Nuclear Dump in Washington Leaking Radioactive Waste

Nuclear Dump in Washington Leaking Radioactive Waste

Repeated calls to address problems at facility ‘met with silence’ by state and federal officials
February 16 2013

Reports that a storage tank for nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear facility in Washington state–one of the most contaminated nuclear waste sites in the country–is leaking radioactive waste were confirmed that state’s governor Friday.

The news raises concerns about the integrity of similar tanks at south-central Washington’s Hanford nuclear reservation and puts added pressure on the federal government to resolve construction problems with the plant being built to alleviate environmental and safety risks from the waste.

The tanks, which are already long past their intended 20-year life span, hold millions of gallons of a highly radioactive stew left from decades of plutonium production for nuclear weapons.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy said liquid levels are decreasing in one of 177 underground tanks at the site. Monitoring wells near the tank have not detected higher radiation levels, but Inslee said the leak could be in the range of 150 gallons to 300 gallons over the course of a year and poses a potential long-term threat to groundwater and rivers.

The Northwest News Network, in an interview with Tom Carpenter, head of the Seattle-based watchdog group Hanford Challenge, found that Friday’s news highlights the fact that problems have been endemic to the site for years and there’s not even a place to transfer the contained waste or a place to return any that may be recovered from spills or leaks.

“If you have another leak, what do you do?,” ask Carpenter.  “You don’t have any strategy for that. And the Hanford Advisory Board and the state of Washington and Hanford Challenge and others have been calling upon the Department of Energy to build new tanks. That call has been met with silence.”

And the Chicago Tribune adds:

Though more than a third of the 149 old single-shell tanks at the site are suspected to have leaked up to 1 million gallons of nuclear waste over the years, this is the first confirmed leak since federal authorities completed a so-called stabilization program in 2005 that was supposed to have removed most liquids from the vulnerable single-shell tanks.

The new leak calls into question the effectiveness of that program, and state officials said it increased the urgency of ending roadblocks to a permanent storage solution for the 53 million gallons of waste housed at the sprawling site that was a center for atomic bomb-making material after World War II. Source

Also while speaking of  weapons grade Plutonium.

Liquid bomb-grade uranium to be shipped secretly from Chalk River to U.S.

By Ian MacLeod,  February 10, 2013

OTTAWA — Nuclear officials are preparing to secretly transport a toxic stew of liquid bomb-grade uranium by armed convoy from Chalk River to a South Carolina reprocessing site.

The “high priority” mission marks the first time authorities have attempted to truck highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in a liquid solution, prompting nuclear safety advocacy groups on both sides of the border to sound the alarm for greater government scrutiny.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has confirmed the plan to the Citizen. It follows Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s commitment at last year’s global nuclear security summit to return HEU inventories to the United States to lessen the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Officials with CNSC and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which operates Chalk River Laboratories, say federal law prohibits publicly releasing details about the mission, including the number of transport truck trips involved, the routing through Eastern Ontario and the timing.
But documents filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) suggest many truck trips will be required and could begin in August.

This does seem to be an unprecedented, cross-border shipment of liquid high-level waste and, for that reason alone, it needs the highest order of environmental review on both sides of the border,” says Tom Clements, a South Carolina campaign co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth and former executive-director of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington.

Small amounts of HEU in solid form have long been exported, without incident, by the U.S. to Canada for the production of medical isotopes at Chalk River’s NRU reactor.

What’s different this time is the HEU to be transported for reprocessing at the U.S. government’s Savannah River Site is in liquid form and believed to from Chalk River’s controversial Fissile Solution Storage Tank, or FISST.

The 24,000-litre waste tank is largely unknown outside the nuclear establishment, but within the industry in Canada and internationally, it is a source of persistent unease.

The double-walled, stainless-steel vessel contains 17 years’ worth of an intensely radioactive acidic solution from the production of molybdenum-99, a vital medical isotope produced by irradiating HEU “targets.

The liquid must be carefully monitored, mixed and warmed to prevent it from solidifying and — in a worst-case scenario — potentially achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction of fissioning atoms called criticality.

The energy and heat from such a chain reaction could potentially rupture the tank, release the solution into the environment and endanger anyone nearby. There would be no danger of a nuclear explosion.

Not surprisingly, FISST is under constant surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Commission for any hint of an accidental atomic chain reaction.

Taken out of service around 2003, FISST is believed to be near-full and sitting inside a thick, in-ground concrete vault in a building two hours northwest of Ottawa. In the years since, HEU-bearing liquid waste produced during isotope production has been solidified and placed in secure storage.

The FISST’s chief ingredient is an estimated 175 kilograms of HEU containing 93 per cent uranium-235, the isotope that sustains a fission chain reaction. Also present are plutonium, tritium, other fission products and mercury. About 20 kilograms to 45 kilograms of HEU is considered sufficient to construct a small nuclear weapon or a Hiroshima-sized bomb.

NRC documents note that the radioactive payload to be removed from Canada, “is highly enriched target material,” containing 7.2 grams of HEU per litre, which precisely matches the description and composition of the FISST’s contents.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. had planned to take until 2020 to resolve the FISST issue, but CNSC staff have said they want it dealt with during Chalk River Laboratories’ current five-year-operating licence, which expires Oct. 31, 2016.

Earlier this month, Clements made a formal request to the U.S. Department of Energy for an extensive and public environmental hearing before the radioactive shipments are approved. He said a 1996 U.S. environmental review of HEU shipments to Savannah River did not consider the implications surrounding liquid HEU.

The Canadian group Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Responsibility is urging Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver to do the same here.

But NRC documents on the issue call for an “expedited” certification review of a plan to transport the HEU liquid waste in stainless-steel casks originally designed to carry dry nuclear waste, such as spent fuel rods from reactors.

NAC International Inc., a U.S. company specializing in nuclear packaging and transport, is seeking NRC and CNSC approvals to use its NAC-LWT (legal weight truck) cask system to haul the radioactive liquid from Canada, something that the CNSC and other experts say has never been done before.

In documents, NRC officials characterize the request as, “a high priority for review to support the (U.S.) Department of Energy’s Global Threat Reduction Program,” to reduce civilian use of weapons-grade uranium. The company filed the request, with supporting technical data, on Dec. 28.

In a Jan. 31 reply to the company, the NRC said it wants the company to produce more technical information about the viability and safety of using the casks to transport liquid HEU. It gave the company two weeks to comply, adding if all goes well, approval could be expected by May 10.

The company did not respond to requests for comments late last week.

The CNSC has a separate review underway of the proposed change to the cask payload, one of several approvals required on both sides of the border before the radioactive waste can be moved along continental roads and highways.

No HEU transport is authorized without CNSC approval in order to ensure safety to the public, workers and the environment,” it said in a statement Friday. “Safety requirements must be met in accordance with CNSC and Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.

These containers must undergo stringent testing, which simulate both normal and hypothetical conditions of transport, including free-drop testing, puncture testing and thermal testing.

Carriers must be specially trained and a transportation security plan must also be approved, it said.

The primary purpose of this plan is to assure that the nuclear material to be transported will receive adequate physical protection against any threats that may arise during its transport.

AECL is generally tight-lipped about FISST. A spokesman Friday would only say that “AECL is participating in HEU repatriation activities.

NAC International, in filings with the NRC, proposes to that each cask carry a total of up to 257 litres of HEU solution. Each cask would hold four smaller containers, with each of those holding up to 64 litres. The estimated HEU content in each would be about 1.8 grams.
At Savannah River, the liquid is to be taken to a complex known as H-Canyon and down-blended in to low-enriched uranium fuel for U.S. power and research reactors. Source


Action Alert   February 4, 2013

Please write to U.S. and Canadian Authorities

Proposed Import and Transport of Liquid Radioactive Wastes

Bearing Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to the U.S. from Canada

The U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) is planning to import and transport liquid radioactive waste containing weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) from Canada’s Chalk River Laboratories (CRNL) to the DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina.

The proposed movement of liquid HEU-bearing radioactive waste was confirmed at the recent SRS (Savannah River Site) Citizens Advisory Board meeting in Augusta, Georgia on January 28-29. This proposal is (so far as we are aware) the first of it’s kind.

We are asking citizens and elected officials to send an urgent request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s SRS NEPA officer, Drew Grainger, who can be emailed at:drew.grainger@srs.gov
(NEPA is the U.S. National Environmental Protection Act.)

Tell DOE that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) must be done on the proposed import to the U.S.A. of HEU-bearing liquid radioactive waste from Canada’s Chalk River.  (See Tom Clements’ letter, below, as a sample of concerns to be raised.)

No SEIS has yet been done. Such an SEIS is absolutely necessary so that an informed public policy discussion can occur.

Also, please write to the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Joe Oliver asking him to ensure that a full Environmental Assessment is conducted under Canadian Law, with an independent panel and public hearings E-mail him at joe.oliver@parl.gc.ca

Please cc to ccnr@web.ca so we can keep monitoring this situation.

For background information : http://ccnr.org/HEU_liquid_waste.html .

SRS is where 35 MT of weapons-grade plutonium was made.  SRS still processes tritium for all US nuclear weapons and is where a $7- billion plutonium-based nuclear fuel (MOX, or “mixed oxide” nuclear fuel) plant is being built.

Related
Recent

Iran: International Nuclear disarmament summit widely welcomed

April 4 2010

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says Tehran’s international conference on nuclear disarmament has been widely welcomed.

According to Mehmanparast, the conference dubbed “Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none,” will be held in Tehran on March 17th and 18th.

“Officials from various countries, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations have been invited to attend the conference,” the Iranian spokesperson added.

“The conference has been widely welcomed by all countries,” he went on to say.

Mehmanparast further pointed out that all the countries in the world have the right to use peaceful nuclear energy.

“We believe the world must be free from nuclear weapons,” he asserted.

Earlier, Mehmanparast had urged the countries which possess nuclear weapons to destroy their atomic armaments.

“We insist that all countries must be committed to nuclear disarmament,” he said early February. Source

Well we all full well know the US nor Israel will ever get rid of their Nuclear Bombs. But kudos to Iran for attempting this type of meeting.

This is a greater threat to the US and Israel then Iran actually getting a Nuclear Bomb. Both the US and Israel would have to give up their Nuclear Weapons.  They are the two countries that more times then not are the ones who also start the wars.   They are the warmongers. Loosing their Nuclear Weapons would be their worst nightmare. They will fight this tooth and nail.

India snubs US, to attend nuclear meet in Iran

April 4 2010

The Indian government will stand by its decision to take part in a nuclear meeting slated for mid-April in the Iranian capital, Tehran, in a move that is set to irk the US administration.

According to a report published by The Hindustan Times on Sunday, the conference dubbed “Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapon for None” will be held on April 17 and 18 in Tehran. The Indian Ambassador to Iran, Sanjay Singh, will represent India at the event, which will be attended by ministers, officials and nuclear experts from over 55 countries.

The decision to participate in the international nuclear disarmament meet comes while Washington continues its efforts to impose new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

The Tehran event will be held only days after a nuclear security summit between US President Barak Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington on April 12 and 13.

Earlier, India rejected a call from the US to walk away from pipeline project carrying natural gas from Iran through Pakistan, saying “energy security” is a priority for its rapidly growing economy.

