Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The NPT is a voluntary Treaty, that Iran signed, and Israel didn't.
Nations that sign get stuff for signing, like help with their nuclear energy programs.
Israel, surrounded by muslims states didn't need energy, they needed bombs.
Iran, with it's complete lack of energy resources signed.
Errr...., ummm,
Iran is sworn to destroy the West. Nothing else need be considered.
And the US is destroying the Middle East, see the difference? One is, the other says it wants to. Which is worse?
Just how is America destroying the M.E. when the arab muslims have already destroyed it ?
Hmm, let's see. Taking down Saddam, making a political vacuum. Why was Saddam in place? Oh, because the British made Iraq with a Saudi in as king, great idea.
Whatever Muslims are doing there, often it's as a result of the policies the west have implemented in the first place. But hey, you can ignore that stuff right?
Maybe you should research your history a little more as Britain did not make Iraq that was the LoN and France. And it was Syria and Jordan that had the Saudi princes made into kings, Iraq was ruled by a native.
So the west forced 1400 years of mass murder, rape and violence on the indigenous peoples of the M.E did they, or is it you denying the reality of the M.E because it does not suit your islamonazi propaganda ?
Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Excuse my ignorance Roudy......what has the USS Liberty Memorial to do with Jewish folk.......?steveLiberty is part of the repetitive canards Jew haters resort to. They have nothing but this constant debunked bullcrap.Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaUSS Liberty MemorialIsrael can be trusted . After all they are an ally to the USA . 'iran, well they can't be trusted and they cause problems , terrorism worldwide .
Hold on there, why do you care about the USS Liberty so much to begin with?
The Liberty is always brought up by Jew haters as why "Jews can't be trusted" and "Israel isn't our ally", as it was once again in this case. You're excused.
And the US is destroying the Middle East, see the difference? One is, the other says it wants to. Which is worse?
Just how is America destroying the M.E. when the arab muslims have already destroyed it ?
Hmm, let's see. Taking down Saddam, making a political vacuum. Why was Saddam in place? Oh, because the British made Iraq with a Saudi in as king, great idea.
Whatever Muslims are doing there, often it's as a result of the policies the west have implemented in the first place. But hey, you can ignore that stuff right?
Maybe you should research your history a little more as Britain did not make Iraq that was the LoN and France. And it was Syria and Jordan that had the Saudi princes made into kings, Iraq was ruled by a native.
So the west forced 1400 years of mass murder, rape and violence on the indigenous peoples of the M.E did they, or is it you denying the reality of the M.E because it does not suit your islamonazi propaganda ?
Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Sadam wasn't put in power by the British, he grabbed power by military takeover decades later. Are you complaining why the British gave 99% of the land to be ruled by Muslim rulers?
ER........
NO the mandate was not scrapped at all it transferred to the UN, and Britain did everything it could to stop the Jews from declaring free determination. The Jews waited until Britain had thrown in the towel and then declared the state of Israel under the terms of the mandate of Palestine.
Iraq was granted their independence under the 1921 mandates and Britain had no say in anything if you read the terms of the mandate, and it was a class A mandate needing no interference to set up a viable government. All the Anglo-Iraq treaty did was allow for local self government
The LoN was autonomous and was not the tool of anyone shown when Britain tried to alter the terms of the mandate to suit the arab muslims and the LoN said no.
The UN responded to Iraqi warmongering and sent a task force to Iraq to settle the matter once and for all. So the Americans and British invaded Iraq not the UN.
Now what has this to do with Israel not being forced against INTERNATIONAL LAW to join the NPT ?
Just how is America destroying the M.E. when the arab muslims have already destroyed it ?
Hmm, let's see. Taking down Saddam, making a political vacuum. Why was Saddam in place? Oh, because the British made Iraq with a Saudi in as king, great idea.
Whatever Muslims are doing there, often it's as a result of the policies the west have implemented in the first place. But hey, you can ignore that stuff right?
Maybe you should research your history a little more as Britain did not make Iraq that was the LoN and France. And it was Syria and Jordan that had the Saudi princes made into kings, Iraq was ruled by a native.
