"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted

Yeap.
Eat your heart out, abeles.
There ain't a zilch you or anyone else can do about it!

Subject: Re: No action on Israeli WMDs
From: "TonyaK9"

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted

Yeap.
Eat your heart out, abeles.
There ain't a zilch you or anyone else can do about it!

TK9

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism.

You are correct. That is as it should be.
As one of the free and democratic nations of the world,

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism.

You are correct. That is as it should be.
As one of the free and democratic nations of the world, they have this
right.

Nice to see that you are catching on.

Jim E

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism.

You are correct. That is as it should be.
As one of the free and democratic nations of the world, they have this
right.

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism.

media attention remains focused on George W. Bush's axis of evil, here

an

immense armoury, capable of obliterating the entire region. Why isn't

regarded as utterly unacceptable?

Because the world knows that Israel is no threat, despite what some
snivveling anti-Semite would say.

The bigger danger is if some Arab terrorist country got hold of a nuke,

would use it in the blink of an eye.

Nukes + Israel = Israel continues to live.

Nukes + Arab country = the end of the world.

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism.

media attention remains focused on George W. Bush's axis of evil, here

an

immense armoury, capable of obliterating the entire region. Why isn't

regarded as utterly unacceptable? Is the argument that Israel's nuclear
bombs are, in some way, kosher? Good bombs that help stabilise the

East? Surely here's a significant issue of proliferation, yet the world
averts its gaze. And when anyone in the neighbourhood has nuclear plans,

the

Israelis don't hesitate to mount pre-emptive strikes, wiping out, for
example, an Iraqi nuclear power plant in the early 1980s. To visit

is

be astonished by the tininess of the place and by its vulnerability. So

one

can understand why many Israelis would want a nuclear umbrella to defend
themselves from their enemies past, present and potential. But it's not

good

enough to complain about suicide bombers if, at the same time, you have

200

atomic bombs. Suicide bombers are not WMDs. They can kill a few dozen,

along

with themselves.
But atomic bombs and, even worse, thermo-nuclear devices? It would be
suicidal for Israel to use them - to drop even one nuclear weapon in the
Middle East would be a catastrophe for the Jewish nation and the entire
world. And given that Israel enjoys the total support of the US, its
stockpile seems as redundant as it is provocative.

There are far too many nuclear weapons in the world. Despite all the

of

nuclear disarmament in the post-Cold War era, the US and Russian

stockpiles

are immense. If we are to continue making a huge fuss about

then we should be concerned with nuclear bombs in the Middle East. Not

hypothetical weapons of Saddam Hussein but the real weapons in the hands

of

Ariel Sharon.

On the other hand, perhaps Vanunu was deluded. Perhaps the BBC has got

wrong. For many years Israel has had a policy of nuclear ambiguity and

would

neither confirm nor deny its possession of WMDs. Clearly it's time to

bring

Hans Blix out of retirement and to retrieve Richard Butler from

House in Tasmania, to discover just how many bombs Israel has. And why

has them.

How many Nuclear bombs does Israel have? Probably not near enough.

needs to have enough nuclear bombs to destroy all life in the Islamic
nations of the world and they need to let those nations know that they

that capability.

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism. While
media attention remains focused on George W. Bush's axis of evil, here is

an

immense armoury, capable of obliterating the entire region. Why isn't this
regarded as utterly unacceptable? Is the argument that Israel's nuclear
bombs are, in some way, kosher? Good bombs that help stabilise the Middle
East? Surely here's a significant issue of proliferation, yet the world
averts its gaze. And when anyone in the neighbourhood has nuclear plans,

the

Israelis don't hesitate to mount pre-emptive strikes, wiping out, for
example, an Iraqi nuclear power plant in the early 1980s. To visit Israel

is

be astonished by the tininess of the place and by its vulnerability. So

one

can understand why many Israelis would want a nuclear umbrella to defend
themselves from their enemies past, present and potential. But it's not

good

enough to complain about suicide bombers if, at the same time, you have

200

atomic bombs. Suicide bombers are not WMDs. They can kill a few dozen,

along

with themselves.
But atomic bombs and, even worse, thermo-nuclear devices? It would be
suicidal for Israel to use them - to drop even one nuclear weapon in the
Middle East would be a catastrophe for the Jewish nation and the entire
world. And given that Israel enjoys the total support of the US, its
stockpile seems as redundant as it is provocative.

