Netanyahu's speech to Congress, March 3rd, 2015

[500]

This can't be Gaza... I've seen Jews in the video.

Its 100% Gaza. If u talk about the blond woman, thats Lauren Booth, who arrived in Gaza in september 2008. Here her pics in Gaza:

 

[Bornubus]

Its 100% Gaza. If u talk about the blond woman, thats Lauren Booth, who arrived in Gaza in september 2008. Here her pics in Gaza:

who is she?

 

[SouI]

Its 100% Gaza. If u talk about the blond woman, thats Lauren Booth, who arrived in Gaza in september 2008. Here her pics in Gaza:

I was talking about the white man in the market.

 

[500]

who is she?

Just some British pro Palestinian "activist".

I was talking about the white man in the market.

Not sure who are u talking about, but there are plenty of pale and even blonde Palestinians.

 

[veg]

They always hated.


Frustrated old woman. So what?


Green line is nbot a border but merely a cease fire line. All the dispute is about several hundred sq km absolutely nothing


I did not say bunch. Its a Sunni majority vs Alawi minority.


Again you say that native population of Golan and Daraa are "Jihadists" thats why Afghan, Lebanese and Alawi mercenaries have right to bomb and slaughter them without mercy.

1. Why they always hated?
Now don't blame them of being Muslims for hating Bibi. It is due to the madness and crimes of Bibi that they hate.
Therefore, so far so good. Not only these 2 hate Bibi, but many more have started seeing the true evil colors of extremist Bibi.

2. You seems yourself more frustrated than that old woman who has been constantly quoted in the US Media and questions were asked from the supporters of Bibi and they had no answer to them.

3. What a loser you are. Even if it is few hundred km, then why not you give up the right of Palestinians to them instead of illegal settlements?
Reality is this that Extremists like Bibi dream for greater Israel and they want to snatch the whole Arab land. That is why these illegal settlements are there, and you have no Direct answer to it, that is why some times you try to hide yourself behind Assad, some times being small crime, some times behind only few sq. km excuses.

4. Yes, the same Sunni Majority which is against the illegal Israeli occupation, but still no bullets are fired by Nusra or ISIS in Golan and they getting support from Israel.

 

[SouI]

Just some British pro Palestinian "activist".


Not sure who are u talking about, but there are plenty of pale and even blonde Palestinians.

The guy in 3:51

 

[Bornubus]

Just some British pro Palestinian "activist".


Not sure who are u talking about, but there are plenty of pale and even blonde Palestinians.

Haha 'activist'

is she alive or killed by Terrorist.....or by barrel bombed by Asad?

Anyways new Indian govt support Israel ...so does our people to your fight against terrorism.

PlZ if you may post .....the health standard of Palestinians....coz i have heard they have very good living standards than other Muslim countries....so much so that they become obese.

 

[500]

1. Why they always hated?

Because they love Ayatulas and Assad.

This is Pelosi:

And Rand goes even further:

https://twitter.com/x/status/572916427721588736

2. You seems yourself more frustrated than that old woman who has been constantly quoted in the US Media and questions were asked from the supporters of Bibi and they had no answer to them.

Answer what? That US should pass the bill in order to see whats there?

3. What a loser you are. Even if it is few hundred km, then why not you give up the right of Palestinians to them instead of illegal settlements?

We gave Palestinians Gaza and they turned it into a huge rocket base.

Reality is this that Extremists like Bibi dream for greater Israel and they want to snatch the whole Arab land.

LOL.

4. Yes, the same Sunni Majority which is against the illegal Israeli occupation, but still no bullets are fired by Nusra or ISIS in Golan and they getting support from Israel.

Assad with 4000 tanks and 500 jets did not fire a bullet towards Israel in past 40 years. Do u want poor rebels who are daily bombed by Assad to open second front against Israel right now?

 

[raptor22]

 

[Dominance]

The best of bad options

Mar 4th 2015, 16:01 by M.J.S.

• 
  
  
  
  
  THE March 24th deadline for an agreement with Iran may be looming, but the parties to the talks have kept impressively quiet about the details being hammered out this week in Montreux, Switzerland. Despite speculation that a deal is imminent, significant gaps still remain which could yet scupper one.
  