Iran and Pakistan inked a deal in March to construct a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline connecting the two neighboring countries, and India is interested in the further extension of the line to its borders if the pipeline’s security can be guaranteed in Pakistan. The project is strongly opposed by the US. The deal is part of the long-delayed $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project. Source

Israel to use anti-Iran strike to win Chinese backing

The Israeli regime plans to send its top military strategist to China this week to convince Beijing to back sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program.

Head of Tel Aviv army’s planning directorate Major General Amir Eshel intends to serve Beijing with ‘renewed’ threats of military strikes against Iran, wishing to persuade China to follow along with the US-led push at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, British weekly newspaper The Sunday Times reported today.

According to the weekly, a subsidiary of the multi-national press conglomerate The News Corporation owned by Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Eshel will warn officials in Beijing that an Israeli military attack on Iran could disrupt oil supplies to China and its rapidly growing economy.

Tehran has repeatedly dismissed Israeli threats of military strikes against Iran as psychological warfare aimed at pressuring the Islamic Republic to abandon its peaceful nuclear work while insisting that any efforts to materialize such threats will encounter a ‘painful’ response.

The Israeli regime and its Western backers have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapon capability under the guise of a civilian nuclear program.

Iran, however, has fiercely dismissed such claims as mere attempts by Western nuclear powers to prevent Iran’s rapid advances in the field of nuclear technology.

Aggressive Israeli efforts against Iran’s nuclear program come despite widespread reports of its possession of over 200 nuclear warheads that was acquired with blessings from Tel Aviv’s Western sponsors. Israel has refused to sign or commit to any international atomic regulatory treaties.

Meanwhile, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has opened its nuclear facilities to intrusive inspections and round-the-clock supervision by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Moreover, Iran has also called for an international abandonment of all nuclear weapon arsenals and development efforts, which has been ignored by all countries possessing nuclear weapons.

IAEA has repeatedly reported that it has found no evidence of any diversion of nuclear materials from civilian to military applications in Iran.

That, however, has not stopped Washington from seeking to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran through the UNSC.

Tehran insists that the sanctions are illegal as they aim to deny the Islamic Republic the legitimate right to full nuclear fuel cycle for civilian use, in contradiction to NPT regulations.

China, a veto-wielding member of the UNSC, has so far resisted US pressure to toughen embargoes against Tehran, insisting on continued dialogue as the appropriate channel to resolve nuclear concerns about Iran.

However, Israeli and its American sponsor have recently stepped up efforts to pressure China to fall in line with the sanctions drive.

The US and Israel have been collaborating closely in recent months to intensify efforts to muster support for new sanctions against the Islamic Republic. These efforts have included using press reports and allied countries to generate a high level of urgency on the issue.

For instance, US tried to get Saudi Arabia to intervene on the matter by enticing China with attractive oil deals in order to drive a wedge between Beijing and Tehran, prompting Chinese consent to the US-led sanctions efforts.

Meanwhile, press reports spread rumors last month that the Saudis have given the Israeli regime the permission to use their air space for any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a claim denied by Riyadh.

Iranian officials have scorned US claims that their sanctions drive enjoys international backing, arguing that Europe and the Israeli regime do not constitute a global representation. Source

Both the US and Israel are trying to dictate to other countries what they should do.  I do believe all countries have the right to progress in a peaceful way they see fit and not bend to the will of the two who are the warmongers.

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Gaza War Why?: Natural Gas valued at over $4 billion MAYBE?

Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan Oil Pipeline

And who had a flight out of the US on 9/11 while all flights were grounded? Not just he Bin laden family.

Full El Al flight took off on 9/11 from JFK to Tel Aviv

Why Not Crippling Sanctions for Israel and the US?

After all they are the warmongers who create fabricated documents and fabricated reasons to go to war. They are the two that lie their way to wars.

Why would anyone trust either country is beyond me. These are the two countries that literally piss off the rest of the world with their wars on innocent people.. Their actions speak for themselves.

Billions around the world have protested against both of them and for good reason. They are the planets bullies. Both countries have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The criminals behind those crimes are still warmongers and walking free.

Maybe it is time for the US and Israel shut up and listen to the rest of the world.

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

Israel to date has refused to let inspectors in.

US Refuses To Allow Monitoring Of WMD, President Obama rejected inspection protocol for US biological weapons

To date the US still refuses to let inspectors in.

Iran lets inspectors in. Who is in violation here? Not Iran.

Economic sanctions are a “Weapon of Mass Destruction”

Recent

Rachel Corrie Civil Lawsuit: Bulldozer operator told not to cooperate with investigation

Israel And Apartheid: By People Who Knew Apartheid

Fake Al Qaeda, Fake Passports, Fake planes

Japan Tokunoshima islanders reject US Marines base

Aafia Siddiqui: Victimized by American Depravity

Two-Thirds of Boys in Afghan Jails Are Brutalised, Study Finds

Israel bombards Gaza – and threatens worse/ Updated April 4 2010

Published in: on April 5, 2010 at 9:10 pm  Comments Off on Iran: International Nuclear disarmament summit widely welcomed  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Japan Report: Private Agreements Allowed US to Bring Nukes

State Department Shrugs Off Reports, Pentagon Declines Comment

By Jason Ditz, March 09, 2010

Following through on a pledged investigation into “secret agreements” made by the previous government, Japan today issued a report revealing that the Liberal Democratic Party governments violated the nation’s official bans and allowed the United States to transport and even store nuclear weapons on Japanese soil.

Not long after taking power last year, the Democratic Party of Japan revealed that they had found documents proving that their predecessors had signed secret deals with the United States as early as 1960 regarding nuclear weapons. The announcement came with the pledge of a full report.

Rumors of the deal, a flagrant violation of Japan’s non-nuclear stance since it was attacked with nuclear weapons in 1945, have been long-standing, but the LDP governments had repeatedly denied that any such deal existed. It is unclear what, if any, legal ramifications those who were in power at the time might face, but the current government is likely to gain big from uncovering it.

The US State Department downplayed the possibility that it might have any impact on US-Japan relations, saying they had lived up to their end of the treaties. This does appear to be the case, though they had to know at the time that the treaties were illegal under Japanese law. The Pentagon, for its part, refused to comment at all, saying that they don’t discuss specific nuclear weapons movements.

Source

Added April 2010

Japan Tokunoshima islanders reject US Marines base

Recent

Amir, ten years old, abducted by Israeli soldiers from his bed

“This Time We Went Too Far” Truth and Consequences in the Gaza Invasion

E-book on Jewish National Fund’s role in colonization of Palestine

Israel on Trial – The Russell Tribunal on Palestine

Water shortage in Fiji, not for US Water Corporation however

Rachel Corrie’s parents Get Nasty Letter from professor at Haifa University

Dubai police chief to seek Netanyahu arrest

Published in: on March 10, 2010 at 2:57 am  Comments Off on Japan Report: Private Agreements Allowed US to Bring Nukes  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Glenn Beck

Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Aired November 17, 2006

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Benjamin Netanyahu, elected prime minister in Israel in May 1996 in Israel’s first direct election. As prime minister, he combined fighting terror with the advancement of the peace process. Through his three-year term, the number of terror attacks drastically decreased.

In the U.S., he’s been credited for his central role in changing American policies on international terrorism. Now, he’s come out with a bold, new statement: urging the world to pay attention to Iran and warning we could be facing World War III.

Powerful, influential, and frighteningly honest, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tonight faces honest questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Welcome to the program. On Fridays, this show breaks every rule. Well, it kind of does that all week. We spend an hour talking about one person, one thing, one item. This week, the focus of our program has been our special, which was on Islamic extremism. We wanted to spend an hour with a gentleman who knows it extraordinarily well, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hello. Welcome, sir.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Hello. Good to be with you.

BECK: This program and this particular hour, we spend time asking just sometimes I think politically incorrect questions. I’m a regular American shmoe that quite honestly, right before 9/11 — and I don’t mean any offense, sir — but Israel and the Palestinians, everybody who’s been arguing for so long, as a typical American before 9/11, I was like, “Oh, you know what? Just set it out — you can all just fall into the middle of the sea and it doesn’t matter to me, because you’re always fighting.”

Now 9/11 happened. I thought, “Gee, maybe I should pay attention to this.” And many Americans did and saw, “Wait a minute. There’s trouble.” But now that’s changing even more, and you said something in Los Angeles that I’m so grateful that somebody’s finally saying, that this is World War III, this is Germany 1938.

Could you explain that?

NETANYAHU: Iran is Germany, and it’s 1938, except that this Nazi regime that is in Iran, that’s a religious kind of fanaticism, but it wants to dominate the world, annihilate the Jews, but also annihilate America. Remember, we’re the small Satan. You’re the big Satan.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: We’re just the first way station en route to you. So there is this fundament fanaticism that is there. It’s a messianic cult. It’s a religious messianic cult that believes in the Apocalypse, and they believe they have to expedite the Apocalypse to bring the collapse of the West.

BECK: See, nobody is saying — why isn’t George Bush saying this? Why is it nut jobs like me who is saying this? Why isn’t the media bringing this stuff out?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think they’re getting around to it, but it has to be explained. And that’s why I appreciate the opportunity to say it. But if I had to offer an analogy — you know, Glenn, I was looking for an analogy to try to explain to Americans what it is that is so dangerous about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. You remember those crazy people in Waco, Texas?

BECK: Yes, David Koresh.

NETANYAHU: David Koresh?

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: So imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. Imagine David Koresh, not with hundreds of followers, but millions of followers, with nuclear weapons, wanting to obliterate America, wanting to obliterate America’s allies, wanting to take over the world’s oil supply.

If the lunatics escape from the asylum, that’s one thing. But if they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon, that’s another. And this is that kind of cult. It’s the cult of the Mahdi, a holy man that disappeared a thousand years ago. And the president of Iran believes that he’s supposed to — he was put here on Earth to bring this holy man back in a great religious war between the true Muslim believers and the infidels. And millions will die in this Apocalypse, and the Muslim believers will go to heaven.

That’s dangerous, if they have nuclear weapons to realize this fantasy. And that is where the world is coming to. Now, people said that of Hitler in the 1930s. They said this man has a mad ideology, very fanatic, very dangerous, and if he gets his hands on a military power, he would use it. Hitler did use it, but Hitler developed atomic weapons, tried to develop them only after embarking on the world conflict.

Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is first trying to develop nuclear weapons and then going about his mad fantasy of global conflict. So he has to be stopped. I think when you have something as fanatic and as dangerous as this, the question now is not whether he should be stopped, but how’s he going to be stopped?

BECK: I was in the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C., and one of the more powerful rooms for me was the room where they have all of the newspapers up on the wall and all of the headlines. And to me, what stuck out was, Hitler was very clear, very clear. Basically, he was saying, “Take the Jews before I kill them.” And everybody was in denial.

Now, let me play devil’s advocate with you. We’ve heard nut jobs, especially in Iran, for a very long time. What makes you say we should take this nut job at his word? Why is this guy different than what we have seen with religious fanatics that are really only interested in power and not interested in the Apocalypse?

