• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Israel 'satisfied' with Iran's rejection of West's demands

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
Other than being a non-sensical statement (who had a lot of times?), your statement is not proof or fact, which means you are posting mere slander. I assume you have a lot of times.

You still like your statement? :)
Are you calling me a prophet or implying that I am a prophet?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,928
3,446
126
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4214015,00.htmlseems like someone doesn't want peace. the demands were probably unrealistic to begin with. now Israel can claim victim when they bomb Iran. amirite?
Western 'demands' are a funny thing. Their effectiveness at achieving results should be in question, toothless as they often are, but while they are seemingly being 'met' they provide cover for the enemy.

In short, they're often used to diffuse more concrete action. Look at how we 'prevented' a nuclear North Korea for example. We didn't, because instead of taking action we made demands.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
It is funny Iraq was allowed to have a nuclear power plant back in the 80's. But they got Uranuim through the consortiums.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Benjamin Netanyahu is probably Israel's closest thing they have to the neocons that were in power in the U.S. at the beginning of this century. Not quite though because unlike a majority of the those neocons he actually served in the military.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not just military service, but insanely amazing military service:

Netanyahu joined the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1967 Six-Day War, and became a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit. He took part in many missions, including Operation Gift and Operation Isotope, during which he was shot in the shoulder. He fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

That is why Obama's "evil stare of hate" failed to do anything at all to him at all when he dissed Obama.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
you mean the one that was illegally attacked? the US was obligated under NNPT to protect Osirik, yet did nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Aha. I knew this question would come that is why I said that. You notice the word consortuims I used. There are 5 of them. If they supply the uranium there is control and a method to see if someone is doing anything else other than what they say they are doing that is using it for peaceful electrical generation. This is why Osirik they did nothing for one reason only.

Because inserting depleted uranium into a few selected fuel channels when no inspector is around, and then removing them again using the CANDU system of on-line refueling a large stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium could be made without detection.

When Israeli jets leveled Iraq's OSIRAK reactor near Baghdad in 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin justified his action on the grounds that the Iraqis were intending to produce plutonium for bombs by a method similar to the one I described above. This allegation was supported by an IAEA inspector, who had resigned his job in order to provide public testimony to that effect.

Just about a year before the Israeli bombing raid, Eldorado Nuclear Limited was engaged in a bizarre transaction set up by the West Germans. After chemically refining some depleted uranium from Britain, Eldorado sent the material to a firm in the U.S. to be fabricated into metal rods and then returned to Port Hope, Ontario. American officials became extremely curious and began asking questions. What on earth did Eldorado want with depleted uranium? It soon emerged that the ultimate destination fro the material was Iraq. The deal was hastily squelched.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Not just military service, but insanely amazing military service:


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

That is why Obama's "evil stare of hate" failed to do anything at all to him at all when he dissed Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that makes BIBI Netanyuhu highly similar to Alolph Hitler. Hitler served with such distinction during WWI supporting the German fatherland that he was one of the very few soldiers allowed to stay in the German army.

When it came to staring down world leaders and German Generals, Hitler was without peer. And he so effectively hoodwinked Joe Stalin that it took Stalin 2 weeks to believe Hitler was attacking Russia.

Cybrsage virtues found in only meglomaniacs, too bad Charles Manson never joined the US army.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that makes BIBI Netanyuhu highly similar to Alolph Hitler. Hitler served with such distinction during WWI supporting the German fatherland that he was one of the very few soldiers allowed to stay in the German army.

When it came to staring down world leaders and German Generals, Hitler was without peer. And he so effectively hoodwinked Joe Stalin that it took Stalin 2 weeks to believe Hitler was attacking Russia.