There are far too many nuclear weapons in the world. Despite all the talk

of

nuclear disarmament in the post-Cold War era, the US and Russian

stockpiles

are immense. If we are to continue making a huge fuss about proliferation,
then we should be concerned with nuclear bombs in the Middle East. Not the
hypothetical weapons of Saddam Hussein but the real weapons in the hands

of

Ariel Sharon.

On the other hand, perhaps Vanunu was deluded. Perhaps the BBC has got it
wrong. For many years Israel has had a policy of nuclear ambiguity and

would

neither confirm nor deny its possession of WMDs. Clearly it's time to

bring

Hans Blix out of retirement and to retrieve Richard Butler from Government
House in Tasmania, to discover just how many bombs Israel has. And why it
has them.

How many Nuclear bombs does Israel have? Probably not near enough. Israel
needs to have enough nuclear bombs to destroy all life in the Islamic
nations of the world and they need to let those nations know that they have
that capability.

Why does Israel have WMD? Because they are vastly out numbered and
surrounded by a people that have an insane evil religion that teaches the
obliteration of all Jews. There are only a few nations in the world that
can be trusted to have WMD. Israel is one of those few nations. Israel must
have WMD for their very survival.

"Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message
news:4kKuc.20666$L.6301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Israel's WMDs seem to be accepted, unreported and beyond criticism.

media attention remains focused on George W. Bush's axis of evil, here

an

immense armoury, capable of obliterating the entire region. Why isn't

regarded as utterly unacceptable? Is the argument that Israel's nuclear
bombs are, in some way, kosher? Good bombs that help stabilise the

East? Surely here's a significant issue of proliferation, yet the world
averts its gaze. And when anyone in the neighbourhood has nuclear plans,

the

Israelis don't hesitate to mount pre-emptive strikes, wiping out, for
example, an Iraqi nuclear power plant in the early 1980s. To visit

is

be astonished by the tininess of the place and by its vulnerability. So

one

can understand why many Israelis would want a nuclear umbrella to defend
themselves from their enemies past, present and potential. But it's not

good

enough to complain about suicide bombers if, at the same time, you have

200

atomic bombs. Suicide bombers are not WMDs. They can kill a few dozen,

along

with themselves.
But atomic bombs and, even worse, thermo-nuclear devices? It would be
suicidal for Israel to use them - to drop even one nuclear weapon in the
Middle East would be a catastrophe for the Jewish nation and the entire
world. And given that Israel enjoys the total support of the US, its
stockpile seems as redundant as it is provocative.

There are far too many nuclear weapons in the world. Despite all the

of

nuclear disarmament in the post-Cold War era, the US and Russian

stockpiles

are immense. If we are to continue making a huge fuss about

then we should be concerned with nuclear bombs in the Middle East. Not

hypothetical weapons of Saddam Hussein but the real weapons in the hands

of

Ariel Sharon.

On the other hand, perhaps Vanunu was deluded. Perhaps the BBC has got

wrong. For many years Israel has had a policy of nuclear ambiguity and

would

neither confirm nor deny its possession of WMDs. Clearly it's time to

bring

Hans Blix out of retirement and to retrieve Richard Butler from

House in Tasmania, to discover just how many bombs Israel has. And why

has them.

I don't know the authoer, but who has been threatened or even hassled
outright? If the Isrealis were going to use those weapons it would be
obvious as to where it would be, and that isn't an option.

Why don't all countries give up all weapons and see what happens.
Sometimes, Paul, you surprise us all over again. Norma

So if you were a dictator where would you go to buy WMD's, go to the
UK for chemicals and go to the US for Nukes.

If your a democracy Nukes are used for Peaceful, Defence purposes
If your a dictator Nukes are used for Mass Destruction puposes

There are so many countries with so many Nukes, but these are totally
safe because they are a democracy !

So if you were a dictator where would you go to buy WMD's, go to the
UK for chemicals and go to the US for Nukes.