So the west forced 1400 years of mass murder, rape and violence on the indigenous peoples of the M.E did they, or is it you denying the reality of the M.E because it does not suit your islamonazi propaganda ?
Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Sadam wasn't put in power by the British, he grabbed power by military takeover decades later. Are you complaining why the British gave 99% of the land to be ruled by Muslim rulers?
Yes, I know this, but then I didn't say Saddam was put in place by the British. Saddam was a product of what the British did. They put in place a Saudi king who waskicked out and replaced by the Ba-ath Party which Saddam then took over and ended up being what he became?
It's proof that the decision made at one point in time can have a massive impact on the country 70 years later. The impact of Bush's decision to invade Iraq will last for a long, LONG time.
The British made Iraq, a country that should never have been a country in the first place. Also, you assume that if a Russian took over the UK then i'd be okay. Monarchs have to be accepted, clearly Faisal wasn't in Iraq, they got rid of him.
Hmm, let's see. Taking down Saddam, making a political vacuum. Why was Saddam in place? Oh, because the British made Iraq with a Saudi in as king, great idea.
Whatever Muslims are doing there, often it's as a result of the policies the west have implemented in the first place. But hey, you can ignore that stuff right?
Maybe you should research your history a little more as Britain did not make Iraq that was the LoN and France. And it was Syria and Jordan that had the Saudi princes made into kings, Iraq was ruled by a native.
So the west forced 1400 years of mass murder, rape and violence on the indigenous peoples of the M.E did they, or is it you denying the reality of the M.E because it does not suit your islamonazi propaganda ?
Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Sadam wasn't put in power by the British, he grabbed power by military takeover decades later. Are you complaining why the British gave 99% of the land to be ruled by Muslim rulers?
Yes, I know this, but then I didn't say Saddam was put in place by the British. Saddam was a product of what the British did. They put in place a Saudi king who waskicked out and replaced by the Ba-ath Party which Saddam then took over and ended up being what he became?
It's proof that the decision made at one point in time can have a massive impact on the country 70 years later. The impact of Bush's decision to invade Iraq will last for a long, LONG time.
The British made Iraq, a country that should never have been a country in the first place. Also, you assume that if a Russian took over the UK then i'd be okay. Monarchs have to be accepted, clearly Faisal wasn't in Iraq, they got rid of him.
So you would prefer a ba'ath dictator to have been installed in 1920 then. Iraq was a country in name before Britain came on the scene and it was part of the ottoman empire, so stop twisting history to meet with your half truth POV and try looking at the facts from before WW1.
Try this for historical fact
Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Throughout most of the period of Ottoman rule (1533–1918) the territory of present-day Iraq was a battle zone between the rival regional empires and tribal alliances. The Safavid dynasty of Iran briefly asserted their hegemony over Iraq in the periods of 1508–1533 and 1622–1638.
By the 17th century, the frequent conflicts with the Safavids had sapped the strength of the Ottoman Empire and had weakened its control over its provinces. The nomadic population swelled with the influx of bedouins from Najd, in the Arabian Peninsula. Bedouin raids on settled areas became impossible to curb.[39]
ER........
NO the mandate was not scrapped at all it transferred to the UN, and Britain did everything it could to stop the Jews from declaring free determination. The Jews waited until Britain had thrown in the towel and then declared the state of Israel under the terms of the mandate of Palestine.
Iraq was granted their independence under the 1921 mandates and Britain had no say in anything if you read the terms of the mandate, and it was a class A mandate needing no interference to set up a viable government. All the Anglo-Iraq treaty did was allow for local self government
The LoN was autonomous and was not the tool of anyone shown when Britain tried to alter the terms of the mandate to suit the arab muslims and the LoN said no.
The UN responded to Iraqi warmongering and sent a task force to Iraq to settle the matter once and for all. So the Americans and British invaded Iraq not the UN.
Now what has this to do with Israel not being forced against INTERNATIONAL LAW to join the NPT ?
The British and French went into the Middle East and decided to split it up between them. The League of Nations did what they wanted to do. The UN didn't exist.
Iraq wasn't granted independence in 1921, it was granted semi-independence, meaning the British were still there. Yes, they put in place a Saudi as a king, yes they let them get on with things. But by 1930 oil became an issue and the British wanted to stay, but then it didn't happen.