NETANYAHU: Well, I was getting this question in the 1990s, and I said that the West really doesn’t understand militant Islam. So I wrote a book in 1995, and I said that, if the West doesn’t wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you will see is militant Islam is bringing down the World Trade Center.

Other nut ideologies don’t do that, but militant Muslims do, and they are competing. They have two strains: the Sunni type, led by Al Qaeda, who have done the World Trade Center; the Shia types, led by Iran, who want to top that by having nuclear weapons with which they can dominate the world, ultimately bring down America.

We’re merely the first target. They hate us because we’re you, and we’re the first station, in the Middle East. They hate Israel because it represents America. They don’t hate America because of Israel, because we’re part and parcel of that same free, to their minds, hated hedonistic civilization.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: So I think the real problem is: Do we let this fanatic regime, this messianic cult of the Apocalypse, get their hands on atomic weapons? I think it’s folly.

And I don’t think it’s just an Israeli question any more so than Hitler was just a Jewish question. Hitler started with the annihilation of the Jews, but pretty quickly moved on to threaten the entire world. And America woke up late, after 6 million Jews died.

But in our case, you know, we don’t have to wake up dead in order for people to realize that he threatens America. We want to both defend ourselves, defend the Jewish state, certainly, but also defend America and free civilization against people who would extinguish our freedoms and our lives.

BECK: I am amazed at the parallels of World War II, just it is incredible, all the way down — you hear people say all the time, “Well, it’s the Jews. It’s Israel. They’re causing the problem. They’ve done all these horrible things, yadda, yadda, yadda,” just as though Hitler used the Europeans and saying, “Well, it’s the Versailles treaty, and it’s this, and it’s that.” That was a mask to bring in the real point of Hitler.

NETANYAHU: Well, let me ask you a question, you know, because people really don’t get this. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, and the cult that he represents, they couldn’t care less if we made a deal with the Palestinians or we didn’t. As far as they’re concerned, the only deal possible is the elimination of Israel. And even that would merely remove an obstacle on the way to Europe and on the way to the United States. Israel could disappear, and it wouldn’t make a difference.

BECK: So…

NETANYAHU: Because they’re out to get you; they’re not out to get us. We’re simply standing in their way. They’re not interested in Israel, per se. They’re interested in bringing down Western civilization, led by the United States. That’s why you’re the great Satan, and we’re just the little Satan.

BECK: Tell me what the world looks like if we don’t act.

NETANYAHU: If you don’t act, it means that it will be the first time in the history of the world that a totally unstable, globally mad regime will have atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

This means, a, that they will dominate the Middle East very quickly. They will make the Persian Gulf an Iranian pond. They will control the world’s oil supply. And they will probably use the weapons, first against my country, and then to intimidate or threaten Europe. They want to control the world.

Now, eventually, they’ll be brought down. How many millions will have to die for that? How many cities will be wiped out before the Western world and civilization realizes that this is not a local problem, that this is their problem, that it’s directed against them, directed against you?

BECK: OK. When we come back — we have to take a break — but when we come back, I want you to answer my father’s question. My father told me on the phone a couple of weeks ago, “You know what? We’re the United States of America. Nobody can defeat us. Stop. It’s not that big of a problem.”

And the second thing I want you to address is, how long do we have before we are right on the front lines?

Back with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with a full hour with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, about the situation we’ve been talking about all week. Before we broke, I told you that I was on the phone with my father, and he says, “You know, you’re talking about this scary stuff. Glenn, we’re the United States of America. Nobody can come in here and destroy us.” And I said, “Dad, if people don’t wake up, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

Please convince my father and others like him that that is a possibility.

NETANYAHU: What your father says is absolutely true in the case of deterrable powers. The Soviet Union had enough firepower to destroy the United States, but they realized that you would destroy them, so they were deterred. They were not suicidal.

But militant Islam is suicidal. They often put their zealotry, their ideology above their survival. That’s why you didn’t have any Communist suicide bombers, but militant Islam produces hordes of them, battalions, and they smash into buildings in New York.

Now, do you doubt that if, for example, Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, this city would not exist today?

BECK: Oh, it would be gone.

NETANYAHU: Where does your father live?

BECK: Seattle.

NETANYAHU: No, that’s far away, but they could get there, too, right? And Seattle could disappear, because they’re not deterrable. That’s the whole point.

If they were a normal power, a normal regime, without this crazy messianic cult of death, the idea that millions have to die in order for their particular Islamic messiah to come, millions have to die, and the sooner the better, in their view, because they have this cult, that’s what makes them so dangerous, if they acquire nuclear weapons to realize it. So your father is right if you were dealing with the Soviet Union…

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: … or with Russia, or with China, or with India. None of the powers that have nuclear powers today have this zealotry, this mad ideology, but Iran does. So if Iran acquires it, and they think that you are their worst nemesis, we’re just an underling, we’re just your subordinate, we happen to be a small Satan, a small appendage of America.

But their goal is to reverse a thousand years of history. The rise of the West, the rise of America. This was the mistake of history that has to be corrected through this Apocalypse. Don’t wait for them to realize this; don’t let this David Koresh in Tehran get his hands on atomic weapons so he can test out his theories on us or on you.

BECK: OK. I had a conversation with Rush Limbaugh this week. And when you’re on his program, you don’t usually disagree with him, because he’s a pretty bright man. And he said, “Glen, I think this is coming, and I think we’ve got — and the world is going to change within the next 15 years.” And I said, “I hate to disagree with you, but I think we may have three.” How long do we have before it is just too late to wake up?

NETANYAHU: There are different estimates, but they all hover between the two- to four-, five-year range, and we may be wrong. We were wrong about North Korea. And it turned out that they could get…

BECK: But North Korea, when you say North Korea, you know, North Korea, we said it’s unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. I think when you — you know, we saw those pictures of that mountain where they tested. I think, when we see the ground rise up in Iran, I think when you see that they’ve successfully tested a nuclear weapon, I don’t think they say, “Hey, well, I’m going to wait for the U.N. to tell us” — I think they make a call to us and say, “Get all of your stuff and get out of the Middle East,” and then game on.

NETANYAHU: Yes. And, well, they’ll go a lot further than that, I can tell you.

BECK: Well, yes.

NETANYAHU: How long will it take? The estimates could be wrong. I was referring to the fact that people thought that North Korea would take longer to produce a device, first device. And here, we think — we don’t know — the official statement give by the chief of Israeli intelligence — and I can say this because it was publicized — it was said in our foreign affairs and defense committee in our Knesset, our parliament, he said it will take them anywhere up to three years to cross all the nuclear technology threshold, and then it takes about a year or two to weaponize.

But this at most would give us five years. It could very well be next year. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is boasting that he’s on the express train.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: Yesterday, the international atomic agency commission two days ago found enriched plutonium traces in Iran, which means that they’re moving ahead towards making that weapon. Again, that weapon is aimed at my country. I want to be, as you say, complete open…

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: … divulgence. How do you call it?

BECK: You want to be cards face-up on the table.

NETANYAHU: Absolutely, yes. I’m worried about the survival of my country, but so is Czechoslovakia.

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: It was engulfed, and the Jewish people were engulfed by Hitler. So what? That was on the path towards engulfing the world. And when you have this religious fanatic cult, you do not let it, hating the United States, wanting to bring down the United States, and anything associated with it, like Israel, you do not let these fanatics get their hands on atomic bombs.

BECK: People…

NETANYAHU: And tell your father that they’re not deterrable. That’s the main problem: They’re not deterrable.

BECK: People have said that I was nuts when I said, before we went into Iraq, it is about Iraq. This is about Iran, right, wrong, and why?

NETANYAHU: I think you’re right. I think in the larger – there’s a pecking order here. I think Afghanistan was the first one. It dispatched Al Qaeda. You got the right to do. By getting Iraq, you got Libya. Libya dismantled its nuclear program.

But Libya and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were essentially neighborhood bullies, very dangerous, very, you know, poisonous, but you could either bring down their dictatorship or force them to become reborn, OK, as Gaddafi was trying to be. They are not suicidal.

If you got Iran, you would have folded the entire chain down and you would have eliminated the most virulent and the most dangerous of the lot. This is a regime that seeks to influence a billion people worldwide, a billion Muslims. Now, granted, they’re not going to influence a billion Muslims, but suppose they influence 10 percent. That’s 130 million or over 100 million people.

And it’s not merely the ability to incite radicals in every Western capital, or in anywhere from San Francisco to Bali, Indonesia, and Bali and even north, south, anywhere. It is that they will have the nuclear weapons to back up terror. They’ll have terror with a nuclear umbrella, so the terror that we’ve seen will be on a scale we haven’t seen. And the greatest terror of all is that they may actually use atomic bombs against our cities and our countries.

BECK: OK. More with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in just a minute. And we get to Iraq and also why so many Jewish people here in America vote for the Democrats.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome back to the program. We’re spending a whole hour with ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel. Are you going to run again?

NETANYAHU: Yes.

BECK: Good. Let’s talk a little bit about Iran — I’m sorry, about Iraq. First, honest question: Are you afraid of us? Are you afraid that we’re going soft?

NETANYAHU: Maybe in the short term the United States could have some setbacks. In the long term, the free peoples always win, you know? But the question is: At what cost?

BECK: That really wasn’t the question. I’ll let you escape.

NETANYAHU: Well, come on…

BECK: I’ll try one more time. Are you afraid we’re…

NETANYAHU: I got out of that one.

BECK: We are now proposing a phased redeployment, which, if you would translate, would be cut and run. What happens if we get out of there?

NETANYAHU: I think you’re going to find it a lot more difficult than you think, because what happens when you run, when you cut and run, from terror, terror has this unfortunate quality of chasing you. This is, however, an American decision you make.

BECK: Yes, but a lot of people believe that if we just — you know, they haven’t stood up. I don’t think most people understand the fear that people live under of these kooks that are, you know, beheading people. But they’re saying, “If the Iraqis want it so bad, they should step up for it and we will leave them, because most people think that, well, it’s their responsibility.”

NETANYAHU: Look; I won’t get into a debate on Iran — Iraq, rather, because in a way I think it sidelines the main argument. What you decide to do — it’s an American decision…

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: … whether you leave in phases, you leave with a timetable, you leave with no timetable, you stay in Iraq, OK, either way, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons next door, you lose Iraq. Not only do you lose Iraq, you lose the entire Middle East, and you lose control of the world oil supply, and your cities come under a nuclear threat of a crazy, fanatic regime.

So the question is: Why is the American debate exclusively focused on Iraq when you should look next door? And the last thing you should do — whatever you decide on Iraq, I would give one piece of advice: Do not mortgage that solution to the Iranians. Do not get into a situation where you are giving the Iranians any kind of license to develop their nuclear program in exchange for anything that they do with you in Iraq, do or not do.

You should stop the Iranian nuclear program because it is a great threat to the security of the world and the security of the United States.

BECK: Let me give you my biggest fear. My biggest fear is — we only have one minute? Let me state it, and then I want to come back, because I want to hear your full answer on this.

My biggest fear is that you’re being set up, that Israel is going to – – we’re not going to do anything about it. The rest of the world is already starting to talk, “Hey, let’s talk peace with Iran. Let’s bring Iran and Syria in as partners for peace,” which is absolutely insane. You will be sitting in a position saying, “OK, well, we can’t deal with it”. You’ll go in and do something about it, and then the whole world will turn and say, “It’s Israel. We were close to peace.”

