Israel-Iran

C

Corvus Metus

Star
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,269
lightseeker said:
Which mafia though? The Italian? The Jewish mob was the biggest and most violent mob at the time, just a lot less movies about them.

Who killed Oswald? Was it Jack Ruby? No. It was Jacob Rubinstein, a Jewish mobster. Who filmed the assassination perfectly? Abraham Zapruder. Kennedy wanted AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, wanted to investigate the nuclear material they had stolen months before, and said he would cut aid unless they shut down their nuclear factories. Also he was trying to rein back the power of the Israeli-Rothschild-asset-controlled federal reserve with executive order 11110, making the dollar backed by silver instead of debt. More than enough reason to kill him.
Click to expand...
Italian mafia. Since you know, the Italian mafia was the most powerful at the time. Not everything is the Jews, dude.
 
D

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,021
Corvus Metus said:
Mossad is full of wicked, evil men who manipulate global opinion in order to get the world to be sympathetic to Israeli policies.

The CIA is full of wicked, evil men who manipulate global opinion in order to get the world to be sympathetic to American policies.

SVR RF (Russia's intelligence agency) is full of wicked, evil men... Well, so I never need to say it again?

Intelligence agencies are utterly immoral, no matter what flag they serve. I do not like the state of Israel, especially with the growing far-right policies of the country and its push towards becoming an ethnostate. But it's hard for me to think that Mossad is any worse than any other intelligence agency.

They just might be more effective.

...We likely would. Russia and China would both likely back Iran and all of our bloated military budget wouldn't mean shit... Especially if China killed our power grind, instantly plummeting morale and quickly turning the US into a police state as they seek to restore order.
Click to expand...
It may be your opinion but for such a small country they are the leaders in terror. Netenyahu said they are #2 in the world in cyber-technology. There's been several articles detailing their partnership with the US intelligenge/military, especially the last decades. Since WW2 Israel has committed more assassinations than any other Western nation. We don't know the half of what they're up to.

There's a good review of a new book exposing one of Israel's hidden operations:

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations

"The book’s title derives from the Talmudic command that a person has the right to “rise and kill first” as a preemptive measure.

This concept formed both the moral and legal basis for the policy, which many human rights groups consider invalid under international law because execution without trial makes a mockery of due process and erases the distinction between combatants and civilians. Many of the victims were political and even religious figures who were most likely not involved in planning attacks against Israel, Bergman asserts."...

"That a racist code existed is undeniable, particularly given the distinction Israeli intelligence officials often made between “collateral damage” involving Arabs and non-Arabs: If Arab bystanders or family members might be killed, the operation was still likely to be given the go-ahead; if non-Arab bystanders might die, it was to be avoided. As Bergman notes, “as long as the targets were located in enemy countries, and as long as the innocent civilians were Arabs, the finger on the trigger became quicker.”...


"To his credit, however, Bergman does delineate the similarities between the Israeli and US intelligence agencies, including recruiting journalists as spies, setting up false-front organizations to interfere in other countries, working with ex-Nazis and helping identify left-wing political activists under authoritarian regimes for the purpose of having them tortured or murdered.

Aman’s Unit 504, which engaged in kidnappings, anticipated the CIA’s rendition and torture program following the 11 September 2001 attacks. And Bergman makes it clear that both former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley under President George W. Bush approved and supported the Israeli assassination policy."

For a population less than New York City their government is capable of a remarkable amount of evil.

Edit: Yeah two-bit wannabe Sicilians are as powerful as the Rothschild/Zionists... that's a good one.
 
Last edited:
UnderAlienControl

UnderAlienControl

Superstar
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
8,023
Thunderian said:
Name one other intelligence service in the world that doesn't use deception.
Click to expand...
They all do. It's the name of the game. But there are red lines that aren't supposed to be crossed and our own intelligence services have stated that Israel is the nation that crosses them the most. They are ruthless and unscrupulous. No one, friend or foe, is off-limits if they have something they want or if they are in the way of something to be gained. That is a provable reality.


Corvus Metus said:
They just might be more effective.
Click to expand...
They're good. That's the problem. When it involves some policy that their government wants, they'll do it. So naturally they are suspect when something aligned that way goes down. It falls under the heading of, "if you want to win just be willing to do what the other guy won't." That's just how they roll....

Japanese Oil Tanker Owner Says U.S. Is Wrong About Gulf Attack
https://www.thedailybeast.com/japanese-oil-tanker-owner-says-us-is-wrong-about-gulf-attack
 
Last edited:
L

lightseeker

Star
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
Last edited:
D

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,021
UnderAlienControl said:
They all do. it's the name of the game. But there are red lines that aren't supposed to be crossed and our own intelligence services have stated that Israel is the nation that crosses them the most. They are ruthless and unscrupulous. No one, friend or foe, is off-limits if they have something they want or if they are in the way of something to be gained. That is a provable reality.


