#1
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan's crusade this week against an Israeli strike on Iran took on a new dimension with his several media interviews. His campaign also reflects the Mossad's attitude toward journalists, something along the lines of respect them, suspect them and use them. The degree shifts from one Mossad head to the next.

Some Mossad chiefs considered appointing a spokesman for the organization and then had second thoughts; one ordered that former employees be barred from Mossad headquarters because they gave media interviews without asking his permission.

Still, former journalists have worked at the Mossad. The organization has also known how to use journalists, mostly foreign correspondents, to disseminate information - some of it false, what is known as psychological warfare. On the other hand, there were times when Israeli journalists offered their services to the Mossad and these offers were rebuffed.



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-complicated-relationship-between-the-mossad-and-israeli-media-1.398853

Meir Dagan, the former head of Israeli spy agency Mossad, is not alone in warning against the possibility of Israeli attacks against Iran’s nuclear program. He has now been joined by Major General Amos Yadlin, who until recently headed Israel’s Military Intelligence directorate. Speaking at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, Yadlin doubted that airstrikes could threaten Iran’s numerous, distant and well-defended nuclear facilities. Another intelligence official, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal, also cautioned last week against any attacks on Iran, saying that “there are other non- military policy alternatives, as yet unexplored, that could have the desired result without the unwanted consequences”.



http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/02-454/

This weekend, a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Yadollah Javani, threatened retaliation against Israel in the event of an attack on Iran's nuclear or security sites.

"If Israeli missiles hit one of our nuclear facilities or other vital centers, then they should know that any part of Israeli territory would be a target of our missiles, including their nuclear sites. They know that we have the capability to do so," Javani told the ISNA news agency.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/former-intelligence-chief-iran-has-material-for-4-or-5-nuclear-bombs-1.398550

#2
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
remember when cefte posted huge posts denying iran had a nuclear program and everybody on the left clapped along. that's why the loony left shouldn't be in charge of our security - they want to surrender to nuclear-armed ayatollahs. not me, i choose freedom.
#3
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:
remember when cefte posted huge posts denying iran had a nuclear program and everybody on the left clapped along. that's why the loony left shouldn't be in charge of our security - they want to surrender to nuclear-armed ayatollahs. not me, i choose freedom.



Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapons program and there's certainly no evidence for one.

#4
Post rating: ~
no really sure what to make of this

so anyway what do ya think are the chances of Iranian leadership being bought off and brought in as a regional power? i guess this sort of is happening already? i dont suppose there will be war unless there is another economic global crisis, which actually does look like it'll strike.
#5
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
how do you know they didn't buy nukes off pakistan, who are also muslims? i know a lot about geopolitics, i watch The Situation Room on CNN.
#6
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

getfiscal posted:
remember when cefte posted huge posts denying iran had a nuclear program and everybody on the left clapped along. that's why the loony left shouldn't be in charge of our security - they want to surrender to nuclear-armed ayatollahs. not me, i choose freedom.

Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapons program and there's certainly no evidence for one.

Well maybe they should. Hmph. *crosses arms and nods*

#7
north pole
Post rating: ~
It's too bad nobody will survive World War 3
#8
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Crow posted:
no really sure what to make of this

so anyway what do ya think are the chances of Iranian leadership being bought off and brought in as a regional power? i guess this sort of is happening already? i dont suppose there will be war unless there is another economic global crisis, which actually does look like it'll strike.



yeah thats already happened. their collaboration has been vital to the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. they pursue their own interests and don't cow to the West and know that they're better off playing the Bad Boy and courting anti-Zionist manuevers and China, Russia et al than trying to be more Zionist than the Zionists

#9
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
Iran is a zionist puppet
#10
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

christmas_cheer posted:
It's too bad nobody will survive World War 3

"I don't know what weapons we will fight World War 3 with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." - Beyonce Knowles

#11
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
is it kow or cow or whats the word. i dont even know. i r dumb
#12
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

Crow posted:
no really sure what to make of this

so anyway what do ya think are the chances of Iranian leadership being bought off and brought in as a regional power? i guess this sort of is happening already? i dont suppose there will be war unless there is another economic global crisis, which actually does look like it'll strike.

yeah thats already happened. their collaboration has been vital to the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. they pursue their own interests and don't cow to the West and know that they're better off playing the Bad Boy and courting anti-Zionist manuevers and China, Russia et al than trying to be more Zionist than the Zionists

ok, now wherefore the war machine? inward, austerity?