Cybrsage virtues found in only meglomaniacs, too bad Charles Manson never joined the US army.
Hitler volunteered for a Bavarian unit in the German army and served the whole war. He was never promoted beyond the rank of corporal. He saw trench warfare as a form of the struggle for survival among races, a struggle that he was coming to see as the essence of existence. At the same time, his anti-Semitic feelings were growing extreme. When Germany was defeated in 1918, Hitler was lying in a military hospital, temporarily blinded by mustard gas. He was selected to be a political speaker by the local army headquarters, given special training, and provided with opportunities to practice his public speaking before returning prisoners of war. His speaking successes led to his selection as an observer of political groups in the Munich area.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
The issue with Iran is not Article IV, it's Article III, of which they are not in compliance. If they would properly comply with Article III they could expect cooperation with Article IV. Until then...
That's factually incorrect. At no point has the IAEA offered any evidence that Iran's production facilities are not in compliance with the NPT as originally signed years ago. Iran is under no obligation to disclose the construction or existence of any such facility until 6 months before the introduction of nuclear materials, something they've done rather meticulously wrt the Fordow facility. Cite the IAEA to prove I'm wrong.

It is essentially a contractual agreement that can only be altered by mutual consent. It's an obvious contradiction when the US & the IAEA insist, in the same breath, that Iran comply with additional protocols & that they cease production. Iran holds out on observing the additional protocols until their right to enrich uranium is recognized.

It's not worth starting a war over because it seems obvious that Iran would agree to additional protocols if the demands to cease production were removed, and the IAEA seems perfectly capable of doing their jobs. Make the offer, see what happens, maybe solve the problems.

It would leave Iran with breakout potential, but they'd have to eject the IAEA first. They have that potential, anyway, and attacking them would force them to exercise the option. Several nations have the same potential & have not exercised it.

As to the relative rationality of the various players, I'd point to the recent remarks of the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, who grants that the Iranians are rational, but that the leaders of his own country are not. He ought to know.

Netanyahu? Screw Netanyahu. When he applies some sincerity to solving the issues with the Pals, he might have some credibility. Until then, he's just another smarmy doublespeak artist.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
That's factually incorrect. At no point has the IAEA offered any evidence that Iran's production facilities are not in compliance with the NPT as originally signed years ago. Iran is under no obligation to disclose the construction or existence of any such facility until 6 months before the introduction of nuclear materials, something they've done rather meticulously wrt the Fordow facility. Cite the IAEA to prove I'm wrong.

It is essentially a contractual agreement that can only be altered by mutual consent. It's an obvious contradiction when the US & the IAEA insist, in the same breath, that Iran comply with additional protocols & that they cease production. Iran holds out on observing the additional protocols until their right to enrich uranium is recognized.

It's not worth starting a war over because it seems obvious that Iran would agree to additional protocols if the demands to cease production were removed, and the IAEA seems perfectly capable of doing their jobs. Make the offer, see what happens, maybe solve the problems.

It would leave Iran with breakout potential, but they'd have to eject the IAEA first. They have that potential, anyway, and attacking them would force them to exercise the option. Several nations have the same potential & have not exercised it.

As to the relative rationality of the various players, I'd point to the recent remarks of the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, who grants that the Iranians are rational, but that the leaders of his own country are not. He ought to know.

Netanyahu? Screw Netanyahu. When he applies some sincerity to solving the issues with the Pals, he might have some credibility. Until then, he's just another smarmy doublespeak artist.
You my friend are a kafir just like him. The difference is Netanyahu is looking at the kafir point of view and you the dhimmi way. Until you realize the science behind Islam and that it is a civilization and not a religion you will never understand it. Not even the politicians in the US did. If they did they would never have used the military or invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.

From the English language translation of the Saudi-published Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, one can read “Appendix III -- The Call to Jihad -- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, and learn that jihad -- holy fighting in Allah’s Cause -- is a requirement of Islam:

The Verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the Prophet's legal ways, orders) exhort Muslims greatly to take part in Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they - Mujahidin are Allah's troops. Allah will establish His religion (Islam), through them (Mujahidin). He will repel the might of His enemies, and through them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior.
Then, from a translated 2005-2006 school-year edition of the 12th grade Saudi school textbook (already sanitized due to U.S. State Department pressure), one finds the requirements of jihad:

Scholars have noted that jihad is obligatory for the individual in three cases:

o (2) If the infidels attack a specific country, it is obligatory for its people to fight them and repel them. Self-defense is a duty. Allah said, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

• When is battle jihad in the path of Allah?

o To fulfill an order from God, sacrifice in His path, spread the creed of monotheism, defend the realms of Islam and Muslims, and raise up the Word of Allah. This is jihad in the path of God.

