STATES LAW, Israel cannot receive US foreign aid unless they allow IAEA inspections.

What was applied to Pakistan must apply equally to Israel.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

As noted here several times, there is a difference between being a rebel and being a terrorist. Rebels don't kill innocent people where terrorists do. The 80's was about fighting Commumism in Afghanistan.

So the Taliban where good rebels when they killed communists, but when they started killing capitalists, they all of a sudden became evil terrorists?

Doesn't make sense.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
As noted here several times, there is a difference between being a rebel and being a terrorist. Rebels don't kill innocent people where terrorists do. The 80's was about fighting Commumism in Afghanistan.

So the Taliban where good rebels when they killed communists, but when they started killing capitalists, they all of a sudden became evil terrorists?

Doesn't make sense.

They were fighting the Russian military not blowing up civilians as a matter of practice.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

They were fighting the Russian military not blowing up civilians as a matter of practice.

Baldimo, and the rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan who are killing American military - should we refrain from calling them terrorists, too?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
They were fighting the Russian military not blowing up civilians as a matter of practice.

Baldimo, and the rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan who are killing American military - should we refrain from calling them terrorists, too?

I do. If your not targeting civilians with the intent to kill them then I see you as a rebel force. I was in Afghanistan for 8 months living what you refer to. When the US flag or other country flag was moved to half mast because a military person was killed I still never called them terrorists.

To me and many others I feel there is a difference.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

old europe wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
They were fighting the Russian military not blowing up civilians as a matter of practice.

Baldimo, and the rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan who are killing American military - should we refrain from calling them terrorists, too?

I do. If your not targeting civilians with the intent to kill them then I see you as a rebel force. I was in Afghanistan for 8 months living what you refer to. When the US flag or other country flag was moved to half mast because a military person was killed I still never called them terrorists.

To me and many others I feel there is a difference.

QFT.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Just shut up and keep sending them money!!!!! Dumb goyim!!!

Funny but sad.

0 Replies

It's Official! Israel Has Nuclear Weapons!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know