NETANYAHU: Yes, well, that’s what they said about Czechoslovakia when they sacrificed it for Hitler and they thought they’d have peace in their time, and the Munich Accords. And it turned out to have been merely feeding the wolf and wetting its appetite.

But I’ll tell you one thing: Somebody has to take out the Iranian nuclear program.

BECK: OK, I want to get to that. We have to take a quick break. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister of Israel, talking a little fear-mongering here with Glenn Beck. What a surprise.

We ended with my belief that you’re being set up to make your — because you’re going to — well, let me ask you. Are you going to make a move, if nobody else does, on Iran? Do you feel that you would have to make a move if nobody else does to stop them?

NETANYAHU: If that’s the only option. It has to be stopped. And if it means saving the life of the Jewish state and another 6 million Jews who live in Israel, then the answer is yes, because we reserve the right to live.

The Jewish people are not going to be set up again for a second Holocaust by a man who denies the first Holocaust as he prepares our mass annihilation. What would you do? Suppose somebody said, “We’re going to bomb America. We’re going to destroy America.” And you sit back and you say, “Oh, he doesn’t mean it.” And he prepares, and he does mean it. Are you going to sit back and let him do it?

BECK: I got to tell you, I’ve said this many times before — no offense, Canada, because I know we’ve got a lot of Canadian listeners, but you’d be toast. I mean, if we had somebody sitting on our border saying the same thing, that people on your border are saying, oh, we’d roll over him or her with a steamroller.

But what does that mean? I mean, let’s say you go in. They’re so far underground. Do you, a, have the capability of doing this? And, b, if you did, what does that do to the Middle East and the whole world?

NETANYAHU: I think that it’s not particularly useful to discuss these kinds of questions. I would say that there’s a time factor. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes, the more firepower you need.

The earlier you do it — and you may even — the earlier you do it, you can actually avoid the need for military action. If you had, for example, a concerted international effort, you could probably get Iran to back off. But the longer you wait, the more you have to get into the harder options and the harder the options become.

And I think that that is unfortunate. But you asked me, what will the world look like if action were taken against Iran by us or by you? Would they retaliate? Yes, of course. But they wouldn’t have nuclear weapons to retaliate with. You do not want them to have these atomic bombs.

BECK: I get that. I get that. I’m with you. However, you know, when you say — if you go in and take it…

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: … and people will rise up — you know, I was talking to James Baker, and I said, you know, how much trouble is Europe in? We think of these — oh, well, we’ll just be able to, you know, rely on our European allies. My gosh. If the Muslim extremists that are in the center of those cities all throughout Europe ever decide to rise up and connect, the armies of Europe are going to be busy in Europe doing guerrilla warfare street to street.

NETANYAHU: But, you know, it’s an interesting question. There are Muslim communities interspersed now throughout the world and throughout Europe, as well. Many of them, most of them are peaceable people.

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: OK? But there’s an extremist core. The extremists core gets more extreme as the two virulent strains of militant Islam get more and more powerful. When they knock out the World Trade Center, they get new adherents. When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, they get more adherents.

So the Muslim communities around the world are looking at it. They’re sitting in the bleacher, and they’re looking at this, and they’re saying, “Who’s winning, the West, the forces of civilization as we understand it, or the militants?” If the militants appear to be succeeding, then the ability to recruit more radicals in Europe and elsewhere, in the United States, grows. So it’s important…

BECK: Well, that’s because they have an understanding that the reason why they are still living the way they are with sticks and stones is because they haven’t been militant enough in their own religion, that they haven’t submitted enough to Shiva law, et cetera, et cetera.

NETANYAHU: Not true. I think it`s actually the other way around. I think that, if they see them winning, then they say, “Ah, Allah is with us. That means that the direction of extremism has a future.”

What you want to do is actually create despair in the militants. You want to create despair that nothing will succeed; you will never defeat the West. Even if we have setbacks, the free societies, this pro-realistic, free societies that we have, we’ll defeat you. Your way of this pre- medieval, crazy creed that you have, it’s not going to govern the world. There’s no chance that it will govern the world, because the free societies are much tougher than you think.

When they think that, they can’t recruit. When they think the opposite, they do recruit. It’s very important that they understand they’re going to lose and early.

BECK: OK. Now, we’ve talked about millions of people possibly dying in World War III, and nuclear holocaust, and another Holocaust for the Jews, but now let me get to the tough question.

NETANYAHU: That was the easy part?

(LAUGHTER)

BECK: That was the easy part. Here’s the tough question. I am so frustrated — and I said you were going to be on. I got so much e-mail from people asking me the same question that we can’t figure out.

Why is it that it seems as though conservatives are the ones that are the most strong on the protection of Israel, we are the most — that we’re the strongest in defense, and yet so many Jews here in America are so on- fire liberal and they side with the people, the politicians who are ready to just give away the candy store?

I don’t understand it, and so many Americans don’t. What is it that they can’t see who’s willing to stand up and think it’s important to defend Israel?

NETANYAHU: There is a difference of opinion, obviously, on what is the right sort of defense. And I’m not going to get into that. I mean, Jewish-Americans…

BECK: I told you it was going to be the hard question.

NETANYAHU: … Jewish-Americans are loyal Americans. They just have a different…

BECK: No, no, no, no, I’m not saying…

(CROSSTALK)

NETANYAHU: They have differences among them. You know, some of the most staunchest conservatives in the United States are Jewish, and some of the most staunchest liberals are Jewish, so there are different views. I have enough in my politics in Israel not to get into…

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Sure, not to get into ours.

NETANYAHU: … American politics. And I have enough Jewish politics in Israel, by the way, more than you can imagine.

BECK: Then let me go here on politics where I think you’re a little freer to talk, the United Nations. Holy cow, I don’t understand the United Nations. I don’t understand — I don’t even understand — when I went to Israel for the first time, it was after 9/11, and I really wanted to understand.

And I went to Israel, and I went up to the Israeli-Lebanon border. And I was standing there, and I saw a billboard with beheaded Israeli soldiers and underneath, in Hebrew, it said something along the lines of, “Sharon, your dogs die here.” And it was one of the most shocking — I’m an American — one of the most shocking things I had ever seen. And it was sitting next to a little, like, pillbox area, and it had two flags. It had the Lebanese flag…

NETANYAHU: And the U.N. flag.

BECK: … and the U.N. flag.

NETANYAHU: Right.

BECK: What does that say to you?

NETANYAHU: It says to me that the U.N. is a pretty good separation between consenting adults. If you have two governments who want to make peace between them and they put an U.N. tripwire basically symbolizing their agreement to make peace, then the U.N. works.

Anywhere where you have real combat, anywhere where you have real enemies, anywhere where you have a crazy outfit like Hezbollah, which is really a proxy for Iran that we’re talking about, then the U.N. is fairly useless. It doesn’t really get the job done, and that billboard was a perfect example.

BECK: I don’t mean to be crass here, but they were meat shields for Hezbollah over the summer. They were…

NETANYAHU: Well, you know that we had this whole war in the summer. And Lebanon was ignited by the kidnapping of a few of our soldiers.

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: The previous…

BECK: Which seemed to get lost in the shuffle.

NETANYAHU: Well, the previous kidnapping took place — there was a previous kidnapping of three of our soldiers by Hezbollah, and the U.N. was there. You know what the U.N. did? They photographed it.

So what are they going to do, bring bigger cameras to photograph it, and to have bigger billboards? I mean, this is not — I think the U.N. is of limited value. It started out as a wonderful idea, but the U.N. is a reflection of its components. And if there’s not enough political will to actively face down the extremists, the radicals, the murderers, the killers in the world, then the U.N. can’t really do the job. It`s left to the free societies to do it, unfortunately.

BECK: Then let me go here. We’re going to have to take a break, but when we come back I want the ask you about political will. There were a lot of us rooting for Israel over the summer and saw the way the war was fought and the saw the concessions made and were horrified. Your answer to that here in just a second.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sir, I watched the fight this summer with great interest, and it didn’t take me very long to figure out — I watched the events unfold. And within just a couple of days — and, again, I’m a rodeo clown — but it took me a couple of days to go, “Wait a minute. This is all about misdirection. This is all about Iran.”

And for you to lose that war was pretty significant. And I don’t know if you perceive it as a loss, but it certainly was a shift of perception by the rest of the world. You seemed to be the “drive them all the way back to Saudi Arabia” kind of act. Did you perceive that as less than stellar?

NETANYAHU: It certainly wasn’t a victory. I think basically the war was not won because we lacked a strategy, and the strategy’s a very simple one. We faced about 5,000 Ebola, which are really Iranian forward infantry with missiles, when you — in a war, in order to win, you take overwhelming force, with the firepower and mobility. You move very quickly at the enemy’s weakest point. That’s basically how you win wars.

And in our case, we went with almost the same number of troops against right into their gun sites. Not smart. We should have come from the behind, if you will, with 10 times the force.

BECK: So you would say that it was a lack of strategy. It wasn’t your catching our politically correct disease? You’re not fighting a war for media or anything like that?

NETANYAHU: I think the decisions, the strategic decisions were flawed. No, the people fought, even under bad strategy, the Israeli soldiers fought very, very well.

BECK: No, no, I don’t mean — yes, yes, yes. I don’t mean that. I mean…

NETANYAHU: … and ultimately defeated any Hezbollah that were there. But in order to crush an enemy, you have to find his weak point and apply maximum force, and that wasn’t done. And there’s a whole range of commissions now examining in Israel why it wasn’t done. But I think it was basically a problem of strategy and leadership.

BECK: Can either of us win against a foe that understands how to use media, how to manipulate it…

NETANYAHU: Yes, we can win. Of course we can win. We could have won that war. And the next time they do it, you know, if I have anything to do with it, I can guarantee you that the results will be different.

And I think the people in Israel have that power. The soldiers have that power. They have that fighting spirit and ability. But even the best of soldiers need to have the right guidance, the right direction.

And so I wouldn`t give up on the free societies, but we always learn. In history, we see that the free societies, they always get it at the end. But the question is: Do they need what Churchill called a jarring gong of self-preservation? You sort of have to be woken up from your stupor, from your sleep to realize that you’ve got a new Hitler around the block and you have to take action. Do you let him first demolish a few countries and a few millions of peoples?

I hope not. I hope that we have the ability to learn something from history. And certainly, I think that we’re facing a juncture of history unlike any other, where primitive religious creeds are trying to acquire the weapons of mass death. That has never happened before, because nuclear weapons have been around only for half a century. And now the most primitive creed on Earth is trying to get the most advanced weapons on Earth.

And we’d better wake up. We’d better hear the jarring gong of self- preservation and act to preserve our lives, our cities, our children, and our civilization in time.

BECK: What is a sign that people can recognize here? What is it that you — the first sign that you said, back in Israel in the day and you went, “Oh, boy, that’s not good.” What is the sign that may be just beginning to hit over here, that people can recognize over here, and say, “Oh, wait a minute. I have noticed that.” Do you remember the first signs you saw over Israel?