• Jihad continues until the Day of Resurrection

o It is part of God's wisdom that he made the clash between truth and falsehood continue until the Day of Resurrection. As long as this clash endures, jihad continues. It is not limited to a specific time. As long as there is falsehood, error, and unbelief, the jihad continues.
The three items enumerated above lay the foundation for “extremist” claims. Because the last examples are Saudi, it is appropriate to corroborate those statements with an accepted mainstream text of Islamic law that is neither Saudi nor Wahhabi. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Text of Islamic Law, translated by Nu Hah Mim Keller, confirms the personal obligation to fight jihad when non-Muslim forces enter Muslim lands:

Jihad is also personally obligatory for everyone able to perform it, male or female, old or young when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.
The requirement to fight jihad when non-Muslim forces enter Muslim lands is understood as a requirement of Islamic law. So how does one explain the prevailing assumption that Islam does not stand for such violence undertaken in its name with the fact that its laws and education materials validate the very acts undertaken by “extremists” in Iraq? In fact, the first “radicalizing” lesson that Saudi youth receive that motivates them to travel to Iraq and fight Coalition forces does not come from “extremists” groups like al-Qaeda, but rather is taught as part of Saudi Arabia’s standard secondary school curriculum.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
You my friend are a kafir just like him. The difference is Netanyahu is looking at the kafir point of view and you the dhimmi way. Until you realize the science behind Islam and that it is a civilization and not a religion you will never understand it. Not even the politicians in the US did. If they did they would never have used the military or invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.

From the English language translation of the Saudi-published Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, one can read “Appendix III -- The Call to Jihad -- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, and learn that jihad -- holy fighting in Allah’s Cause -- is a requirement of Islam:



Then, from a translated 2005-2006 school-year edition of the 12th grade Saudi school textbook (already sanitized due to U.S. State Department pressure), one finds the requirements of jihad:



The three items enumerated above lay the foundation for “extremist” claims. Because the last examples are Saudi, it is appropriate to corroborate those statements with an accepted mainstream text of Islamic law that is neither Saudi nor Wahhabi. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Text of Islamic Law, translated by Nu Hah Mim Keller, confirms the personal obligation to fight jihad when non-Muslim forces enter Muslim lands:



The requirement to fight jihad when non-Muslim forces enter Muslim lands is understood as a requirement of Islamic law. So how does one explain the prevailing assumption that Islam does not stand for such violence undertaken in its name with the fact that its laws and education materials validate the very acts undertaken by “extremists” in Iraq? In fact, the first “radicalizing” lesson that Saudi youth receive that motivates them to travel to Iraq and fight Coalition forces does not come from “extremists” groups like al-Qaeda, but rather is taught as part of Saudi Arabia’s standard secondary school curriculum.
Nice rant. Is it supposed to actually mean something wrt the topic at hand? Your false equivalencies with "=" are quite touching. Really.

It seems pretty weird that you'd quote Saudi Wahhabi interpretation of the Quran when referencing Iranian Shias, attributing those "values" entirely to a separate sect. It's like claiming Jehova's Witnesses and Catholics believe in exactly the same things...
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,556
3,091
126
you mean the one that was illegally attacked? the US was obligated under NNPT to protect Osirik, yet did nothing.
Wow...leave it alone. Just because they signed the NNPT does not mean they were obligated to do anything!! Where does it say that signatories are obligated to defend member countries? Only you and a few mindless others would convolute what was actually stated!!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
That's factually incorrect. At no point has the IAEA offered any evidence that Iran's production facilities are not in compliance with the NPT as originally signed years ago. Iran is under no obligation to disclose the construction or existence of any such facility until 6 months before the introduction of nuclear materials, something they've done rather meticulously wrt the Fordow facility. Cite the IAEA to prove I'm wrong.

