Why Won't the Media Mention Israel's Nukes?
-
Yeah I don't see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it. Shit the U.S. /India have 1.5 billion dollar satellite being launched into space this week from India. I don't see why we would be sanctioning people and building future endeavors with them.
Yeah I don’t see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it.
Except we magically give all the shits about it when it comes to Iran. All treaties are selectively applied. Welcome to the world of foreign relations.
-
Sorry for the confusion when I said "no proof". I meant "no official sources". Everyone knows Israel has nukes they just have to pretend they aren't for the legal reasons I stated.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I get what you are saying but there are extensive, publically released offcial documents from the US government that the US has been very much convinced Israel has had nukes since the 60s.
What... what kind of ... what can be more official than a declassified CIA document that says 'yeah we're pretty sure Israel has nukes'?
From all the minutes (transcripts) of Congressional hearings about the Apollo Affair, which also had FBI reports and CIA reports and I think the NSA as well?
I am not asking this rhetorically, to just belabor a point for emphasis.
I am asking you: If all this shit doesn't meet your 'official source' criteria... what does?
-
Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]with extinction technology, i don't know what the answer is. i think you either need a high level of trust and cooperation between all wielding parties which never goes away, or you need a singular world government which has no reason to arm itself with such a thing.
the stalemate situation where all enemies have a gun to point at one another so that nobody fires a shot is crazy. that can't be the solution.
-
Yeah I don’t see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it.
Except we magically give all the shits about it when it comes to Iran. All treaties are selectively applied. Welcome to the world of foreign relations.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It's an interesting satellite though if you hadn't seen anything about it yet.
Seems like it can monitor everything down to moisture levels in soil and is supposed to pass the data for free to research companies, but of course that's what they say now, and who knows how that will play out. Otherwise building agricultural models and seeing how areas are changing over time could be really neat.
-
I get what you are saying but there are extensive, publically released offcial documents from the US government that the US has been very much convinced Israel has had nukes since the 60s.
What... what kind of ... what can be more official than a declassified CIA document that says 'yeah we're pretty sure Israel has nukes'?
From all the minutes (transcripts) of Congressional hearings about the Apollo Affair, which also had FBI reports and CIA reports and I think the NSA as well?
I am not asking this rhetorically, to just belabor a point for emphasis.
I am asking you: If all this shit doesn't meet your 'official source' criteria... what does?
Its not my criteria, its about what will legally hold up in a US court against an AIPAC or ADL libel case. Remember, we're talking about reasons why news sources don't mention it. Not what I personally think is adequate proof.
-
That is the conventional wisdom. Wisdom written by people with nukes who can't stop bullying everyone else.
the conventional wisdom checks out to me. Sometimes bullies happen to be right.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The world ends because a bunch of elderly white dudes want to measure dicks. Yay!
-
Its not my criteria, its about what will legally hold up in a US court against an AIPAC or ADL libel case. Remember, we're talking about reasons why news sources don't mention it. Not what I personally think is adequate proof.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Ooooh ok your framework is media don't say due to fear of being sued for libel.
Uh well, that...
Well ok.
If we pretend the rule of law still exists at that level, which it doesn't...
Then uh, all the media has to do is just bring up all this stuff, all these documents, have Seymour Hersh on to talk about it, read the quotes from former Israeli PMs, show the unclassified documents and just always give context and caveats... and then just ask 'Why is nobody taking this seriously? Why do we not have definitive answers?'
Assuming the rule of law as we knew it in say, 2018 existed, they'd be fine. Maybe the ADL or AIPAC could try to sue them, but it wouldn't work.
But this is all moot because if somebody, MSNBC or whatever, did that, today, what would happen is a Scientology style intimidation/terror/ruin your life campaign x100 on everyone something like 2 or 3 direct personal connections away from everyone speaking in that news segment, orchestrated by Mossad.
And/Or, the entire Republican apparatus doing the same. And then directing stochastic lethal terrorism at them, or just fuck you, executive order says you in particular go to CECOT, bye bye!
Or the Supreme Court just makes another completely nonsensical ruling that goes against centuries of precedent and effectively destroys the first ammendment.
Thats the actual reason why no one does this, at this moment.
...
The 'state of Israel' has no legal standing to... sue the US for reputational damages or making false claims.
