100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Israel tried to sell South Africa nuclear bombs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Denial is always cloaked as anti semitism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. No proof here whatsoever. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming. 
Unlike CT junkfood? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I counted four and I just glanced at your post. 
There has never been any evidence that Israel tried to sell or offered to sell nuclear weapons to anybody. Nothing but false innuendo! Makes anyone who claims this to be "evidence" look silly! 
Here's the so-called evidence posted on another of the numerous wanna-be Israel bashing threads currently on mingle2. 1. Memo shows South African interest in nukes on Jericho missiles. So, South Africa had interest. That does not mean Israel supplied them or offered anything nuclear. They did not. 2. Front page of 3rd ISSA minutes says nothing about what was discussed or even if the meeting was canceled or not. 3. Later excerpt from ISSA minutes says there are weapons in three sizes. No mention of which weapons and certainly no indication of nuclear anything. Not obvious if minutes are accurate there are a lot of cross outs and handwritten markings on notes. Israel does say they might supply tanks. 
4. Agreement to keep talks private. Woop de doo. Every country who ever talked to any other country has such an agreement.
5. Nice diplomatic note from Peres to South Africa in the '70s saying that the two countries share a common interest in peace and working against injustice. Nothing but the usual diplomatic niceties. Big Deal. There is NOTHING in this garbage-trove of diplomatic fluff that in any way implies Israel had any agreement ever to supply South Africa with nuclear weapons. Nothin Nada.
OK - rant on - just as long as everyone else knows it is a truckload.
Yep. Anti-semitism cloaked with the usual spin. Denial is always cloaked as anti semitism. Jew hatred and attempting to repeatedly fault Israel for everything is antisemitism pure and simple no way to sugar coat it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. No proof here whatsoever. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Unlike CT junkfood? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I counted four and I just glanced at your post.
There has never been any evidence that Israel tried to sell or offered to sell nuclear weapons to anybody. Nothing but false innuendo! Makes anyone who claims this to be "evidence" look silly!
Here's the so-called evidence posted on another of the numerous wanna-be Israel bashing threads currently on mingle2. 1. Memo shows South African interest in nukes on Jericho missiles. So, South Africa had interest. That does not mean Israel supplied them or offered anything nuclear. They did not. 2. Front page of 3rd ISSA minutes says nothing about what was discussed or even if the meeting was canceled or not. 3. Later excerpt from ISSA minutes says there are weapons in three sizes. No mention of which weapons and certainly no indication of nuclear anything. Not obvious if minutes are accurate there are a lot of cross outs and handwritten markings on notes. Israel does say they might supply tanks.
4. Agreement to keep talks private. Woop de doo. Every country who ever talked to any other country has such an agreement.
5. Nice diplomatic note from Peres to South Africa in the '70s saying that the two countries share a common interest in peace and working against injustice. Nothing but the usual diplomatic niceties. Big Deal. There is NOTHING in this garbage-trove of diplomatic fluff that in any way implies Israel had any agreement ever to supply South Africa with nuclear weapons. Nothin Nada.
OK - rant on - just as long as everyone else knows it is a truckload.
Yep. Anti-semitism cloaked with the usual spin. Denial is always cloaked as anti semitism. Jew hatred and attempting to repeatedly fault Israel for everything is antisemitism pure and simple no way to sugar coat it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons. In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons. Although 1. It could have been about three different sizes of conventional weapons. 2. The minutes may not even be accurate 3. They could have switched the topic of conversation between missles, tanks and other arms.
It is widely understood that there is nothing damning in any of these messages and when you say "are believed to refer" etc that this is obviously just speculation and it is just more true and accurate to say that none of the documents refers to anything nuclear in the slightest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons. Although 1. It could have been about three different sizes of conventional weapons. 2. The minutes may not even be accurate 3. They could have switched the topic of conversation between missles, tanks and other arms.
It is widely understood that there is nothing damning in any of these messages and when you say "are believed to refer" etc that this is obviously just speculation and it is just more true and accurate to say that none of the documents refers to anything nuclear in the slightest. Slowhand your getting more ridiculous by the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. No proof here whatsoever. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Unlike CT junkfood? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I counted four and I just glanced at your post.
There has never been any evidence that Israel tried to sell or offered to sell nuclear weapons to anybody. Nothing but false innuendo! Makes anyone who claims this to be "evidence" look silly!
Here's the so-called evidence posted on another of the numerous wanna-be Israel bashing threads currently on mingle2. 1. Memo shows South African interest in nukes on Jericho missiles. So, South Africa had interest. That does not mean Israel supplied them or offered anything nuclear. They did not. 2. Front page of 3rd ISSA minutes says nothing about what was discussed or even if the meeting was canceled or not. 3. Later excerpt from ISSA minutes says there are weapons in three sizes. No mention of which weapons and certainly no indication of nuclear anything. Not obvious if minutes are accurate there are a lot of cross outs and handwritten markings on notes. Israel does say they might supply tanks.
4. Agreement to keep talks private. Woop de doo. Every country who ever talked to any other country has such an agreement.
5. Nice diplomatic note from Peres to South Africa in the '70s saying that the two countries share a common interest in peace and working against injustice. Nothing but the usual diplomatic niceties. Big Deal. There is NOTHING in this garbage-trove of diplomatic fluff that in any way implies Israel had any agreement ever to supply South Africa with nuclear weapons. Nothin Nada.
OK - rant on - just as long as everyone else knows it is a truckload.
Yep. Anti-semitism cloaked with the usual spin. Denial is always cloaked as anti semitism. Jew hatred and attempting to repeatedly fault Israel for everything is antisemitism pure and simple no way to sugar coat it. If their arguments attempt to delegitimize Zionism which is Jewish-National aspiration or blame antisemitic terrorism on Israel or advocate antisemitic Nazi global Jewish conspiracy nonsense which is constantly repeated ad nauseum on the mingle2 forums etc.... So yeah. It is often blatantly antisemitic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Sat 08/25/12 01:35 PM
|
|
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons. In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons What exactly is anti semetic about this? I am sure if it were not true the hundreds of pro jewish groups one of which I am sure your a member ,of would have sued for slander. Why didn't they? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. No proof here whatsoever. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Unlike CT junkfood? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I counted four and I just glanced at your post.
There has never been any evidence that Israel tried to sell or offered to sell nuclear weapons to anybody. Nothing but false innuendo! Makes anyone who claims this to be "evidence" look silly!
Here's the so-called evidence posted on another of the numerous wanna-be Israel bashing threads currently on mingle2. 1. Memo shows South African interest in nukes on Jericho missiles. So, South Africa had interest. That does not mean Israel supplied them or offered anything nuclear. They did not. 2. Front page of 3rd ISSA minutes says nothing about what was discussed or even if the meeting was canceled or not. 3. Later excerpt from ISSA minutes says there are weapons in three sizes. No mention of which weapons and certainly no indication of nuclear anything. Not obvious if minutes are accurate there are a lot of cross outs and handwritten markings on notes. Israel does say they might supply tanks.
4. Agreement to keep talks private. Woop de doo. Every country who ever talked to any other country has such an agreement.
5. Nice diplomatic note from Peres to South Africa in the '70s saying that the two countries share a common interest in peace and working against injustice. Nothing but the usual diplomatic niceties. Big Deal. There is NOTHING in this garbage-trove of diplomatic fluff that in any way implies Israel had any agreement ever to supply South Africa with nuclear weapons. Nothin Nada.
OK - rant on - just as long as everyone else knows it is a truckload.
Yep. Anti-semitism cloaked with the usual spin. Denial is always cloaked as anti semitism. Jew hatred and attempting to repeatedly fault Israel for everything is antisemitism pure and simple no way to sugar coat it. If their arguments attempt to delegitimize Zionism which is Jewish-National aspiration or blame antisemitic terrorism on Israel or advocate antisemitic Nazi global Jewish conspiracy nonsense which is constantly repeated ad nauseum on the mingle2 forums etc.... So yeah. It is often blatantly antisemitic. The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons.... More speculation on your part. There was nothing nuclear mentioned in any of this garbage.
Why is it antisemitic for you to keep desperately and illegitimately trying to slander the Israelis armed with only innuendo and suppositions while ignoring the facts at face value? Because... If arguments attempt merely to delegitimize Zionism which is Jewish-National aspiration or blame antisemitic terrorism on Israel or advocate antisemitic Nazi global Jewish conspiracy nonsense which is constantly repeated ad nauseum on the mingle2 forums etc.... So yeah. It is often blatantly antisemitic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was the assessment of ABC news and an author of a published book who reviewed the documents that in fact Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa, a published book and published news items.
What normally happens when something that is not true is published and passed off as truth? Hint? ask a jewish lawyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was the assessment of ABC news and an author of a published book who reviewed the documents that in fact Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa, a published book and published news items. What normally happens when something that is not true is published and passed off as truth? Hint? ask a jewish lawyer
They all acknowledge that it is worthless idle speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. No proof here whatsoever. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Unlike CT junkfood? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I counted four and I just glanced at your post.
There has never been any evidence that Israel tried to sell or offered to sell nuclear weapons to anybody. Nothing but false innuendo! Makes anyone who claims this to be "evidence" look silly!
Here's the so-called evidence posted on another of the numerous wanna-be Israel bashing threads currently on mingle2. 1. Memo shows South African interest in nukes on Jericho missiles. So, South Africa had interest. That does not mean Israel supplied them or offered anything nuclear. They did not. 2. Front page of 3rd ISSA minutes says nothing about what was discussed or even if the meeting was canceled or not. 3. Later excerpt from ISSA minutes says there are weapons in three sizes. No mention of which weapons and certainly no indication of nuclear anything. Not obvious if minutes are accurate there are a lot of cross outs and handwritten markings on notes. Israel does say they might supply tanks.
4. Agreement to keep talks private. Woop de doo. Every country who ever talked to any other country has such an agreement.
5. Nice diplomatic note from Peres to South Africa in the '70s saying that the two countries share a common interest in peace and working against injustice. Nothing but the usual diplomatic niceties. Big Deal. There is NOTHING in this garbage-trove of diplomatic fluff that in any way implies Israel had any agreement ever to supply South Africa with nuclear weapons. Nothin Nada.
OK - rant on - just as long as everyone else knows it is a truckload.
Yep. Anti-semitism cloaked with the usual spin. Denial is always cloaked as anti semitism. Jew hatred and attempting to repeatedly fault Israel for everything is antisemitism pure and simple no way to sugar coat it. If their arguments attempt to delegitimize Zionism which is Jewish-National aspiration or blame antisemitic terrorism on Israel or advocate antisemitic Nazi global Jewish conspiracy nonsense which is constantly repeated ad nauseum on the mingle2 forums etc.... So yeah. It is often blatantly antisemitic. That about sums it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was the assessment of ABC news and an author of a published book who reviewed the documents that in fact Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa, a published book and published news items. What normally happens when something that is not true is published and passed off as truth? Hint? ask a jewish lawyer
They all acknowledge that it is worthless idle speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
