How’s that theory about my attitude toward Israel working out, BTW?

It wasn’t a theory about your attitude. It was an opinion about forum behavior in general. If you feel singled out, maybe there is a reason for that.

Seriously, I believe that in a large number of the cases on display here you are grossly overshooting the target with that very stereotypical judgement

Stereotypical judgement? Perfect description of topics such as this one.

…refusing dogmatic loyalty is not the same thing as anti-Semitism.

Apples and oranges. Refusal to join in anti-Israeli criticism isn’t dogmatic loyalty. It may have absolutely nothing to do with loyalty at all.

What dogma are you referring to…and whom are you accusing of holding those views?

In fact, I consider your implied association of my person with that ideological point of view very slanderous.

As I have said, the comment was addressed to the forum at large. General statements should be taken as such. Your “dogmatic loyalty” remark, for example…were you aiming that at anyone in particular…or just anyone who isn’t leaping on the anti-Israeli bandwagon whenever the subject is brought up?

You are holding people to an impossible standard when you demand that anything and everything they have ever said or will say must be true for you to believe them on a specific issue.

Now, now…that assertion is grossly off the mark. Let’s not put words in others’ mouths. It isn’t a very convincing argument.

Strictly speaking he did not, he asked you to accept the judgement of Taylor and Barnes on Vanunu’s testimonies.

No. Strictly speaking, he asked that I accept his judgement based on other testimony. See the difference?

…from the point of view of Vanunu’s competence and experience. While he had first-hand, professional involvement with the technical side, his qualification to speak with authority about the political/ideological aspect is approximately the same as yours or mine.

You are quite generous in your willingness to give Vanunu credit for one thing but not for another. He seems quite confident in speaking about political/ideological matters, yet you deny him that credibility. What makes you think he lacks credentials in those areas as well?

Besides, Mercurius has at no point suggested that you accept Vanunu’s words as proof in their own right.

Sure he did:

But if Vanunu’s responses to questioning in 1986 convinced people like Theodore Taylor and Frank Barnaby that he was telling the truth, I see no reason not to accept their judgement.

As you said…semantics. But let’s not get the cart before the horse. Vanunu’s photographs lent weight to his accusations…not the other way around.

Of course the severe reaction that his disclosures provoked on the part of Israeli authorities is also a strong indication in itself.

The reaction is an indication that Israel takes state security seriously. It says nothing about the disclosures themselves. If a thief is captured inside a bank vault, he doesn’t get off because he doesn’t have any money in his pockets.

I think this topic once again is a window into posters’ souls. The attitudes and language on display say far more about how individuals feel about Israel than anything else. It really doesn’t matter what the subject is, there is a group of folks who get all slathered up just at the mention of the Zionist entity.

Any views I may have on the matter discussed by Mr Vanunu in the interview you have cited is of no relevance to the question of whether or not Israel possesses nuclear weapons. It would be totally off-topic.

Quite to the contrary, you used Vanunu as the basis for your contention that Israel has nuclear weapons. You said:

I would have thought the revelations that earned Mordechai Vanunu 18 years in an Israeli jail (much of it in solitary confinement) would qualify as adequate evidence that Israel has developed nuclear weapons. The photographs and other information he provided was checked out by various nuclear experts when it first became available in 1986.

You either believe in what he has said or not. Using sources to buttress one’s own opinion is how things are done on these discussion forums.

I asked if you stood by your source. That is hardly off topic.

Frankly, I don’t know.. It could be pretty much anything.. The site I got it from ios quite obscure.

But you posted this picture as being an Israeli nuclear weapon.

Now, you are saying that you don’t know what it is?

At this point, what credibility do you have?

If you or I had been though the many years of solitary confinement that he experienced, I wonder how balanced our post-imprisonment views would be?

That is not an answer to my question.

I didn’t ask you about what he thought…I asked you what you thought.

Mr. Alfakilo, your tactics remind me of those on the good ol’ rightwingmilitaryphotos.net, which is regretable.This only a diverting/delaying tactic from the real issue.

The real issue?

Now we are getting somewhere!!

What might that ‘real issue’ be?

I would have thought the revelations that earned Mordechai Vanunu 18 years in an Israeli jail (much of it in solitary confinement) would qualify as adequate evidence that Israel has developed nuclear weapons. The photographs and other information he provided was checked out by various nuclear experts when it first became available in 1986.

He had a picture of an Israeli nuclear weapon?

Show it to us, please.

If you cannot, then please provide the ‘proof’ of the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons that these ‘nuclear experts checked out’.

I’d rather wait to see your factual evidence about Iranian nuclear weapons first.

Why?

I haven’t made any claims about nuclear weapons, Iranian or otherwise.