I don't understand your last paragraph.
Maybe you should research your history a little more as Britain did not make Iraq that was the LoN and France. And it was Syria and Jordan that had the Saudi princes made into kings, Iraq was ruled by a native.
So the west forced 1400 years of mass murder, rape and violence on the indigenous peoples of the M.E did they, or is it you denying the reality of the M.E because it does not suit your islamonazi propaganda ?
Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Sadam wasn't put in power by the British, he grabbed power by military takeover decades later. Are you complaining why the British gave 99% of the land to be ruled by Muslim rulers?
Yes, I know this, but then I didn't say Saddam was put in place by the British. Saddam was a product of what the British did. They put in place a Saudi king who waskicked out and replaced by the Ba-ath Party which Saddam then took over and ended up being what he became?
It's proof that the decision made at one point in time can have a massive impact on the country 70 years later. The impact of Bush's decision to invade Iraq will last for a long, LONG time.
The British made Iraq, a country that should never have been a country in the first place. Also, you assume that if a Russian took over the UK then i'd be okay. Monarchs have to be accepted, clearly Faisal wasn't in Iraq, they got rid of him.
So you would prefer a ba'ath dictator to have been installed in 1920 then. Iraq was a country in name before Britain came on the scene and it was part of the ottoman empire, so stop twisting history to meet with your half truth POV and try looking at the facts from before WW1.
Try this for historical fact
Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Throughout most of the period of Ottoman rule (1533–1918) the territory of present-day Iraq was a battle zone between the rival regional empires and tribal alliances. The Safavid dynasty of Iran briefly asserted their hegemony over Iraq in the periods of 1508–1533 and 1622–1638.
By the 17th century, the frequent conflicts with the Safavids had sapped the strength of the Ottoman Empire and had weakened its control over its provinces. The nomadic population swelled with the influx of bedouins from Najd, in the Arabian Peninsula. Bedouin raids on settled areas became impossible to curb.[39]
Iraq was under the Ottoman Empire. The Hapsburg Empire consisted of different peoples and cultures. Doesn't mean they should still be one country. How many countries were under the Hapsburgs? Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bosnia, Slovenia and many more.
Don't try and present this as a simple "Iraq existed before therefore it should have done afterwards. Why do you think it has such straight borders? Only in Africa and the Middle East with such meddling, and in North America which was taken from natives there, do you find straight borders. Its a sign that culture and peoples mean nothing to those who made the borders.
As for your facts, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Map of the area from 1803. Recognise Iraq there? No. Me neither.
Just how is America destroying the M.E. when the arab muslims have already destroyed it ?
Hmm, let's see. Taking down Saddam, making a political vacuum. Why was Saddam in place? Oh, because the British made Iraq with a Saudi in as king, great idea.
Whatever Muslims are doing there, often it's as a result of the policies the west have implemented in the first place. But hey, you can ignore that stuff right?
Maybe you should research your history a little more as Britain did not make Iraq that was the LoN and France. And it was Syria and Jordan that had the Saudi princes made into kings, Iraq was ruled by a native.
So the west forced 1400 years of mass murder, rape and violence on the indigenous peoples of the M.E did they, or is it you denying the reality of the M.E because it does not suit your islamonazi propaganda ?
Er.....
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate in 1920. Then there was a revolt and the mandate was scrapped with a British administered semi-independent nation put in place. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty was signed by Britain and Iraq which gave this semi-independence except in foreign affairs and military affairs. Then another treaty in 1930 was signed. Then Iraq gained independence in 1932.
The League of Nations basically acted on behalf of the French and British who carved up the old Ottoman Empire. To suggest the League of Nations did something is like saying the UN invaded Iraq in 2003.
Iraq was ruled by the Hashemites, who controlled Mecca, which happens to be in Saudi Arabia.
In 1932 King Faisal I of Iraq was in charge and had been since 1921. (well, in charge in as much as it was the british). He was born in Mecca. Died in Switzerland. Grew up in Istanbul. Hardly Iraqi, was he?
Sadam wasn't put in power by the British, he grabbed power by military takeover decades later. Are you complaining why the British gave 99% of the land to be ruled by Muslim rulers?
