Israel will not experience a nuclear attack within the next twenty years

I am concerned that what began as an interesting and intelligent debate is running the risk of becoming boring and repetitive as my opponent seems to be arguing in circles. Additionally as some of the rounds have been quite lengthy I hope that voters will take the time to read them in entirety and vote accordingly rather than basing their votes on previously held opinion. My opponent persists in misquoting and misrepresenting the quotes he cites, in an effort to back up his claim that: 'According to some experts, Iran WILL have fully functional nuclear weaponS in a year or two.' he has now cited the following evidence: "The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route." and: "A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest." Like his previous examples this does not back up his claim, note: 'could', 'if' 'would', 'one' and the timelines quoted in his sources which do not support his assertions. In fact none of the sources and especially not the posted video offer any evidence to back up allegations that my opponent continues to represent as facts. 'As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal.' 'Russia would be there to protect them' 'the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel.' 'Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Isreal and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.' 'a country who wants the know-how of building nuclear weapons' All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact. My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters. As I was using the actions of previous US administrations to demonstrate a recent historical basis for aggressive persecution of Iran, my point stands. Does my opponent really believe that the president himself makes all the decisions on US foreign policy? Also I would like to point out that if indeed America's attitude is changing under Obama this surely makes an attack by Iran less likely rather than more so, therefore supporting a Pro vote. In response to my assertion that a Muslim state would not attack holy Islamic sites, my opponent says: 'they can just leave those sites untouched and attack the major cities and army bases. Also, since Muslims do their pilgrimage once a year, it means they have 364 days not to kill any one who is taking the pilgrimage.' I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year) not that they would be concerned about Muslim pilgrims being present at the time of such an attack. Lastly to return to the specific points I raised which I am still waiting for some kind of concrete evidence for. To quote again in full with my opponent's responses: [quote]1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons. 2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel. 3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia. 4. That Iran has publicly stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel. 5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel. 6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above.[/quote] 1. IAEA, USA, EU, UN... 2. Why wouldn't they? They hate, I mean HATE Jews and want to get Israel off the face of the earth. 3. Look at the video I posted the last round. 4. Well, okay. "Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives." A direct threat. 5. He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever. 6. CNN and other sources claim 3, 1 is kind of obvious ;) 2 is claimed by the Iranian president, 4 is claimed by the Iranian president, 5 is claimed by Barack Obama, 6 is claimed by the sources I just mentioned. 1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims. 2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants. 3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance. 4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat. 5. some evidence of my own to the contrary: 'Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America.' source: http://www.nysun.com... '"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.' source: http://www.haaretz.com... 6. (1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence. (2) Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again]. (3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased. (4) See 4. above, misquote, no evidence. (5) I have just proved that Obama has stated that he supports Israel, see above. (6) Does not make sense. Thanks to all voters, please vote Pro if you have any respect for logic and proper research. Thanks to my opponent, please take all the time you need to post your final round.