NETANYAHU: I think the most important thing to understand is that — you know the best sign of how dangerous things are? That the president of Iran is not even trying to fake it.

You know, normally, if he wasn’t as fanatic as he is, he’d say, “Well, you know, yes, I think we could recognize Israel if it made the right concessions to the Palestinians.” He’d play along; he’d play the game. He’d say, “We’re not really developing nuclear weapons. We just want nuclear energy for peace.” You know, he’d say all that.

But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying — and listen to him carefully. He’s saying, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the map. The Holocaust didn’t happen. America’s the great Satan. Iran will have the power to reshape history.”

Now, a normal person would not say that. An insane person says that. In the 1930s, an insane person wrote in a book called, “Mein Kampf,” “My Struggle,” and that was Adolf Hitler. He said exactly what he would do. He was stark-raving mad, but he communicated.

You asked for a sign? That was a sign, 300 pages of signs, OK? Ahmadinejad every day is writing a page. He’s saying what he’s going to do. That’s the best sign. That tells you that there’s a fanaticism at work here which is not even calculating. He’s just going to do it. And let’s not enable him to do it. Let’s stop him.

BECK: It is interesting to me that “Mein Kampf” is “My Struggle.” Jihad is “my struggle.” Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last break, you said that Islam is the most primitive religion.

NETANYAHU: I didn’t say that.

BECK: You didn’t say that?

NETANYAHU: No. I said that militant Islam is a primitive religion.

BECK: How much of…

NETANYAHU: Most Muslims are not part of this crazy creed.

BECK: OK.

NETANYAHU: You know, just like you have crazy creeds and crazy cults in Christianity or in Judaism, you have people who are crazy. The difference here is that here you have a crazy cult that is a small percentage, but these are very large numbers when you talk about a billion people. And it’s very violent, very violent, and it may get its hands on nuclear weapons. That’s the reason we’re discussing it.

BECK: All right, only time for one e-mail here. This is from Michelle in Ohio. She says, “I am just an average, middle-class mom and wife in America. What can I do to fight this extremist terrorism? I try to stay informed by listening to Glenn’s show and reading, but I feel helpless.”

So many Americans feel this way. They don’t know what to do.

NETANYAHU: Well, they shouldn’t feel helpless, because the difference between this, what’s happening now and the 1930s, is that, at the time, America was an isolationist power and didn’t operate on the world stage. So as we were facing the tremendous fanaticism and destructive power of Hitler, there was no one to face up to him. France and Britain at the time did not have the kind of leadership or the kind of power to stop him.

The fortunate thing is that, in the first half of the 20th century, the dominant power in the world is the United States. And citizens like the one that wrote in do have power. You have representatives. You have a voice. You have Internet and you have congressmen and senators. Make your views known.

If citizens in a free society rise up, in a society like America rise up, and they say, “We want to act in time while action can be effective, while the danger can be stopped, before it gets out of hand,” then America will act. And in that sense, I have the confidence that we live in a different age because we’ve already witnessed the horrors of the previous century and we know that we have to stop it. And that’s why it fills me with hope that action is possible.

BECK: We are up against the clock here. I’ve only got 15 seconds, but I want to thank you, sir. And thank you for joining us for this hour. And thank you for your service to, not only your country, but, I believe, the rest of the world, as well.

NETANYAHU: Thank you very much.

BECK: Thank you.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

END

Source

Sounds like the Ranting of  “Pure Hate”.

Now if this were said of Israel I bet the Zionists would be going mad. They would be screaming from the roof tops. They would be ranting and raving and screaming in the streets.  They would freak.

They would be horrified, but since it was Benjamin Netanyahu it’s OK.

Well it isn’t OK.

Israel has over 200 Nuclear Bombs.

Iran has zero Nuclear Bombs.

Israel has committed war crimes galore.

Netanyahu is saying Iran is Germany in the time of Hitler.

Funny it doesn’t seem like Iran has been attempting to take over anything.

Israel on the other hand has been attempting to take over countries all around them for years.

But whatever turns his crank.

This is Israels New Leader.

Would you want him as your leader?

I certainly wouldn’t want him as my next door neighbor.

An Israeli Scholar has already bragged,

“We Could Destroy All European Capitals” he also said all Palestinians should be deported etc etc.  Deported from their own land???? What is said is pure hate.

The US and Sanctions
The United States has imposed sanctions on Iran for the past three decades since the two countries severed ties in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the US-backed Shah.

Well how dare anyone topple a US backed leader.

Well the US like’s Dictators and and very oppressive regimes.

The IAEA has so far made 25 unannounced inspections of the Iran’s nuclear facilities and has published more than 20 reports — all of which confirm that there has been no diversion of the civilian nuclear program for military needs.

IAEA has not inspected Israels however in spite of UN Resolutions. Even J F Kennedy wanted inspections.

Putin Aide’s Stance
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin underscored Iran’s right to civilian nuclear energy.
Talking to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday, Vladimir Yakunin said “Iran has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Nuclear Hydro and Medical Isotopes are peaceful purposes and many countries do the exact same thing.

Iran has also signed the Non Proliferation Treaty and “Israel has not”.

Personally I would feel safer having Iran next door to me then Israel.

I know for a fact,  “Israel would find a way to bomb the crap out of my country”. They have proven that repeatedly over the years.

Iran doesn’t need oil or gas they have their own. They have no need to control anyone else, but the US and Israel do. That is obvious in recent years.  No one can argue that. Both countries are war mongers.  All you have to do is listen to their news casters.

They spew out more hate and propaganda, then Iran could ever dream of spewing.  The interview with Beck says it all.

UN backs Goldstone UN Mission Report in spite of Israeli Threats

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers/Legally Israel owns the US Billions

Published in: on October 21, 2009 at 9:57 am  Comments Off on GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

Resolution 487 (1981)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting
on 19 June 1981

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280,

Having noted the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings,

Taking note of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency’s Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981,

Further taking note of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the “military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency” (S/14532),

Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”,

1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.

Source UN

Just  last week this one was also passed.   Seems rather redundant.

The non-binding measure was last voted on in 1991, when IAEA membership was much smaller, and passed.

The UN should also abide by what they say also. This statement applies to Iran as well.


4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

This is under the “Non proliferation Treaty” which “Iran” has signed. Iran has complied to the Laws pertaining to the NPT.

Again in September of 2009

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

Third times a charm yes. Seems Israel just does whatever it wants.

Three Strikes they are out.  Once should have been enough.

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human Experiments  and WMD

Israels New visa requirement hinders travel in West Bank

The UN Mission 575 Page Report on Gaza/Israel War

Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death?/Israel benefited big time

Iran Proposes Control System Aimed at Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

Published in: on September 30, 2009 at 10:14 am  Comments Off on Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Unanimous! UN resolution aims for nuclear-free world

With Barack Obama presiding, the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution today aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Russia, China and developing nations supported the U.S.-sponsored measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.

The resolution calls for stepped up efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and “reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.”

It was only the fifth time the Security Council met at summit level since the U.N. was founded in 1945. And Obama was the first American president to preside over a Security Council summit, gaveling the meeting into session and announcing that “the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously.”

“The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama said immediately after the vote. “And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal.”

Just one nuclear weapon set off in a major city could cause major destruction, Obama said.

He said the global effort would seek to “lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years.”

“This is not about singling out an individual nation,” he said. “International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced.”

“We will leave this meeting with renewed determination,” Obama said.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saluted the national leaders for joining in the unprecedented Security Council summit on nuclear arms.

fresh start toward a new future,” he said.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that “our main shared goal is to untie the problem knots” among nations seeking nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.

“This is complicated since the level of mistrust among nations remains too high, but it must be done,” he said.

Obama aides see adoption of the resolution as an endorsement of the president’s entire nuclear agenda, as laid out in his April speech in Prague. He declared his commitment to “a world without nuclear weapons.”

The president called in that speech for the slashing of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, adoption of the treaty banning all nuclear tests, an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material, and negotiations on a new treaty that “verifiably” ends the production of fissile materials for atomic weapons.

He also strongly backed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which requires signatory nations not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. States without nuclear weapons are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology for electricity generation.

All those measures are included in the draft resolution.

In its opening paragraph, the draft reaffirms the council’s commitment “to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Arms control advocates say those elements are interconnected. Some nations might eventually reject the limitations of the Nonproliferation Treaty, for example, if the U.S. and other nuclear powers don’t abide by that treaty’s requirement to move toward disarmament by reducing their arsenals, or if they reject the test ban.

Also Thursday, the US rejoined a biennial conference designed to win support for the treaty banning all nuclear bomb tests.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was scheduled to help kick off that UN session, uniting foreign ministers and other envoys from more than 100 nations that have ratified or at least signed the 1996 treaty. It represents the first U.S. participation since 1999.

Among the invited guests were U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei, former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, media mogul Ted Turner, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and Queen Noor of Jordan — all campaigners against nuclear weapons.

The draft resolution does not mention any country by name but it reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea for their nuclear activities. It does not call for any new sanctions.

The draft “expresses particular concern at the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the Security Council has acted upon.”

It also calls on all countries that are not parties to join the treaty “to achieve its universality at an early date,” and in the interim to comply with its terms. The major countries that are not members of the NPT are India and Pakistan, which have conducted nuclear tests, and Israel which is believed to have a nuclear arsenal.

* (Reuters) At the meeting, Gordon Brown said the world should consider “far tougher sanctions” against Iran if it continues to seek a nuclear bomb.

Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, but it is defying UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend enriching uranium.

“As evidence of its breach of international agreements grows, we must now consider far tougher sanctions together,” Brown said .

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he supported dialogue with Tehran but so far it had produced no results and Iran had continued to enrich uranium.

“There comes a time when stubborn facts will compel us to take a decision if we want a world without nuclear weapons,” Sarkozy said after the Security Council passed a resolution calling on nuclear weapons states to scrap their arsenals.

Both leaders also spoke about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, saying it was violating international regulations.

“If we have the courage to affirm and impose sanctions together against those who violate resolutions of the Security Council, we will be lending credibility to our commitment towards a world with fewer nuclear weapons,” Sarkozy said.

Source

These are the Nuclear Countries  and how many Nuclear Bombs they posses, give or take a few…
China 410,
France 464,
India 60+?,
Pakistan 15-25,
Israel 200+?,
Russia 10,000,
United Kingdom 185,
United States 10,500

The use of DU and Nuclear weapons are  illegal for the following reasons.

LEGALITY TEST FOR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Weapons must pass four tests in order to determine that they are legal under international law. The tests are:

(1) TEMPORAL TEST. Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.

(2) ENVIRONMENTAL TEST. Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.

(3) TERRITORIAL TEST. Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

(4) HUMANENESS TEST. Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanely.

Depleted Uranium and Nuclear, weaponry fail all four tests.

For these reasons they are illegal under International Treaties.

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources

Published in: on September 25, 2009 at 6:36 am  Comments Off on Unanimous! UN resolution aims for nuclear-free world  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Israel: “Did You Know?”

Did You Know?