Yes, I know this, but then I didn't say Saddam was put in place by the British. Saddam was a product of what the British did. They put in place a Saudi king who waskicked out and replaced by the Ba-ath Party which Saddam then took over and ended up being what he became?
It's proof that the decision made at one point in time can have a massive impact on the country 70 years later. The impact of Bush's decision to invade Iraq will last for a long, LONG time.
The British made Iraq, a country that should never have been a country in the first place. Also, you assume that if a Russian took over the UK then i'd be okay. Monarchs have to be accepted, clearly Faisal wasn't in Iraq, they got rid of him.
I don't agree...Westwall...if they made peace with the Palestinians,most of Israels problems would be over.......Palestine does not need other Arab countries,just a two-way street with Israel.Israel self inspects their own nuclear arsenal.
I know! It's astonishing. Israel HAS he ability to destroy every Arab country around them....... and doesn't. And every Arab country around them WOULD destroy Israel if given the chance.
I don't agree...Westwall...if they made peace with the Palestinians,most of Israels problems would be over.......Palestine does not need other Arab countries,just a two-way street with Israel.Israel self inspects their own nuclear arsenal.
I know! It's astonishing. Israel HAS he ability to destroy every Arab country around them....... and doesn't. And every Arab country around them WOULD destroy Israel if given the chance.
How does one make peace with a group who's SOLE desire is to see you dead?
I don't agree...Westwall...if they made peace with the Palestinians,most of Israels problems would be over.......Palestine does not need other Arab countries,just a two-way street with Israel.Israel self inspects their own nuclear arsenal.
I know! It's astonishing. Israel HAS he ability to destroy every Arab country around them....... and doesn't. And every Arab country around them WOULD destroy Israel if given the chance.
How does one make peace with a group who's SOLE desire is to see you dead?
The same old talking points. Who is attacking you, no one, unless you attack them first.
Its really a no win for Israel, not a victory. The more Israel acts special and above the law it imposes upon others, its a lost for Israel.
I don't agree...Westwall...if they made peace with the Palestinians,most of Israels problems would be over.......Palestine does not need other Arab countries,just a two-way street with Israel.Israel self inspects their own nuclear arsenal.
I know! It's astonishing. Israel HAS he ability to destroy every Arab country around them....... and doesn't. And every Arab country around them WOULD destroy Israel if given the chance.
How does one make peace with a group who's SOLE desire is to see you dead?
The same old talking points. Who is attacking you, no one, unless you attack them first.
I don't agree...Westwall...if they made peace with the Palestinians,most of Israels problems would be over.......Palestine does not need other Arab countries,just a two-way street with Israel.Israel self inspects their own nuclear arsenal.
I know! It's astonishing. Israel HAS he ability to destroy every Arab country around them....... and doesn't. And every Arab country around them WOULD destroy Israel if given the chance.
How does one make peace with a group who's SOLE desire is to see you dead?
The same old talking points. Who is attacking you, no one, unless you attack them first.
Iran is in Asia, however ...Iran is sworn to destroy the West. Nothing else need be considered.
And the US is destroying the Middle East, see the difference? One is, the other says it wants to. Which is worse?
I've lived with Palestinians and Jews in Israel,generally both peoples get on well,the real problem is the Zionist Cult .......Who wish to see the end of the Palestinians,you see Westie,give the Palestinians their freedom and Land.......and most of Israel's problems will dissolve,I am Pragmatic enough and so are the majority of Palestinians that there will be an Israel.......on the whole it is the minority of Meat-Heads on both sides that love the Status-Quo.........but both Israelis and Palestinians want to see the end of this open sore......and get on with a peaceful life for their children and the future.I don't agree...Westwall...if they made peace with the Palestinians,most of Israels problems would be over.......Palestine does not need other Arab countries,just a two-way street with Israel.Israel self inspects their own nuclear arsenal.
I know! It's astonishing. Israel HAS he ability to destroy every Arab country around them....... and doesn't. And every Arab country around them WOULD destroy Israel if given the chance.
How does one make peace with a group who's SOLE desire is to see you dead?