It is essentially a contractual agreement that can only be altered by mutual consent. It's an obvious contradiction when the US & the IAEA insist, in the same breath, that Iran comply with additional protocols & that they cease production. Iran holds out on observing the additional protocols until their right to enrich uranium is recognized.

It's not worth starting a war over because it seems obvious that Iran would agree to additional protocols if the demands to cease production were removed, and the IAEA seems perfectly capable of doing their jobs. Make the offer, see what happens, maybe solve the problems.

It would leave Iran with breakout potential, but they'd have to eject the IAEA first. They have that potential, anyway, and attacking them would force them to exercise the option. Several nations have the same potential & have not exercised it.

As to the relative rationality of the various players, I'd point to the recent remarks of the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, who grants that the Iranians are rational, but that the leaders of his own country are not. He ought to know.

Netanyahu? Screw Netanyahu. When he applies some sincerity to solving the issues with the Pals, he might have some credibility. Until then, he's just another smarmy doublespeak artist.
The issue between Israel and the Palestinians has nothing to do with this thread and I don't really care about your personal opinion of Netanyahu.

Regarding Article III of the NPT, citing Fordow is a diversion. Iran refused the IAEA access to Parchin to investigate the allegations of Iran's research into high explosives research. If Iran has nothing to hide and isn't researching nuclear weapons then what's the problem? They should have immediately and gladly invited the IAEA to an inspection to quell any questions. They did not. Instead they refused to grant access and that refusal goes against the basic principles of Article III of the NPT.

They are playing the same game that Saddam did. That game cost him his life. Hopefully the Mullahs and Mr. Dinnerjacket aren't as stupid in the long run.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
Nice rant. Is it supposed to actually mean something wrt the topic at hand? Your false equivalencies with "=" are quite touching. Really.

It seems pretty weird that you'd quote Saudi Wahhabi interpretation of the Quran when referencing Iranian Shias, attributing those "values" entirely to a separate sect. It's like claiming Jehova's Witnesses and Catholics believe in exactly the same things...
Have you ever read the Koran in chronological order? You are stating someones opinion about Islam. I base my opinions on the trilogy. That is the Koran, Sira and Hadith. That is Muhammad. What Mohammed does and says is so important that Islam has a word for it: Sunna.

The five principles of political Islam are:
(1) Islam is based upon the Koran and what Mohammed did.
(2)Most of Islam is political and is about what to do about non-Muslims.
(3)All non-Muslims are kafirs, the worst form of life.
(4) A kafir can be
treated in two different ways.
(5) A kafir is supposed to give way to
Islam in all public matters.

What is the difference between religious Islam and political Islam? Do you remember when some Danish artists drew some cartoons of Mohammed? There were weeks of rioting, threats, lawsuits, killings, assassinations and destruction by Muslims. If Muslims want to respect Mohammed by never criticizing, joking about him and taking every word he said as a sacred example--that is religious. But when they threaten, pressure and hurt non-Muslims for not respecting Mohammed, that is political. When Muslims say that Mohammed is the prophet of the only god, that is religious, but when they insist that non-Muslims never disrespect Mohammed, that is political. When the newspapers and TV agreed not to publish the cartoons, that was a political response, not a religious response. Show me one picture of Muhammad that people made fun off like they do with other religious books. I can assure you you will find none. If there is they would haver gotten death threats etc etc. That is political not religious.

You are expressing views you have read in papers or what other people said. I express mine on the trilogy of Islam.You telling me it is a rant you are saying Islam is a rant. If it is in the trilogy it is Islam. If it goes against the trilogy it is not Islam. I am going to go ask you and read the trilogy before claiming its rants.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Nonsensical because I do not believe in gibberish written in fantasy books? Can you see the irony?
Nonsensical because it makes no sense. You know, what the word nonsensical means. Here is the part which makes no sense:

"...by some guy who had a lot of times."