January 31 2009

  • Did you know that non-Jewish Israelis cannot buy or lease land in the Zionist entity?
  • Did you know that Palestinian license plates in Zionist entity are color coded to distinguish jews from non-jews?
  • Did you know that Israel allots 85% of the water resources for jews and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians in the territories? For example in Hebron, 85% of the water is given to about 400 settlers, while 15% must be divided among Hebron’s 120,000 Palestinians?
  • Did you know the United States awards the Israel $5 billion in aid each year?
  • Did you know that yearly US aid to Israel exceeds the aid the US grants to the whole African continent?
  • Did you know that the Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons? Over 200 Pakistan had one maybe still does.
  • Did you know that the Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections from its sites?
  • Did you know that Israel currently occupies territories of two sovereign nations (Lebanon and Syria) in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
  • Did you know that Israel has for decades routinely sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies?
  • Did you know that high-ranking military officers in the Israeli Defense Forces have admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed by the IDF?
  • Did you know that Israel refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
  • Did you know that Israel routinely confiscates bank accounts, businesses, and land and refuses to pay compensation to those who suffer the confiscation?
  • Did you know that Israel blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors? USS Liberty
  • Did you know that the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders, is the jewish AIPAC?
  • Did you know that Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?
  • Did you know that today’s Israel sits on the former sites of more than 400 now-vanished Palestinian villages, and that the Israeli’s re- named almost every physical site in the country to cover up the traces?
  • Did you know that it was not until 1988 that Israelis were barred from running “jews Only” job ads?
  • Did you know that four prime ministers of Israel (Begin, Shamir, Rabin, and Sharon) have taken part in either bomb attacks on civilians, massacres of civilians, or forced expulsions of civilians from their villages?
  • Did you know that the Israeli Foreign Ministry pays two American public relations firms to promote Israel to Americans?
  • Did you know that Sharon’s coalition government includes a party — Molodet — which advocates expelling all Palestinians from the occupied territories?
  • Did you know that Israel’s settlement-building increased in the eight years since Oslo?
  • Did you know that settlement building under Barak doubled compared to settlement building under Netanyahu?
  • Did you know that Israel once dedicated a postage stamp to a man who attacked a civilian bus and killed several people?
  • Did you know that recently-declassified documents indicate that David Ben-Gurion in at least some instances approved of the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948?
  • Did you know that despite a ban on torture by Israel’s High Court of Justice, torture has continued by Shin Bet interrogators on Palestinian prisoners?
  • Did you know that Palestinian refugees make up the largest portion of the refugee population in the world? As of June 30 2008 Total number of Refugees 4,618,141
  • And finally do you know who is the terrorist now ?

Source

Well did you know?

If you didn’t know “Why” didn’t you know?

Did You Know this list is the tip of the Iceburg.

Did you know Israel has said that about 6,000 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, but in 8 years only 4 people have died because of them.

Seems the rockets are not targeting people per say. Or is it maybe Israelis are firing them and blaming it on Hamas.

Out of 6,000 rockets only 4 deaths in 8 years isn’t that rather odd.  I really have wondered about that. 6,000.

There is something really wrong with this picture,  it just doesn’t add up.

THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST

Did You Know: About Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis

Israel abducted over 5,000 people and put them in prison

Interview: Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the ISM/UN Reports Gaza/ US Aid to Israel

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives

Published in: on February 1, 2009 at 4:15 am  Comments Off on Israel: “Did You Know?”  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Army rabbi ‘gave out hate leaflet to troops’,Israel: ’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’

rabbi-avi-ronzki_

By Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem

January 27  2009

The Israeli army’s chief rabbinate gave soldiers preparing to enter the Gaza Strip a booklet implying that all Palestinians are their mortal enemies and advising them that cruelty is sometimes a “good attribute”.

The booklet, entitled Go Fight My Fight: A Daily Study Table for the Soldier and Commander in a Time of War, was published especially for Operation Cast Lead, the devastating three-week campaign launched with the stated aim of ending rocket fire against southern Israel. The publication draws on the teachings of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Jewish fundamentalist Ateret Cohanim seminary in Jerusalem.

In one section, Rabbi Aviner compares Palestinians to the Philistines, a people depicted in the Bible as a war-like menace and existential threat to Israel.

In another, the army rabbinate appears to be encouraging soldiers to disregard the international laws of war aimed at protecting civilians, according to Breaking the Silence, the group of Israeli ex-soldiers who disclosed its existence. The booklet cites the renowned medieval Jewish sage Maimonides as saying that “one must not be enticed by the folly of the Gentiles who have mercy for the cruel”.

Breaking the Silence is calling for the firing of the chief military rabbi, Brigadier-General Avi Ronzki, over the booklet. The army had no comment on the matter yesterday.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman, the executive director of the Rabbis for Human Rights group, called the booklet “very worrisome”, adding “[this is] a minority position in Judaism that doesn’t understand the … necessity of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.”

Source

Israeli Professor: ’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’

January 26 2009

An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.

Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”

Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that “collective deportation” was Israel’s only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.

“The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.”

Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.

“I think it’s quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed.”

Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

Creveld argued that Israel wouldn’t care much about becoming a rogue state.

“Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

Source

Israel must be disarmed. They are a threat to all of Europe. Would they do it of course they would why wouldn’t they?

A few Testimonies From Soldiers:

Rank: first sergeant

Unit: Golani

Description:

I remember instances– an instance where Israeli Arabs who came out from Jenin at night at a late enough hour and it was very suspicious… Israeli Arabs who came out from Jenin– I checked– I checked their ID cards– in our post there was a placard about how forged ID cards look– their ID cards were simply a little old.

Interviewer: Regular blue cards?

Regular blue cards– the picture was cut with straight corners rather than rounded corners and that was one of the elements– it seems that that was one of the elements of the new ID cards– someone who got his ID in the 1970s which would be very logical for someone who is thirty.

Interviewer: He has an old ID

He has an old ID, not forged, we thought that we were talking here about…

Interviewer: That someone is trying to get around you?

Exactly, to get around, someone who looks like an Israeli is trying to pass into Israel– it was very worrying … they were taken but there was no proportionality– we took them and tied them up and did a kind of Shabaq investigation we crosschecked them we talked with them we yelled at them we blindfolded them we didn’t urinate on them or do anything horrible but we scared them a lot we used psychological intimidation on these two it cam–

Interviewer: What did you do?

What?

Interviewer: How do you psychologically intimidate– how did you do that?

We tied them up, blindfolded them, stripped them completely, put them into the posts…

Interviewer: Completely?  Naked naked?

No, underwear, underwear, we put them in one of the posts, anti-fire posts, fire-resistant posts– that way it’s claustrophobic– you feel these four people yelling at him you liar you terrorist

Interviewer: Was there also physical violence there?

I, I’m sure, look, I’m sure that there were also those things, I already don’t remember.  Little by little it sunk in that they were Israelis, their Hebrew was good enough, their stories matched, the police came and we gave them to the officers.

Interviewer: How much time were they with you in the “investigation”?

Two hours, an hour and a half.

Interviewer: And after how much time did you call the police?

No, at the beginning we notified the brigade– I don’t think– we didn’t want to do– that is to say

Interviewer: The police took them?

Yes– I don’t know if I…

Rank: Sergeant

Unit: Nahal brigade

Place of incident: Atarot-Kalandia

Description:

10/2000

There wasn’t really a checkpoint in Kalandia [at that time]. We would stand there at the fence of the airport, as if this was aiding the guys who were guarding the airport. There were riots and we would shoot… how do you call it –

Rubber [rubber coated metal bullets].

Rubber, stun grenades. And all the time we were playing ‘Catch’ with the kids throwing stones. We would set traps for them there.

What do you mean by traps?

Traps, let me give you a somewhat funny example. We would put a can with a stun grenade inside, take out the safety pin, and place on it sweets, desserts that we would take from the kitchen. Then the kids would come, look at them and when they picked it up, the grenade would explode in their face. That’s one. I’ll give you another example. There was a couch that they would move all day, so we would booby trap the couch with stun grenades.

Where was this couch placed?

It was placed in the middle of where we were… there was a certain place where they would throw stones. And we were sick of them, like, taking the couch. So we (grinning)… and my platoon commander were wounded during this. He tried to set a trap and a stun grenade blew up in his hand, such things, it was a period then… And let me tell you, it was a crazy time.

Rank: Staff sergeant

Unit: Armored forces

Place of incident: Daharia junction

Description: Daharia junction. South Daharia. Palestinians pass through that roadblock on their way to work in Be’er-Sheva. They have to pass; some on foot. Tens of Palestinians a day. One of the officers wanted to keep the order, wanted them to stand in a straight line – like a ruler. He ran beside them and made them straighten up. They didn’t do it well enough, so the first person he saw at the beginning – about 50 years old with an 8-year-old kid or something similar, a little boy – the officer shot in the air and they straightened up. And on another occasion…

To straighten up the line?

To straighten up the line. And on another occasion he just beat the hell out of a person… He hit the man’s face with the handle of his rifle, kicked him in the groins, spat on him, cursed him – simply went berserk. In front of the man’s little boy. He just humiliated him.

Rank: Staff Sergeant

Unit: Paratroops

Place of incident: South Mount Hebron

Description:

Late 2001

Beside ordinary roadblocks, we would also block the main access roads. What does ‘block the main access roads’ mean? They give you an enormous Volvo mechanical shovel, they say: drive along Road no.60, and block any side-road that goes into it. OK, cool. It doesn’t matter that on some of these roads there’s somebody’s home and that he has a dirt-road leading to the main road, because the Palestinian Authority’s Public Works Division doesn’t function too well. So they didn’t pave a road to the house, just a dirt road. A command is a command, and so we would block the roads… Pretty soon we’d become bored, and of course there wasn’t an officer present, and the mechanical shovel’s driver is a bored reservist, so we started doing “Monster Truck Rally” [English in the original] – in the U.S you have these trucks with enormous wheels, we started playing this “Monster Truck Rally” game: to check what the shovel can cross and what it can lift. We would approach a house: ‘c’mon, can you hoist his car up in the air?’ – ‘Look at that, I can hoist the car, I believe I can.’ Boom! He would lift it up in the air and put it down on the path, blocking his path with his own car.

And presumably leave it like that …

Yes, leave it like that. ‘Can you…’ whatever… ‘Can you hoist his terrace?’ – ‘I don’t know, it’s heavy stone.’ – ‘C’mon, Shimon, what do you mean you can’t?’ – ‘I’ll try.’ ‘C’mon.’ Boom! Lifts up his terrace. Out of boredom you overturn peoples’ terraces, their cars. You trash them. No reason, it’s just a game. You see, I was 19-20 at the time. You give a child this enormous shovel – he can do anything… He can run wild. We did run wild. We moved boulders, blocked entrances to houses, uprooted gates. Just like that, we played with the shovel. And, of course, wherever you put up barriers, they’re open again the next day. They too have shovels. So I remember how me and my friend were pissed off that they should open these barriers. I go and put up these barriers, and fuck it the next day… It took me hours to put them up. What we did was – one time we were on a patrol, and we saw this JCB shovel and stopped and said to the guy “OK now you come with us to do a job”. I don’t know where he was going, but we appropriated his JCB for a couple of hours and used it to put up barriers.

You appropriated a Palestinian shovel …

Complete with the Palestinian guy inside. We said, ‘now you block all these roads.’ We did it all over again, put all the barriers up again. We detained him for maybe 2-3 hours. I don’t know for how long. Just out of boredom. No other reason.

Rank: First Sergeant

Place of incident: Nablus

Description:

End of 2003

There was an operation where we were supposed to enter the city. We called it “Yossi Bachar’s Horror Show”. Aviv Kohavi was replaced by Yossi Bachar. You know, every new brigade commander wants to leave an impression, wants to make a big entrance. He got us into this completely useless operation… and in the end of this operation there was this part when we put ‘New-Jerseys’ roadblocks, those plastic roadblocks. So we were putting these New-Jersey’s roadblocks, and the battalion commander gave an order… because we put these New Jerseys to block the traffic… in Nablus… Getting to the point, we put these New Jerseys and the kids there, those who throw stones all the time, would come and move them away. There was a mess. We couldn’t… In the beginning we would put the New Jerseys and the local residents would move them away, so we put it again, and then there were riots and stown throwing and it became a complete mess. Then the battalion commander gave the order: “Whoever touches the roadblock, the New Jerseys, must be shot in the legs.” Live ammunition. Shoot his legs. We were, I was, supposed to do it. In my Army vehicle there was talk, and we asked whether he was out of his mind; a person touches the roadblock – are we to shoot him in the legs? [We thought] he was just making noise.

Apparently this specific battalion commander. thought very highly of setting personal example. In a roadblock he came to – I was not personally there, but the guys from the commanding crew [soldiers who join the commander on operations]… And actually this was a known case: the man drove his jeep next to some New Jersey, and saw this kid touching it – apparently at some distance – and aimed at the kid’s leg. But, you know, instead of hitting the kid in the legs he hit him in the chest, and killed him. For touching a New Jersey. If you’ll excuse me, I do not think of touching a New Jersey as a reason for death.

How do you know the kid is dead?

Hear say. But the kid is dead. This is a well-known story. We got back to base from this operation, we talked, and then the guys who were with the commanding crew say: “Hey guys, *** killed a kid, a kid murderer, kid murderer, he killed a kid.” They told us the story. People who saw it happen. I’m pretty sure. I cannot think that someone went and checked his pulse, but not many kids survive a bullet in the chest.

There are many more.

Breaking the Silence- Soldiers’ Testimonies From Hebron 2005-2007,

Break the Silence 2

Break the Silence 3

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives


Published in: on January 28, 2009 at 4:01 am  Comments Off on Army rabbi ‘gave out hate leaflet to troops’,Israel: ’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The State of Israel: Since its Creation


This is from 2002

Since its creation, the State of Israel:

– Has mass destruction and nuclear weapons, refusing to sign the No Proliferation Treaty.
– Has used weapons forbidden by the international community against the Palestinian civil population under Israeli military occupation.
– Has attacked sovereign Mediterranean states such as Lebanon and Tunisia.
– Has systematically violated the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civil population under military occupation:

-It has destroyed towns and villages and expelled civilians from the occupied territories, turning them into refugees with no right to return.

-It has built illegal settlements and moved civilians from the occupying power to occupied territories.

– It has committed war crimes such as deportations and extrajudicial assassinations of Palestinians.

— It has locked the civil population under occupation up in what can be referred to as concentration camps that has led to the destruction of the infrastructures and the economy of the Palestinian society.

— It has raided Palestinian populations and plundered their natural resources.

— It has imposed collective punishments against the civil population such as massive house demolitions and destruction of farmland.

All this with the Blessing of the US and a few other Supporting Countries. Which as far as I am concerned, are as guilty of these crimes as Israel is.

*****************************************************************

If I give you a gun, or any other tools,

And I of course am aware,  your intent is,  to  kill your next door neighbours,

If I stop anyone, who would prevent, you from killing them, assist you in any way, I am as guilty as you are of the crime. Am I not?

Under laws of the majority   of country’s,  this is called accessory to the fact and I can and will be charged.

Conspiracy to commit murder. Pre meditated murder and whatever other laws there are. I am as guilty as the murder. Right?

************************************************************

If  leaders of a country assists another country, to murder people they too, are guilty of the crimes committed by the Country they assisted such as Helping Israel.

Any leader who has assisted Israel, in the War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity etc., are as Guilty of these crimes, as is Israel.

You do not give weapons, to a country that will commit, mass murders, steal their land, etc etc etc. You do not assist a country who is, committing  these types of crimes . That would be wrong would it not?

If any country helps in any way, they are as guilty of these crimes as is Israel.

If a country is a member of the United Nation and violates the mandate of the UN. They should be punished regardless of membership.

************************************************************

If I were a police officer and I killed anyone,  because I wanted their land, possessions or their wallet,  I am  guilty of  Murder.

If I am a Police Officer and traffic Drugs I am as Guilty as any Drug Dealer.

If I commit any crime I am as Guilty, as any Criminal.

Just because I am a member of the police force, doesn’t excuse me from any crime. Right?

The same should apply to the UN, who in a way are the Police Force, of the world.  So to speak.

Like a police officer on any police force, who murders someone, I  can and should be charged with crimes, like everyone else on the planet.

The rest of us have to live by these laws, so to should all people.

Equality you know. We all are equal under the law and we all must equally obey the law. Right?

The member countries,  of the UN  who helped Israel, are as guilty as the Police Officer.

The United Nations was not created to make war, it was created to prevent war. If one of their members does anything to assist in the creation, of a needless war, they should be punished like the anyone who assists in a murder……

************************************************************

If you came to my house to borrow a gun or money to buy,  weapons to murder your next door neighbour, steal their possessions, ( Robbery)  or other wise harm them and I knew what you were doing or going to do,  should I give you the gun or the money knowing you will kill them , steal from them or other wise harm them,  or should I call the Police and have you stopped?

I know you have done everything within your power to hurt and torment your neighbour for years. You have stolen their property, you have killed their pets, you have  held them hostage, you destroyed their property, you terrorist their children, and you want to kill them.

The rest of the neighbours hate you, because they also,  know everything you did it too.

They know all the crimes you committed against this neighbour, as I do.

Many have reported your crimes and you have yet to be charged which tells me, the Police they reported to are Corrupt.

There should be an investigation into it all, don’t you think?

Those who are corrupt and guilty of letting you away with this type of behavior, should be punished as well.

Well isn’t that the way things should work? Is this not what the so called civilized world, is about or is about letting others kill because they want what the neighbour has?

You then had the nerve to claim self-defense one day,  when this neighbour fights back. He punched you in the nose.  You are offend, you whimp, whine,  snivel and throw a temper tantrum, like you always do and rage on as usual. Then you burned down his house.

All in the name of self-defense you say, when all along you were the one terrorizing the neighbour and had been for years. From the day you moved in next door to them, you terrorized them. You were the one committing all the crimes.

Just because the police never charged you, doesn’t make it OK.

It just means the Police like you, are as Corrupt and Rotten to the core as you are.

You even terrorize, all the other neighbours.

You even  terrorize your own family. You even get them to help you steal and terrorize others. Well if they don’t you beat the crap out of them too.

You however think your the greatest thing since, Cream Cheese was invented.

You are in fact just an abusive person. Nothing more nothing less.

Your just another wife beater, child abuser or whatever. You are not special at all, just a sick minded, abusive, sadistic, criminal like any other criminal……..

The law applies to everyone .

No one is above the law.

No one should be, above the law.

Outrage as Israel bombs UN and Hospital

Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War?

700 Israelis arrested for protesting against war

Israel Navy ships turn back “Spirit of Humanity” carrying Gaza humanitarian aid

President of the United Nations General Assembly: Israel violating International Law

Israel Hits another “United Nations” Building in Gaza

Shoot Then Ask, Israeli Soldiers Told

Gaza (6) A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Israel Violating Egyptian Airspace to attack Gaza

US delivering more “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to Israel

79 % of the time: Israel caused conflicts not Hamas

Israel killing their own by Using Deadly Weapons of Mass Destuction against Gaza

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives


Uranium Mining, Grand Canyon now at Risk, Dangers, Pollution, History

Grand Canyon protection from mining about to end

By Ginger D. Richardson

December.5 2008
The Arizona Republic

The Bureau of Land Management today is expected to eliminate a regulation that gave two congressional committees the ability to block future uranium mining and exploration on public lands near the Grand Canyon.

The little-used provision, which is buried in Section 204 of the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, has for decades provided the House and Senate natural-resources committees with the authority to take emergency action to protect threatened federal land.

It was last invoked in June by Tucson Democrat Raul Grijalva, in a failed attempt to order Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to ban immediately new mining claims on more than 1 million acres of property near the Canyon for a period up to three years.

The department ignored the order, questioning its constitutionality, and started in late October the public process to abolish the rule.

Thursday, Grijalva, who is rumored to be a leading candidate to head the Interior Department in President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet, blasted the Bush administration’s decision to abolish the regulation.

“This last-minute change puts at risk the health of millions of citizens of the West,” Grijalva said in a statement, adding that “in my view, the Grand Canyon is one of those places that deserves extra protection from the impact of industrial activities.”

Roger Clark, air and energy director for the Grand Canyon Trust, expressed similar sentiments.

“We are deeply disappointed that the Bush administration places a higher priority on helping the mining industry than it does on protecting the Grand Canyon,” he said.

Environmentalists fear that uranium mining could adversely harm the national park and have a negative impact on the Colorado River, which provides drinking water to residents in Arizona, Nevada and California.

But the BLM, one of several agencies under the umbrella of the Interior Department, has argued that ample protections are in place to protect the Grand Canyon and to ensure the sanctity of federal lands.

This week’s action likely will not end the fight; environmental groups have sued over the mining issue, and that case is pending in U.S. District Court.

Source

The Effects of Uranium Mining are Disastrous.
Extracting a disaster

By David Thorp

December 5 2008

The increased sourcing of raw uranium that will arise from nuclear new build is an ethical and environmental nightmare currently being ignored by the government.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the trade body for companies that make up 90% of the industry, admits that in “emerging uranium producing countries” there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring. It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing principles of uranium stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores (pdf) are not legally binding on operators.

The problem is that transparency is not a value enshrined in the extractive or the nuclear industries. Journalists find themselves blocked. Recently, to tackle this issue, Panos Institute West Africa (IPAO) held a training seminar for journalists in Senegal which highlighted that only persistent investigation – or, in the case of the Niger’s Tuareg, violent rebellion – has a chance of uncovering the truth.

The co-editor of the Republican in Niger, Ousseini Issa, said that only due to local media campaigns was there a revision of the contract linking Niger to the French company Areva. “As a result of our efforts, the price of a kilogram of uranium increased from 25,000 to 40,000 CFA francs,” he said. The local community hopes now to see more of the income from the extraction of its resources.

IPAO has much evidence that in Africa the legacy of mining is often terrible health, water contamination and other pollution problems. IPAO would laugh at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – an Orwellian creation launched by Tony Blair in 2001.

What is the effect of uranium mining? Nuclear fuel from fresh uranium is cheaper than from recycled uranium or recycled plutonium (MOX), which is why there is a worldwide uranium rush.

To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.

Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites. To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.

These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas.

The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the World Information Service on Energy.

