Nuclear Israel (by Latuff)
Latuff | 30.05.2010 00:59 | Anti-militarism | Palestine
High resolution version for printing purposes: http://twitpic.com/1sakxy/full
Latuff
e-mail:
carlos.latuff@gmail.com
Homepage:
http://twitter.com/CarlosLatuff
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
But then ...
30.05.2010 07:38
oppenheimer
Oh there's intent alright....
30.05.2010 10:14
israel is way out in front of other nuclear armed nations in terms of threat to use them. Just google 'samson option' They've threatened to nuke European capitals if they aren't allowed to follow their agena. It's called nuclear blackmail and this explains the double-stanards and why the rest of the world allows them to get away with muder, quite literally.
Sue Denim
Two Offences
30.05.2010 10:44
Possession is one charge, then you might get nicked for intent to supply. (misery in Israels case !!!)
YOUR NICKED !!!!!
Old Bill
Repetition
30.05.2010 11:42
Give it a rest
context
30.05.2010 14:49
However:
"Although nuclear weapons were viewed as the ultimate guarantor of Israeli security, as early as the 1960s the country avoided building its military around them, instead pursuing absolute conventional superiority so as to forestall a last resort nuclear engagement.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#Deterrence_Doctrine
For more context: Hamas have publicly said that they hope all the Jews gather in Israel, so Hamas won't have to hunt them down.
It's all pretty fucked up, I agree - but there's no shortage of proliferators on boths sides, for instance the Saudis paid for Pakistans Bomb on condition that Pakistan lends them a few weapons if things ever get hot in the neighbourhood. Pretty hefty proliferation that, but I don't see anybody complaining about a state which practices gender aprarthied paying a known terrorist state to build a bunch of nuclear weapons.
IMHO simplistic John Wayne, good-guys VS bad-guys propaganda like this cartoon do not help anyone except our rulers. People have to get away from this idea that Iran is some kind of innocent victim of Western machinations - it just isn't that way. In addition you have nothing in common with the Iranian ruling class so why side with them?
anon
Simpson option
30.05.2010 14:56
Oh, and any reference to nuking European capitols, or is that an extra titbit thrown in to thicken the brew?
oppenheimer
madman with a mimeo
30.05.2010 16:50
archivist
U WoT
30.05.2010 18:12
There was a mention of John Wayne and the good guys versus the bad guys, if you consider John Wayne to be one of the good guys then maybe the other guys are bad, as in the street sense ie good..
But then maybe you actually believe all, (your own ?) Hollywood propaganda.
maybe it's time to 'Oppenout !
Will I. Heck
Speaking of Repetition
31.05.2010 04:58
T
Like John Wayne came back as a trendy "anti-imperialist".
31.05.2010 05:04
The increasingly unhinged self-elected dictator Achmedinejad's now being openly booed by the unemployed on his own TV channel, but you wouldn't know it to listen to his supporters in the West.
Iranians have been raped and murdered by your precious Hamas and Basij security forces in the last year - all I read about though is how they must have all worked for the CIA because they were against Iranian theocracy.I think it's wrong to defend that kind of repression just because the guilty parties are "against the West". That's the same sort of mentality that supported Stalin and the other twentieth century dictators because they were also "against US Imperialism" (and in favour of their own brand of the same product).
The Iranian ruling class have expressed a desire to see a "greater Iran" whose influence stretches from Afghanistan to Palestine - personally I prefer coca cola and hamburgers to religious theocracy, at least it is possible to resist the former without being beheaded or stoned to death.
anon