They're good. That's the problem. When it involves some policy that their government wants, they'll do it. So naturally they are suspect when something aligned that way goes down. It falls under the heading of, "if you want to win just be willing to do what the other guy won't." That's just how they roll....

Japanese Oil Tanker Owner Says U.S. Is Wrong About Gulf Attack
https://www.thedailybeast.com/japanese-oil-tanker-owner-says-us-is-wrong-about-gulf-attack
Click to expand...
Can you imagine FOX of today offering an investigation like this one from 2001? That was radical. The Communications for Law Enforcement Act passed in 1994 that opened the doors to modern wiretapping, all US phone records going through the Israeli companies Comverse and Amdocs. Along with hundreds of arrested spies and a drug ring that had every US department bugged- it's amazing the FBI could just sweep it all under a rug by labeling the info as classified.
 
UnderAlienControl

UnderAlienControl

Superstar
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
8,023
Last edited:
Karlysymon

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,828
lightseeker said:
Between being ISIS


And doing 9/11
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot for this. I welled up at the end, not because of anything that he said at the end but I guess because of all the thoughts swirling in my head. It gave me A LOT to think about but for now, all I can say is that there’s something very very wrong with the Israeli Right, notably Likud. At the 37th mark, he mentions Arnon Milchan. If you are interested, here’s alittle bit more on him.
The Movie Producer and the Israeli Nuclear Smuggling Ring


Also the contents of the video give new meaning to Bush’s statement: “terrorists hate our freedoms”.
 
Karlysymon

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,828
TempestOfTempo

TempestOfTempo

Superstar
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
8,111
Karlysymon said:
I don't understand why KSA would allow this when they know full well they are on the list to be destabilized. I guess that since they know they cannot avoid destabilization, they could aswell as go along with these demands.
Click to expand...
The KSA shot callers in power at the moment likely feel that they are sufficiently on-board with the destabilizers agenda. So much so that they suffer from the self-imposed illusion of not being disposable themselves......
 
Karlysymon

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,828
The Experts on Iran who show up on our news networks, most of them jewish or connected to a "jewish" think tank such as WINEP or JINSA.

The Systemic Problem Of “Iran Expertise” In Washington
"Moreover, around half of the Iran experts based at think tanks in DC could not read, write, or speak Persian at the time of my fieldwork. And a similar number had never once stepped foot inside Iran. One research assistant working at a prominent think tank told me how, as someone who reads Arabic, he would read Persian language news articles aloud for another research assistant who could only speak (but not read) Persian. The two of them together would “translate” Iranian news articles for his boss, an expert who works on the Middle East and comments on Iran frequently.

Regardless of their background or training, these experts have been called upon by US government officials, the media, and different interest groups to testify as analysts on nearly all aspects of Iran: from its complex governmental structure to its regional policies, oil production capabilities, nuclear technology, modern history, social dynamics, and the intricacies of Shi‘i jurisprudence.

As one of my DC interlocutors put it to me: “Can you imagine someone claiming to be an expert on France? Like all of France? Its history, culture, politics, etc. And then imagine this person cannot even speak French or has never visited France.” And yet, this is precisely what is accepted as Iran expertise in the nation’s capital. One expert—who has never formally studied Iran, does not understand Persian, has never been to the country, nor has any technical expertise on nuclear technology—was called upon five times to testify before Congress as an expert witness on Iran between 2014 and 2015.

Meanwhile, those analysts who can offer well-researched, in-depth, and specialized assessments of Iran are often ignored in Washington as “too esoteric,” or worse, vilified as “regime apologists.” As an Iranian-American analyst who consistently works on the periphery of the DC establishment explained to me, “say anything nuanced about Iran, and you are immediately [accused of being] a mouthpiece for the Ayatollahs.”

Revelations in June that the State Department had been funding internet trolls to defame pro-peace Iranian-American voices through the “Iran Disinformation Project” further demonstrates the extent to which the debate on Iran has been intentionally skewed toward confrontation in Washington."


This one is alittle dated, from 2002
US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy
"Although these three privately-funded organisations promote views from only one end of the political spectrum, the amount of exposure that they get with their books, articles and TV appearances is extraordinary.

The Washington Institute, for example, takes the credit for placing up to 90 articles written by its members - mainly "op-ed" pieces - in newspapers during the last year.

Fourteen of those appeared in the Los Angeles Times, nine in New Republic, eight in the Wall Street Journal, eight in the Jerusalem Post, seven in the National Review Online, six in the Daily Telegraph, six in the Washington Post, four in the New York Times and four in the Baltimore Sun. Of the total, 50 were written by Michael Rubin.

Anyone who has tried offering op-ed articles to a major newspaper will appreciate the scale of this achievement.

The media attention bestowed on these thinktanks is not for want of other experts in the field. American universities have about 1,400 full-time faculty members specialising in the Middle East.
Of those, an estimated 400-500 are experts on some aspect of contemporary politics in the region, but their views are rarely sought or heard, either by the media or government.

"I see a parade of people from these institutes coming through as talking heads [on cable TV]. I very seldom see a professor from a university on those shows," says Juan Cole, professor of history at Michigan University, who is a critic of the private institutes.

"Academics [at universities] are involved in analysing what's going on but they're not advocates, so they don't have the same impetus," he said.
"The expertise on the Middle East that exists in the universities is not being utilised, even for basic information.

At a time when much of the world is confused by what it sees as an increasingly bizarre set of policies on the Middle East coming from Washington, to understand the neat little network outlined above may make such policies a little more explicable."
___________________________________
As Philip Giraldi said: These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.
___________________________________________
As Giuliani Calls for Regime Change in Iran, Netanyahu Raises the Specter of “War”

1572460684742.png

Bibi at the Warsaw conference this year.
 
Last edited:
TempestOfTempo

TempestOfTempo

Superstar
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
8,111
Karlysymon said:
The Experts on Iran who show up on our news networks, most of them jewish or connected to a "jewish" think tank such as WINEP or JINSA.

The Systemic Problem Of “Iran Expertise” In Washington
"Moreover, around half of the Iran experts based at think tanks in DC could not read, write, or speak Persian at the time of my fieldwork. And a similar number had never once stepped foot inside Iran. One research assistant working at a prominent think tank told me how, as someone who reads Arabic, he would read Persian language news articles aloud for another research assistant who could only speak (but not read) Persian. The two of them together would “translate” Iranian news articles for his boss, an expert who works on the Middle East and comments on Iran frequently.

Regardless of their background or training, these experts have been called upon by US government officials, the media, and different interest groups to testify as analysts on nearly all aspects of Iran: from its complex governmental structure to its regional policies, oil production capabilities, nuclear technology, modern history, social dynamics, and the intricacies of Shi‘i jurisprudence.

As one of my DC interlocutors put it to me: “Can you imagine someone claiming to be an expert on France? Like all of France? Its history, culture, politics, etc. And then imagine this person cannot even speak French or has never visited France.” And yet, this is precisely what is accepted as Iran expertise in the nation’s capital. One expert—who has never formally studied Iran, does not understand Persian, has never been to the country, nor has any technical expertise on nuclear technology—was called upon five times to testify before Congress as an expert witness on Iran between 2014 and 2015.

Meanwhile, those analysts who can offer well-researched, in-depth, and specialized assessments of Iran are often ignored in Washington as “too esoteric,” or worse, vilified as “regime apologists.” As an Iranian-American analyst who consistently works on the periphery of the DC establishment explained to me, “say anything nuanced about Iran, and you are immediately [accused of being] a mouthpiece for the Ayatollahs.”

Revelations in June that the State Department had been funding internet trolls to defame pro-peace Iranian-American voices through the “Iran Disinformation Project” further demonstrates the extent to which the debate on Iran has been intentionally skewed toward confrontation in Washington."


This one is alittle dated, from 2002
US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy
"Although these three privately-funded organisations promote views from only one end of the political spectrum, the amount of exposure that they get with their books, articles and TV appearances is extraordinary.

The Washington Institute, for example, takes the credit for placing up to 90 articles written by its members - mainly "op-ed" pieces - in newspapers during the last year.

Fourteen of those appeared in the Los Angeles Times, nine in New Republic, eight in the Wall Street Journal, eight in the Jerusalem Post, seven in the National Review Online, six in the Daily Telegraph, six in the Washington Post, four in the New York Times and four in the Baltimore Sun. Of the total, 50 were written by Michael Rubin.

Anyone who has tried offering op-ed articles to a major newspaper will appreciate the scale of this achievement.

The media attention bestowed on these thinktanks is not for want of other experts in the field. American universities have about 1,400 full-time faculty members specialising in the Middle East.
Of those, an estimated 400-500 are experts on some aspect of contemporary politics in the region, but their views are rarely sought or heard, either by the media or government.

"I see a parade of people from these institutes coming through as talking heads [on cable TV]. I very seldom see a professor from a university on those shows," says Juan Cole, professor of history at Michigan University, who is a critic of the private institutes.

"Academics [at universities] are involved in analysing what's going on but they're not advocates, so they don't have the same impetus," he said.
"The expertise on the Middle East that exists in the universities is not being utilised, even for basic information.

At a time when much of the world is confused by what it sees as an increasingly bizarre set of policies on the Middle East coming from Washington, to understand the neat little network outlined above may make such policies a little more explicable."
___________________________________
As Philip Giraldi said: These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.
___________________________________________
As Giuliani Calls for Regime Change in Iran, Netanyahu Raises the Specter of “War”

View attachment 26994

Bibi at the Warsaw conference this year.
Click to expand...
We need to ban this corrupt charlatan from ever returning to US soil.......
 
Thunderian

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
If Hillary had been elected, the US and Iran would already be at war. Iran is behind multiple attacks on US forces in Iraq, including the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, and the rocket attacks on American troops at the Baghdad airport that just happened, so if Trump really wanted to go to war, he would have no problem justifying it. The fact that the US and Iran are not at war yet says something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top