They would also... in this hypothetical, you know, have to actually prove, in court, that... that they are being lied about.
AIPAC or the ADL would have to attempt to construe it as hate speech. Which wouldn't work in 2018 land where the law and legal system still exist and work and stuff.
-
Why won't the mainstream media of the Western bloc, a well known propaganda apparatus that will always spin things in favour of capitalists and Western imperialism, mention Israel's (a Western colonial project) nukes? Gee, I wonder why.
Now this is a classic lemmy world salad
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
- racism
- white supremacy
- imperialism
- judeo-christian values
- western civilization
- only democracy in the middle east
take your pick
Israel violates international laws and has been since 1948, invades its neighbours and commits genocide, and western media still portrays it as a victim.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What's with these weird imaginary articles? The media has talked enough about their nukes, western youtube is filled with documentaries and western wiki has detailed info on vela incident and other related information, not even talking about the fact that I, a westerner, learned about Israel's nukes from western media. Idiocy.
As an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal
-
- racism
- white supremacy
- imperialism
- judeo-christian values
- western civilization
- only democracy in the middle east
take your pick
Israel violates international laws and has been since 1948, invades its neighbours and commits genocide, and western media still portrays it as a victim.
I'll throw post WW2 apologetics into the ring. Can't blame Israel publicly without risking career suicide, both in politics and corporate.
-
- racism
- white supremacy
- imperialism
- judeo-christian values
- western civilization
- only democracy in the middle east
take your pick
Israel violates international laws and has been since 1948, invades its neighbours and commits genocide, and western media still portrays it as a victim.
being persecuted for decades/centuries priors helps shield them from any criticism, because they can claim anti-semitism every time.
-
we really should have some deal to allow Iran to have access to nuclear power under supervision
trump departed from that agreement.
-
There are other countries too that unofficially have nukes
They don't have nukes as such. They are prepositioned US owned nukes that remain under the custody of the USAF. The part of the base where the nukes are stored is strictly off limits to local personnel.
What makes them "shared", is that they are intended to be dropped by planes owned by the host country, and both the government of the host country as well as the US government need to give their authorization to activate and use them.
So you may as well just consider them as US nukes.
-
What’s MSM?
MSN?mainstream media, basically all news on networks.
-
being persecuted for decades/centuries priors helps shield them from any criticism, because they can claim anti-semitism every time.
The persecution isn't even theirs. Sure they'd likely have relatives affected by the Holocaust of WW2, but these are the the Jewish people who were rich enough to escape it.
Actual Holocaust of WW2 survivors live under the poverty line in Isn'treal. -
Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.
Greenland is part of Denmark, which is part of NATO and the EU. That means they technically have UK's, France's, and the US's nukes.
-
Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion.
So it's just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel? They deny they're even trying to get a bomb. Do their politicians like to say, "death to Israel?" Sure, but that's just part of their discourse. The Iranians use "death to" as a synonym for "down with." They say the same thing during political campaigns against opposing political candidates.
An Iranian bomb would stabilize the situation because the same pattern has occurred in numerous other conflicts. Yes, nukes don't prevent conventional wars, but they do prevent total war between nuclear powers. Russia would have never attempted its invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes. India and Pakistan's arsenals are what kept the recent conflict between them from spiraling further than it did.
You can speculate that nukes wouldn't prevent further expansion of Israel, but that's ahistorical analysis. Having an opponent that is just as well armed as you are makes you act more carefully. The Soviets didn't just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check. Israel has been able to act with such impunity because ultimately none of its neighbors can stand up to it. It's only when some of Israel's neighbors actually have nukes, and they have to address their neighbors as equals, that peace is actually possible. As long as one side holds complete military dominance, real peace isn't possible.
So it's just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
I mean, haven't they?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel?
The IAEA cites several officials that have stated that Iran is able to manufacture nuclear weapons, and pundits on state tv have threatened Israel with total destruction and "annihilation". It doesn't take much to put two and two together. They're overt threats, but threats nonetheless.
The Soviets didn't just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check.
This ignores the many proxy wars the US and USSR fought in many regions. I wouldn't necessarily call that very stabilizing. Meanwhile the theory that wars won't be declared between nuclear powers is actively being tested by several states at the moment, prodding and probing nuclear-capable alliances to test where the boundary lies.
Results achieved in the past do not guarantee success in the future.