What does that even mean? I quoted it in the same post where I said your post was non-sensical.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that makes BIBI Netanyuhu highly similar to Alolph Hitler. Hitler served with such distinction during WWI supporting the German fatherland that he was one of the very few soldiers allowed to stay in the German army.
Wow, you really are both deluded and blinded by hate. I suggest professional theapy, most likely including medication. You can live a normal life if you work hard at it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Have you ever read the Koran in chronological order? You are stating someones opinion about Islam. I base my opinions on the trilogy. That is the Koran, Sira and Hadith. That is Muhammad. What Mohammed does and says is so important that Islam has a word for it: Sunna.

The five principles of political Islam are:
(1) Islam is based upon the Koran and what Mohammed did.
(2)Most of Islam is political and is about what to do about non-Muslims.
(3)All non-Muslims are kafirs, the worst form of life.
(4) A kafir can be
treated in two different ways.
(5) A kafir is supposed to give way to
Islam in all public matters.

What is the difference between religious Islam and political Islam? Do you remember when some Danish artists drew some cartoons of Mohammed? There were weeks of rioting, threats, lawsuits, killings, assassinations and destruction by Muslims. If Muslims want to respect Mohammed by never criticizing, joking about him and taking every word he said as a sacred example--that is religious. But when they threaten, pressure and hurt non-Muslims for not respecting Mohammed, that is political. When Muslims say that Mohammed is the prophet of the only god, that is religious, but when they insist that non-Muslims never disrespect Mohammed, that is political. When the newspapers and TV agreed not to publish the cartoons, that was a political response, not a religious response. Show me one picture of Muhammad that people made fun off like they do with other religious books. I can assure you you will find none. If there is they would haver gotten death threats etc etc. That is political not religious.

You are expressing views you have read in papers or what other people said. I express mine on the trilogy of Islam.You telling me it is a rant you are saying Islam is a rant. If it is in the trilogy it is Islam. If it goes against the trilogy it is not Islam. I am going to go ask you and read the trilogy before claiming its rants.
Interestingly enough, not drawing Mohammed is a relatively new thing. Some of the great Islamic artists of the post drew him.

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

There is a copy of an 8th century drawing of Mohammed there, but most are from the 14th century up to the 19th century.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I have to love the TLC point of,"They are playing the same game that Saddam did. That game cost him his life. Hopefully the Mullahs and Mr. Dinnerjacket aren't as stupid in the long run."

The point is and remains, Saddam had no WMD and the IAEA and various international bodies were the parties in the wrong.

If the credibility of the IAEA has not been greatly reduced after its screw up with Saddam, it will be in the sewer if it gets it wrong again.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
Interestingly enough, not drawing Mohammed is a relatively new thing. Some of the great Islamic artists of the post drew him.

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

There is a copy of an 8th century drawing of Mohammed there, but most are from the 14th century up to the 19th century.
Does it make fun of him like you get with Christian pictures and cartoon like Jesus? I did not ask for drawings I asked for cartoons or pictures where they made fun of him. Like the example of the Danish site I posted.
 

cave_dweller

Senior member
Mar 3, 2012
231
0
0
Nonsensical because it makes no sense. You know, what the word nonsensical means. Here is the part which makes no sense:

"...by some guy who had a lot of times."

What does that even mean? I quoted it in the same post where I said your post was non-sensical.
Why post half the sentence? Half a sentence will not make sense. Post the full sentence
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I have to love the TLC point of,"They are playing the same game that Saddam did. That game cost him his life. Hopefully the Mullahs and Mr. Dinnerjacket aren't as stupid in the long run."

The point is and remains, Saddam had no WMD and the IAEA and various international bodies were the parties in the wrong.

If the credibility of the IAEA has not been greatly reduced after its screw up with Saddam, it will be in the sewer if it gets it wrong again.
The IAEA was not given the chance to function as intended. This was a game Saddam played and that was entirely on him. If Iran goes down that road then it's likewise.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY