UN calls for Israeli nuclear disarming

by Ali H. Tue Dec 16, 2003 09:59

No doubt when Avi talks about UN inneffectiveness he is
referring to how UN inspectors have not been allowed into
Dimona and other illegal Israeli nuclear facilities?

As for Iran under criterion (3) they cannot be included in the
list.

I would also suggest that under (2) and possibly (3) Libya
should not be either!

Ergo Avi your list has 0 entries ... case closed!

By the way your opinion.com piece is irrelevant to the issue
of nuclear inspections and disarmament so I won't waste my
breath attempting to refute Zionist spam!

by mr. bean Mon Dec 15, 2003 20:22

Even though they got Saddam (at least according to their propaganda) ..... the Iraqis still hate them .....

And it's official because it was published in the Jewish newspaper Haaretz .... so it must be TRUE ......


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/371891.html

by iosaf Mon Dec 15, 2003 20:00

you've obviously missed that Iran as of one week has undertaken to admit International Atomic inspections.
like the whole thing.
Go check their website:

But I reckon you're upset because the craft Iranians (who probably saw it all like U and I as well) have decided to also upgrade at the same time their Shahab3 medium range missile. You know "The one that can hit Israel", of course only if you ["Israel"] relinquish certain RADAR facilities which as you well know are presently postioned in territory that is not legally yours in either Diplomatic or Commercial senses. I am making myself clear aren't I?

you know, man you were about long enough don't you know how it goes yet? Weapons inspections, loads of 'em! Oil inspections Loads of it! Muslim inspection- millions of 'em! Dirty rotten forgotten about deals inspection - loads of 'em!
God Bless Amerik@!
I look forward to the day, they bring the Ayatola Komheini out of his hole in the ground.
(new right wing pro Amerik@ jokey style)

Meanwhile, the Iranians are preparing their case against Saddam, as indeed are the Israelis. We may presume may we not, that those cases are like _tippy toppy_ prepared.
I reckon quite a few of the lovely talented young lawyers have gone without sleep to honour the how do we put it _elder dead_?

Yes. Lots of people have awaited a long time to get a slice of Saddam.
¿Do you think there will be enough to go around Avi?

I reckon you could try being a wee bit nicer now.

by avi H. Mon Dec 15, 2003 19:48

UN monitoring is biased and ineffective, generally. I didn't see any reasoned refutation of the Wall Street Journal article.

by avi H. Mon Dec 15, 2003 19:46

Iran and Libya, to name but two

by Ali H. Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:56

As they say, "opinion.com's are like assholes, everyone has
one, but most of them stink!".

by Ali H. Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:52

Which STATES exactly have sworn to destroy Israel, which

1). Have not since signed peace agreements with Israel?
2). Have the financial and scientific means to realise their goal
in a reasonable timescale (let's say the next 20 years)?
3). Are not engaged with the UN or other international agencies
monitoring or discussion?

I predict your list will have 0 entries ... prove me wrong!

by avi H. Mon Dec 15, 2003 03:19

don't like Israel much anyway. See:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004398

by avi H. Sun Dec 14, 2003 18:57

Actually, Israel's unilateral disarmament would be an incentive scheme for states that have sworn to destroy it to accelerate their own nuclear weapons programmes. So much for El Baradei's reasoning powers...