  Iran, unrealistically, is demanding the immediate removal of all sanctions. Barack Obama, America’s president, can suspend most of America’s, but only Congress can remove sanctions that it has legislated. The rapturous applause for the speech Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, gave to Congress on March 3rd suggests that suspension is the best the Iranians can get from America for the foreseeable future. The European Union and the United Nations Security Council could, however, remove their sanctions more permanently.
  
  Iran also wants to be able to continue to develop more advanced centrifuges, which would allow the rapid ramp-up of uranium enrichment (and thus speed the path to a bomb) once the agreed restrictions fall away. The centrifuges that Iran hopes eventually to deploy spin about six times faster than the ones installed now, which they say they will need to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) on the industrial scale needed to fuel commercial reactors.
  
  Iran has said it will accept the International Atomic Energy Authority’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol, which involves more intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities than usual. But Iran has not yet agreed to other inspections, which given its history of cheating is deemed a necessary requirement by the West. A final key issue yet to be resolved is that Iran must come clean about past weapons-programme activities. It has thus far steadily refused to do so because it still insists, no matter how implausibly, that there never were any.
  
  That said, the outlines of a deal are now in place that would extend the “break-out” period—ie, how long it would take Iran to produce 25kg of highly-enriched uranium (the standard measure for one weapon’s worth) were it to decide to renege on its commitments—to more than a year. That compares with what most estimates suggest is a current break-out time of about three months. The main components of the agreement, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, would look something like this:
  
• The 9,500 centrifuges now currently operating would be cut to about 6,000–7,000.
• All other centrifuges, including the 9,000 that are installed but not operating, would be placed in secure domestic storage under the seal of the IAEA.
• Iran’s 8,000kg stockpile of LEU would be substantially reduced by exporting much of it to Russia and by converting some of it into oxide. This is crucial: the more LEU Iran has to ship out the fewer centrifuges it will need to give up.
• Changes to the cascade configuration of the remaining centrifuges would be made that would impede production of highly enriched uranium (HEU)—the weapons-grade stuff. Although such changes can be reversed, it would take time to do and would signal Iran was breaking other commitments.
• There would also be changes to the design of the Arak heavy water reactor to ensure it can produce no more than 1kg of plutonium a month, rather than the 8kg it has been designed to do (plutonium offers a another route to a nuclear weapon).
• The full range of restraint measures would remain in force for ten years, after which there would be a staged relaxation. However, some restraints would last for 20 years or more.
  
  
  The Israeli prime minister’s excoriation of this as a “bad deal” is not without foundation. He is right to say that it will leave Iran as a nuclear-weapons threshold state and that Iran will quite probably continue to use that as a means to bully and intimidate its neighbours. He is also right to say that without dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the country will continue to have a path to a bomb, which may become even more rapid after ten years, when the first stage of the deal lapses.
  
  What he has failed to do is to propose anything better. He argues that if sanctions are maintained and even tightened, a chastened Iran will return to the negotiating table and give in to every demand made of it, no matter the degree of national humiliation that would entail. There is no evidence at all for the truth of this. In fact, people who understand Iran well or are close to the negotiations believe the exact opposite of what Mr Netanyahu claims. Iran is suffering from sanctions, but it is a proud nation that will not be brought to its knees. Mr Netanyahu accuses others of wishful thinking, but if he genuinely believes what he is saying, he is guilty of it too.
  
  It may be that he does not. Mr Netanyahu insists that he is not advocating for war with Iran, but it is hard to draw any other logical conclusion from the position he has staked out. The trouble is that only America has the military power to deal a serious and lasting blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Even then, it would not wipe out enough of a vast and sprawling enterprise to set Iran back by more than a few years. And it would make it virtually certain that Iran’s leaders, having expelled the IAEA weapons inspectors, would authorise the resumption of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme at the first opportunity.
  
  President Obama clearly has no appetite for this unattractive risk-to-reward calculus. It is also doubtful whether any presidential successor, or even Mr Netanyahu’s Congressional cheerleaders, would see things very differently were they in his position. If Iran does at some point make the momentous choice to get the bomb, military action is very likely to be the consequence. But that will represent failure rather than success.
  
  Until then, what Mr Netanyahu calls a bad deal looks quite a bit better than any of the alternatives.
  
  America and Iran: The best of bad options | The Economist

 

[scythian500]

Because they love Ayatulas and Assad.

This is Pelosi:

And Rand goes even further:

https://twitter.com/x/status/572916427721588736

Answer what? That US should pass the bill in order to see whats there?