No one can convince me that the above process is carbon-free, as politicians claim. It takes a lot of – almost certainly fossil-fuelled – energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed.

And what of the other costs? Over half of the world’s uranium is in Australia and Canada. In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.

In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land’s Aboriginal owners. The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government’s Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.

In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a “blank cheque licence for pollution”. Groundwater specialist Dr Gavin Mudd has examined the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and called for it to be “independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry” (The Epoch Times September 2 2008).

Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, BHP Billiton plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013. This will increase production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is a vast open cast mine, from which the wind can carry away radioactive dust.

Not far away locals are fighting a new uranium mine 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs. At the Ranger mines, Energy Resources of Australia – 68.4% owned by Rio Tinto – expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of ore in the Ranger 3 Deeps area. In October it agreed to supply uranium oxide to a Chinese utility, signing a safety accord. This is how safe the mine in fact is – and you won’t find such records at African mines: almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then further leaks ranging from 50 to over 23,000 litres have been reported.

The list goes on.

The bottom line is this: UK ministers are blind to the consequences of their pro-nuclear evangelism. Carbon credits under the Kyoto mechanism have to be independently audited by a global body to ensure that new renewable energy is unique, additional and lives up to its claims. At the very least there should be an independent, global body verifying the ethics, health and long-term safety of the nuclear supply chain.

Better, just leave it in the ground.

Source

A little history on the Risks:

Uranium mining dangers being hidden, expert warns

Geopolitical, environmental concerns not worth short-term economic gain, author argues

Katie Daubs

January 23 2008

An expert on uranium mining is coming to the Ottawa region with a warning: Don’t let it happen to you.

Jim Harding, the former director of research in the School of Human Justice at the University of Regina, will be in Ottawa and Wakefield this week to discuss his book, Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System.

From Saskatchewan himself, Mr. Harding takes issue with the uranium mining that occurs in the north of the province, “out of sight and out of mind” of most citizens.

He argues that the geopolitical uses and long-term environmental effects are being hidden, and outweigh the short-term economic gain by which communities and governments are sometimes wooed.

He cites the Harper government’s eager acceptance of nuclear energy as evidence that Canada is going down a path of misplaced intentions.

“We like to think we’re a peace broker, but behind the scenes, we’ve been supplying fuel for the weapons system since the ’50s,” he said.

Murray Elston, the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, dismisses Mr. Harding’s allegations as an exaggeration of the facts.

“Other people do have weapons and that’s true, but the folks at Foreign Affairs are very strong about the use of the materials,” he said.

Mr. Elston is citing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Canada has signed as a non-nuclear nation. Through the agreement, all trade is prefaced with the understanding that nuclear products will only be used for energy purposes.

For his part, Mr. Elston also cites a few of nuclear energy’s positive impacts on society: medical isotopes and clean energy.

But Mr. Harding isn’t convinced about that last part. He cites the Ham Commission of 1976 that studied the health effects of radon gas on uranium miners in Elliot Lake. The study found a high incidence of lung cancer in the miners and made several recommendations that created new safety standards.

Mr. Elston was not able to comment on the Ham Commission specifically, but said other studies have shown that exposure does not cause health problems.

The only active uranium mines in Canada are located in Saskatchewan. Mr. Harding said companies are now looking elsewhere as demand is high and supply is dwindling.

The prospect of uranium mining has been widely debated in Eastern Ontario and western Quebec, as claims dot a large swath of land in the two regions, including unceded Algonquin land in the Sharbot Lake area.

George White, the CEO of Frontenac Ventures, the company in the midst of the turmoil, dismissed Mr. Harding as “just another alarmist.”

He said the only thing he could agree with Mr. Harding about is the fact that the long- term effects of the spent uranium, or “tailings,” are unknown.

“That’s why they’re storing it until they can figure out how to handle it,” he said.

Much of the uproar regarding uranium mining results from the fact that the Ontario and Quebec mining acts do not require public consultation before mining can occur. Companies can legally stake a claim on private property if the owner does not possess the mineral rights.

The province of Ontario received notice of intent for a class action lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the act in December. Nothing similar has been filed in Quebec, although public consultations with the Quebec ministry of natural resources were held in October and a report is set to come out soon, said Michael Patenaude of the West Quebec Coalition Against Mining.

“Stay tuned,” he said.

Source

Whether it by Mining,  Reactors or War, Uranium is dangerous.

Cancer Statistics of Children Living near Nuclear Reactors 2003 report.

Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents 1952-1999

Elliot Lake Uranium Mines The majority of uranium tailings in Canada — about 200 million tonnes are located in Elliot Lake.

Health Dangers of Uranium Mining BC Medical Association. August l980

Occupational Health effects of Uranium Mining Australia-Radiation and Health

Health Impacts for Uranium Mine and Mill Residents- 2008

Human Health Impacts on the Navajo Nation from Uranium Mining

Navajo Uranium Radiation Victims

Depleted Uranium Weapons Lessons from the 1991 Gulf War

Depleted Uranium weapons in 2001-2002 Occupational, public and environmental health issues Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan?

Letter to the Prime Minister regarding UK support for US war plans for Iraq, 13 October 2002

Depleted Uranium Watch

141 states support Depleted Uranium Ban

War “Pollution” Equals Millions of Deaths

‘Peace won’t cost the earth’ but it might save the environment

November 24 2008

By John Tomlinson

Essentially human beings cannot afford war. Nor can we continue to breed like rabbits. The imprint of humans on this planet is getting close to a tipping point which, once reached, will result in massive disruption, destruction, significant loss of life and, inevitably, in vast civil unrest.

Currently, environmental jargon wavers between “climate change” and “global warming”: neither expression is inherently frightening. It is possible to imagine a George W. Bush, Mark Latham, Pauline Hansen or Sarah Palin saying something like “Well, in principle, I think global warming in winter would be a good idea but I don’t think we could afford to do it for everybody in the world”.

Whether people choose to speak about global warming or climate change they are using a metaphor to highlight or deny the impending environmental catastrophe that awaits us if we continue to mine, pollute, pillage and exploit the natural environment.

I don’t pretend to know what the tipping point of the coming environmental crisis is. It may happen when there are ten billion people struggling to survive on this planet. It could be when we have released so much carbon dioxide into the oceans that plant and animal plankton, which ultimately sustain all forms of life in the sea, can no longer survive because of increased acidity. It could be in five years, 25 years, 100 years or more: or when we’ve heated the earth by another degree, two degrees or five degrees. It could be from something else that we are doing which scientists have yet to identify as the cause of major environmental damage. What I do know is that most of us won’t know we’ve reached it until well after we’ve passed the point of no return.

Human beings may, however, be able to change their patterns of behaviour enough to avert this impending disaster. Some of the things which need to change are, in the first instance to:

eliminate hunger and malnutrition from all parts of the world;

share income more equitably between countries and between people;

condemn racism in all its forms;

stop population growth and then work to decrease the world’s population;

attempt to resolve disputes between countries and promote peace;

aim for a fair settlement of intra-country disputations;

promote antiviolence strategies in cities, towns and villages everywhere;

work to enhance just solutions between groups and individuals;

actively pursue sustainable environmental practices; and

place justice and honour at the centre of all our dealings.

By eliminating hunger and malnutrition and promoting greater income equality we make it easier to curb population expansion, civil disputation and war.

Racism festers where there is great inequality particularly between indigenous people and colonisers. Both economic and social justice, are more easily obtained in more egalitarian societies. When sections of a society have to be aggressive merely to survive, violence between minority and dominant populations is likely to develop.

Egalitarian and sharing societies extinguish such potential flare-ups. If all are obtaining some benefit from the sharing of resources it is easier to implement sustainable environmental practices because the benefits of over-exploitation are no longer going to a handful of greedy people. The majority know that, in the long term, they are protecting the interests of all by ensuring sustainable use of natural resources.

Each of us has the capacity to start working towards building a more equal, inclusive and sharing society. We can start today, by word and deed, to help build a more egalitarian society. We can work with our friends, our work mates, our unions, sporting clubs, professional associations, social agencies, church groups and our neighbours to build a better world. As we engage in this civic project we benefit personally from being surrounded by a safer and stronger community which acts justly and promotes individual autonomy.

But in the short term military forces will be seen by many of our friends and neighbours as necessary for their protection. So we will need to explain why we can no longer afford to maintain military forces at anything beyond a sufficient force to repel an aggressor from our shores.

During the Cold War, Russia and the US amassed sufficient nuclear weapons to eliminate life as we know it many times over. The Americans used Agent Orange to defoliate large environmentally important parts of Indo China. Considerable numbers of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian children continue to be born with extreme deformities, as a legacy of these chemical weapons. Similar herbicides are being supplied by the US to defoliate poppy crops in Afghanistan and coca crops in Columbia. Land mines and cluster bombs are blowing up poor people in many parts of the world for decades after conflicts have finished. Depleted uranium is causing the deaths of babies and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only the combatants and civilians of invaded countries who become the casualties of war. Many members of the invading forces return home disfigured, drug addicted, poisoned by chemicals, mentally scarred and physically disabled. In some ways the soldiers who get killed are the lucky ones in the inglorious situation where countries send their troops off around the world to wage war.

The homes, hospitals, sewerage treatment works, schools, factories and commercial buildings that get destroyed during wars all have to be replaced after the strife subsides, requiring further impositions on the environment. The families whose child, mother, father, or other relative is killed are not as easily rebuilt. As Warner (1996) says (in T H White’s The Once and Future King in an “Afterword”):

War was a ruinous dementia. It silenced law, it killed poets, it exalted the proud, filled the greedy with good things, and oppressed the humble and meek; no good could come of it, it was hopelessly out of date. Nobody wanted it. (Unfortunately, no one had passionately wanted the League of Nations either.)

While countries are spending vast sums on defence equipment there are more socially or environmentally useful expenditures which are foregone. This money could have been used to improve civic amenities in the home country or provided as foreign aid to help build a more peaceful world. The time wasted training troops to maim and kill could be better spent by employing them engage in some socially or environmentally useful tasks at home or abroad.

Apart from the overt environmental destructive nature of war, there is the environmental cost of just keeping the defence forces mobile. In 2007 Sohbet Karbuz noted in the Energy Bulletin that:

As of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service. At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and support ships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and helicopters). At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet of approximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such as Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles). Besides those the Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as 140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army has also over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wing aircraft. Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (passenger cars, busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses. The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, almost all military fleet (including the ones that will be joining in the next decade) run on oil.

He went on to point out that (excluding fuel obtained overseas at no cost, used by contractors, or used in rented or leased vehicles) the Pentagon still managed to use 320,000 barrels of oil per day in 2006.

If we want to keep the world environmentally healthy then we certainly can no longer afford such profligate military consumption of carbon products. We just need to convince our fellow citizens that it is better to have a world at peace rather than one in pieces, because as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote “the real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war.”

Source

War is killing the Planet

It pollutes everything.

Air, Water, Earth and leaves a trail of Death for future generations.

You cannot save the world using war.

War is the worst form of pollution on Earth.

War “Pollution” Equals Millions of Deaths

Landmine Treaty Ignored, 5,400 killed or injured in 2007

EU member states urged to sign, ratify, implement cluster bomb ban treaty