#13
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
chao
#14
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
I'm not anti-Iran or anything but they are a national govt and they got to do what they gotta do. Third World Revolution is games for dirty dogs
#15
Post rating: ~
i guess now is the time of proxy wars
#16
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Crow posted:

babyfinland posted:

Crow posted:
no really sure what to make of this

so anyway what do ya think are the chances of Iranian leadership being bought off and brought in as a regional power? i guess this sort of is happening already? i dont suppose there will be war unless there is another economic global crisis, which actually does look like it'll strike.

yeah thats already happened. their collaboration has been vital to the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. they pursue their own interests and don't cow to the West and know that they're better off playing the Bad Boy and courting anti-Zionist manuevers and China, Russia et al than trying to be more Zionist than the Zionists

ok, now wherefore the war machine? inward, austerity?



yeah thats already in motion but with Iraq and Afghanistan to play with they're in pretty good shape. once Turkmenistan gets its pipeline up and running we'll see what happens. theyre in a rush to get their nuclear energy running so they can compete with Turkmenistan i think, and the Zionist Entity want to beat them to the punch on that so that anti-Iranian military action becomes more viable, maybe? Zionists are dumb and confused and probably not thinking beyond stabbing the next guy in the back and picking his pocket so it's hard to talk about them as anything but Loki, God of Chaos

#17
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Crow posted:
i guess now is the time of proxy wars



Iraq has been Saudi vs Iran turfs wars for a long time. I'm curious to see if India or someone else takes up the Saudi challenge to neo-colonial dominance in Pakistan

#18
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
Tom just ate a bunch of halal chicken and is talking bullshit with the Perverts and Losers
#19
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

The Obama administration is reaping a whirlwind of criticism in the wake of pointed remarks about Israel by several US officials over three days. US ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman caused an uproar when he suggested on Dec 1 that hostility among European Arabs and Muslims toward Jews was rooted in anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and should be distinguished from traditional forms of anti-Semitism. Jewish groups condemned his remarks, which drew calls for his dismissal from Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. The following day, Sec Def Leon Panetta stirred controversy when he told an audience at the Saban Forum that Israel needs to “get to the damn table” to negotiate with the Palestinians and “mend fences” with its neighbors. The ADL expressed “surprise and dismay” at a speech that it said “disproportionately put the onus on Israel to overcome its isolation.” Sec State Clinton made waves a day later at the Saban Forum when she reportedly expressed some concerns about the state of Israeli democracy. ADL’s Foxman said:

Each set of remarks shares a common theme. The administration are putting all of the onus on Israel, and that’s with Panetta, with Hillary and with the ambassador. It’s something that we’ve had a problem with in this administration. If reported accurately, Clinton’s comments were out of line. This is a Sec State who certainly doesn’t go out to the Arab Muslim world and criticize them for inequalities. Sure, Israel is not perfect, human rights could use improvement, but my God, in comparison, I think it’s inappropriate, it’s excessive. The administration’s attitude toward Israel is bifurcated. While it has brought the US-Israeli military alliance to newfound heights, it also has done more politically to distance itself from Israel. Panetta emphasized the shared US and Israeli interest in deepened strategic cooperation and in countering the Iranian threat. But he undermined the sense of assurance that this could have projected by using a prestigious public platform to focus disproportionate responsibility on Israel for the campaign of hostility against her. They’re trying to balance between support for Israel and criticism of it, and it’s not working.



In his speech, Panetta said:

Israel needs to take steps to alleviate its isolation. For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability: countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan. This is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this crucial area. This is not impossible. If gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. That is exactly why Israel should pursue them.



After the speech, the Saban Center’s Kenneth Pollack asked Panetta what steps Israel should take to advance peace. Panetta replied:

Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table. The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.You know, we all know what the pieces are here for a potential agreement.



http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/12/06/3090606/trio-of-us-officials-remarks-on-israel-spur-controversy

lol Israel wants to use the US as its bitch and the US doesnt care about Israel's bullshit anymore except as it advances their pipeline strategies

Edited by babyfinland ()

#20
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:
Tom just ate a bunch of halal chicken and is talking bullshit with the Perverts and Losers


Bahahaha, what the fuck?