We gave Palestinians Gaza and they turned it into a huge rocket base.


LOL.


Assad with 4000 tanks and 500 jets did not fire a bullet towards Israel in past 40 years. Do u want poor rebels who are daily bombed by Assad to open second front against Israel right now?

They are lulzy.


U mean that brain dead woman who met with mass murderer Assad and who said that Congress should adopt the bill in order to know whats there? Och that hurts


Yep some houses built on tiny strip of desert are much bigger crime for u than murder of 200,000 people starvation, gassing and expulsion of millions.


Because thats ISIS. You claimed they dont fire a bullet towards Israel and u lied.


There is no ISIS on Golan you retard. And people u call "Jihadis" are local civilians who protect their houses against Alawi, Afghan Hazara and Hezbollah invaders.

Do u want them to attack Israel while they are bombed and murdered by Alawi-Afghan-Lebanese mercenaries?

I was watching your prime minister speech in US congress. He looked like some orphan guy whose his parents don't listen to him how intense he tries!!! Obama is a more smart guy as it seems. He said, he does not care about BIBI's childish words!!

I laughed hard after a while tonight when I heard Netanyaho says, Iran is ISIS!!. when he brought dozens of reasons that Iran might build bombs in future, and it is dangerous for ME and WORLD while he already possess hundreds of nukes himself!!!
I laughed hard when he said, with Iran having nukes, an ARM RACE for nuke would happen in ME!!! Does anybody not know that Occupied Palestine is the first Middle Eastern country to acquire NUKES!!!???
He said, don,t be friend with Iran because he is the enemy of your enemy (ISIS)!!!!
He said, USA please love me!!!!! LOVE MEEEEEE....
He called Iran a TERRORIST STATE!!! I laughed even harder here as I have seen a Western Documentary about this specific subject, it explained how it is a normal policy in Occupied Palestine and MOSAD to pursue the enemies of state and terror them in other countries. They were talking about thousands of terrors MOSAD committed by EZRAEEL since 1950 and still doing.
They are masters of terror of individuals around the world. Even the netanyaho himself was a soldier in assassination units of Occupied Palestine government. Most their leaders have a personal record of terror....They are master of killing innocent children and women instead of facing warriors face to face like a man....

I was laughing hard but a very bitter laugh... if you know what I mean... I am very sorry for the world that I,m living at, A world that a Terrorist state that is no different from savage ISISs, sticks everything is true with himself to a mostly victimized nation like IRAN... and even harsher is when you see, American senators were standing applauding him after every word he said!!!

It is now a known fact that Israel is helping Alqaeda branch in Syria or as we call them TAKFIRIS... Even the bibi takes pictures in their field hospitals visiting Al Nosra (alghaeda terrorists) wounded terrorists... It is a known fact that Israel is the main source of terror and destabilization all around the world... It is Dark Force and will be treated accordingly soon...

The funniest thing about Bibi is when A Terrorist called BIBI, takes a visit to Other Terrorists in Hospital... Although, terrorists find their specie naturally!!!

I congrat Resistance forces to cut the hands of Israelis supporting Alqaeda terrorists in Syrian borders.... Long live Peace... Long live righteousness... Down with Ignorance and Cruelty.... Down with intentional stupidity....

 

[ResurgentIran]

And Rand goes even further:

https://twitter.com/x/status/572916427721588736

lol
Key democratic senators like Menendez (whom is otherwise an AIPAC slave) have now turned against the bill, because of Republican overreach. Menendez, which sponsored the bill in the first place. Its looking more and more like partisan legislation. Talk about a huge fail.
The bill may not even be debated, and even if it is, then it has to pass a veto-proof majority, as Obama has already vowed to veto it if it doesnt.
You should not count on that bill to get passed.

 

[Arminkh]

Democrats turn against own Iran bill - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Democrats turn against own Iran bill
By BURGESS EVERETT


3/3/15 4:17 PM EST


Updated 3/4/15 1:27 PM EST

Senate Democrats are threatening to vote against their own Iran legislation due to the manner in which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is bringing the bill to the Senate floor.

McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Republicans want to show Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that their support of his big speech to Congress on Tuesday wasn’t just talk: They plan to try to pass bipartisan legislation to make it harder for the U.S. to strike a nuclear deal with Iran.

Story Continued Below


But there’s a big problem: McConnell’s rush to bring the legislation to the full Senate before it’s been through a committee vote has two of the bill’s Democratic sponsors in full rebellion mode, potentially presaging a Democratic filibuster on the floor if the bill doesn’t go through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee first.

It took only a few hours for Democratic outrage to boil over after McConnell announced the Senate would vote next week on a proposal that would allow Congress to approve or reject any agreement that the U.S. and other world powers reach with Iran to wind down its nuclear program in exchange for the loosening of some sanctions. Many Democratic Iran hawks look to Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) for guidance on Iran issues, and an “outraged” Menendez said Tuesday evening he’ll vote against his own bill if he has to.


”There is no emergency; this deal — if there is one — won’t be concluded until almost summer. Let’s do this the right way,” Menendez said. “If this is the process, then I will have no choice but to use my voice and vote against any motion to proceed to the bill.”

A Republican aide shot back at Menendez: “Launching a filibuster of your own bill is going to be pretty tough to explain to constituents.”

Committee approval is expected sometime next week right as the full Senate takes up the bill. That process, similar to how McConnell began moving on approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as soon as he took over the Senate, is irking Democrats who believe McConnell is not fulfilling his pledge to empower congressional committees.

Menendez’s remarks followed a critical statement from another bill co-sponsor, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who said the push to the floor was “rushed and partisan.”

“The effort by the Republican leadership to force the bill to the floor prior to full committee consideration is contrary to the important interests at stake. Premature action also disrespects the ongoing work to build a broad coalition of colleagues in support of this bill,” Kaine said.

The GOP leader’s decision to move forward on that legislation came just a few hours after Netanyahu warned Congress that President Barack Obama’s administration and other world powers were pursuing a “very bad deal” with Iran.

“We think the timing is important. We think it will help the administration from entering into a bad deal. But if they do, it will provide an opportunity for Congress to weigh in,” McConnell said Tuesday.

The first procedural votes on the bill from Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) will likely occur next week as Iran talks are expected to intensify. McConnell said it’s possible the Senate could consider an amendment to the bill that would enact new sanctions on Iran if it backs away from talks or violates any nuclear agreement.

In choosing Corker’s proposal to seek congressional approval as the Senate’s first Iran-related legislation of the year, McConnell is taking an approach that could garner more support from Democrats than new sanctions on Iran. Though Democrats supported a sanctions bill written by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) in the Senate Banking Committee, most Democrats have pledged not to support it in the full Senate until after March 24, the deadline for a rough framework of a deal with Iran.

Corker’s bill has five Democratic co-sponsors as well as an independent, which would be enough to advance the bill next week past an initial filibuster if they also support the bill on the floor. And it became clear that the Democratic position against new sanctions during ongoing negotiations had made Corker’s bill the preferred vehicle among Republicans for a congressional response to Obama’s pursuit of an agreement with Iran.

“I would think anybody that ran for the United States Senate and cares about the big issues facing our nation would want to support this piece of legislation,” Corker said Tuesday.

But given the opposition from Menendez and Kaine to the procedural maneuver to McConnell and critical comments from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday afternoon, the Corker legislation may be blocked from even being debated.

“As we learned, and I hoped [McConnell] learned, saying you’re going to be debating something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to happen,” Reid said, a reference to Democrats’ repeated filibusters of debating funding legislation laden with immigration riders.



Read more: Democrats turn against own Iran bill - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Another interesting article:

Chart: Fewer and fewer Americans see Iran as the US's greatest enemy - Vox

@Solomon2

You see, your society is finally realizing the truth. You should too.

 

[Abii]

@Arminkh tbh Ahmadinejad fucking off has a lot to do with that chart as well. when you don't have the president of a nation screaming death to this and that on national TV, the UN and every other arena he can find, the Americans suddenly don't have a lot of reasons to hate Iran.

A big part of it was the end of Nejad's kososher on the big stage. Without him, Iran becomes harder to villainize.

 

[Arminkh]

@Arminkh tbh Ahmadinejad fucking off has a lot to do with that chart as well. when you don't have the president of a nation screaming death to this and that on national TV, the UN and every other arena he can find, the Americans suddenly don't have a lot of reasons to hate Iran.

A big part of it was the end of Nejad's kososher on the big stage. Without him, Iran becomes harder to villainize.

Agreed. He was not a good politician. But you need to remember that both sides have changed their tone. So Iran see no need to scream either.