#21
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
Tom is gettin upset
#22
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
Tom is sweating from the kung pao
#23
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
edited with bolds and a comment

i made this and its Forking delicious
#24
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~

gyrofry posted:
Tom is sweating from the kung pao

my kung pao's getting sweaty just thinkin about it

#25
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~
i like all the everyone ever who has ever bloated out "nukes are a deterrent!" who now get to watch a tiny spontaneous firefight escalates way too fast for anyone to use their dadgum reason
#26
Post rating: ~

christmas_cheer posted:
It's too bad nobody will survive World War 3



yeahh just think of how many fuckin sick ass postpostmodern poems thered be

#27
Post rating: ~
how messy would be be if we invaded an actual functioning country? I think those days are probably over. for a while
#28
Post rating: ~
pretty sure iraq was actually functioning..
#29
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
so was libya
#30
penitent
Post rating: ~
there will never be a nuclear war. never
#31
Post rating: ~

deadken posted:
there will never be a nuclear war. never

Wot about WWII ∞¸

#32
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:
is it kow or cow or whats the word. i dont even know. i r dumb



叩頭

#33
penitent
Post rating: ~
wwiii will be fought...... inside you're own head
#34
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table.
#35
north pole
Post rating: ~
Striking first would minimize potential losses for our side
#36
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
Not starting an unwinnable war would minimize losses even moreso

Joel I know you're gay for Jews and fascists but invading Iran is literally a joke in the American military and intel community and there's no way in hell we're gonna try to do something like that so soon after Afghanistan. Not only would Iran be incredibly difficult to occupy simply from the sheer geography of the place, they would shut down our oil supply line through the Persian Gulf instantly and effortlessly.
#37
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
A massive bombing campaign is a different story but they still have us by the balls in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf, not to mention the shitstorm that would cause throughout the Middle East. If you want to push the Death to America button go right ahead Joel, I won't stop you
#38
Post rating: ~
can i press it for him?
#39
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
blackwater snipers will take you out before your finger is able to apply pressure to it
#40
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

It all comes out of the "Millenium Challenge '02" war games we staged in the Persian Gulf this summer. The big scandal was that the Opposing Force Commander, Gen. Paul van Ripen, quit mid-game because the games were rigged for the US forces to win. The scenario was a US invasion of an unnamed Persian Gulf country (either Iraq or Iran). The US was testing a new hi-tech joint force doctrine, so naturally van Riper used every lo-tech trick he could think of to mess things up. When the Americans jammed his CCC network , he sent messages by motorbike.

But that was just playing around. They wouldn't have minded that. Might've even congratulated van Ripen, bought him a drink for his smarts, at the post-games party.

The truth is that van Ripen did something so important that I still can't believe the mainstream press hasn't made anything of it. With nothing more than a few "small boats and aircraft," van Ripen managed to sink most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf.



He was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.

That should scare the hell out of everybody who cares about how well the US is prepared to fight its next war. It means that a bunch of Cessnas, fishing boats and assorted private craft, crewed by good soldiers and armed with anti-ship missiles, can destroy a US aircraft carrier. That means that the hundreds of trillions (yeah, trillions) of dollars we've invested in shipbuilding is wasted, worthless.



If the Argentines could do that with 1980 technology, think what the Chinese, Iranians or North Koreans could do in 2003 against a city-size floating target like a US carrier.

If your local library has copies of Jane's Weapons Systems, check out the anti-ship missile section. The top of the line in standard weaponry might still be the old US Harpoon, but you don't need anything that fancy. Anti-ship missiles are easy to make and use, because surface ships are very slow, have huge radar signatures, and can't dodge.

We may be lucky a little while longer, as long as we take on losers like Iraq. But what about Iran? The Iranians aren't cowardly slaves like the Iraqis. They're smart, they're dedicated, and they hate us like poison. Imagine how many "small aircraft and boats" there are along the Iranian coastline. Imagine every one of those craft stuffed full of explosives and turned into kamikazes. Now add all the anti-ship missiles the Iranians have been able to buy on the open market. If you really want to get scared, add a nuke or two.

Suppose the Iranians use van Riper's method: send everything at once, from every ship, plane and boat they've got, directly at the carrier. Give the Navy the benefit of the doubt and say they get 90% of the incoming missiles. You still end up with a dead carrier.



http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1