Historic Deal Signed With Iran!

Jonny7

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Perhaps Chomsky is a loon then when he emphasizes that "it is real".

In case of emergency, cite Chomsky for some quick confirmation bias

Propaganda indeed.

No no you're absolutely right, it's an actual concrete "plan". The Israeli leadership are in the bunker, being attacked, and they all look at each other and break open the vial containing the "Samson parchment"..

-Launch a nuclear warhead at Manchester

"We must obey"

Sorry, is that a bit too Bond villain or how would it pan out?

"Take out Venice, that'll show Iran"

The Diabolical Monocle

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Maybe it still hasn't gotten through to you yet.
The samson option is a suicide protocol.

Its to be used in the case where Israel is facing inevitable defeat/massacre by an enemy army.

The concept is to take everyone they can with them, either for being the direct enemy or for not coming to Israels rescue.

Probably cause they're surrounded by Muslim countries intent on wiping them out and their civilian population would have nowhere to go, no way to escape. (much in the same way samson couldn't escape .....and so ....took the whole fvcking temple with him)

So tell me how the rest of the world is going to do fvcking anything - they have launch times of minutes.
Their army live to counter air to surface weapons, they've got the best aircraft money can buy.

You'd do well to set up a defense to nuclear weapons estimated in the hundreds.

Maybe direct quotes on the subject from *Noam Chomsky, *Mosha Dayan and military historians and professors weren't enough for you.

*Feel free to google these names, education is good.

The "sampson option" is simply another name for the strategy of assured destruction.
Would they use it if they were on the brink of defeat? They didn't during the yom kippur war. The consequences for their own people as well as their missiles targets could be too high to contemplate. In the era of smart accurate weapons are indiscriminate nuclear weapons obsolete?

The Diabolical Monocle

ronoc wrote: »

The "sampson option" is simply another name for the strategy of assured destruction.
Would they use it if they were on the brink of defeat? They didn't during the yom kippur war. The consequences for their own people as well as their missiles targets could be too high to contemplate. In the era of smart accurate weapons are indiscriminate nuclear weapons obsolete?

lol.


"The consequences for their own people as well as their missiles targets could be too high to contemplate".

There are no consequences for their people. zero. their death is imminent. thats the whole concept. samson - suicide over humiliation and defeat.
Taking the enemy with you. Its really not that hard an analogy.

They prepared 13 nukes in the Yom Kippur and blackmailed Nixon who decided not to call bullsht.

The Diabolical Monocle

wes wrote: »

Except that they have made peace with some of there neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) and the entire Arab League still have peace offer on the table, which every Israeli government has ignored since it was made. The simple fact is that successive Israeli governments are far more interested in colonizing the West Bank, than any kind of peace deal.

Entirely different subject - I dont even ....

Jonny7 wrote: »

In case of emergency, cite Chomsky for some quick confirmation bias

Or .... cite nobody and act like you know sht

No no you're absolutely right, it's an actual concrete "plan". The Israeli leadership are in the bunker, being attacked, and they all look at each other and break open the vial containing the "Samson parchment"..

-Launch a nuclear warhead at Manchester

"We must obey"

Sorry, is that a bit too Bond villain or how would it pan out?

"Take out Venice, that'll show Iran"

Well I suppose Mosha Dayan did have an eye patch.
Oh okay then, disregard the Pulitzer prize winning author and his silly internationally critically acclaimed book on Publishers weekly for 3 weeks.

Jonny7

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

There are no consequences for their people. zero. their death is imminent.

I am curious, in such a scenario, which European cities will they decide to decimate and why?

Or is this high level secret information only known to writers like Chomsky and history professors?

I presume the reason why they have such a plan is they don't want to be humming and hawing over whether to nuke Paris or Rome, it'll be written down, to save time you know

wes

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Entirely different subject - I dont even ....

Its relevant in that even if the Samson option wasn't a bluff, its not one that really matters, as Israel is in no real danger, and there government has a habit of hyping things up, to distract from there own shenanigans in the West Bank.

Also, if this was a serious option, surely every Western country would be supporting the idea of a WMD free Middle East, and not ignore Israel's nuclear arsenal every time someone brings it up.

The Diabolical Monocle

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am curious, in such a scenario, which European cities will they decide to decimate and why?

Or is this high level secret information only known to writers like Chomsky and history professors?

I presume the reason why they have such a plan is they don't want to be humming and hawing over whether to nuke Paris or Rome, it'll be written down, to save time you know

Well I have in on good word ... well lets just say don't hang around Cork too much.

Well Rome did get a mention. But thats just by some government professor guy from Jerusalem.
samson, dayan, nixon, van crevald, yom kippiur, new scientist,chomsky, professors, whatever.

The Diabolical Monocle

wes wrote: »

Its relevant in that even if the Samson option wasn't a bluff, its not one that really matters, as Israel is in no real danger, and there government has a habit of hyping things up, to distract from there own shenanigans in the West Bank.

Also, if this was a serious option, surely every Western country would be supporting the idea of a WMD free Middle East, and not ignore Israel's nuclear arsenal every time someone brings it up.

Excuse me one moment.

Zebra3

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Maybe it still hasn't gotten through to you yet.
The samson option is a suicide protocol.

Its to be used in the case where Israel is facing inevitable defeat/massacre by an enemy army.

The concept is to take everyone they can with them, either for being the direct enemy or for not coming to Israels rescue.

Probably cause they're surrounded by Muslim countries intent on wiping them out and their civilian population would have nowhere to go, no way to escape. (much in the same way samson couldn't escape .....and so ....took the whole fvcking temple with him)

So tell me how the rest of the world is going to do fvcking anything - they have launch times of minutes.
Their army live to counter air to surface weapons, they've got the best aircraft money can buy.

You'd do well to set up a defense to nuclear weapons estimated in the hundreds.

Maybe direct quotes on the subject from *Noam Chomsky, *Mosha Dayan and military historians and professors weren't enough for you.

*Feel free to google these names, education is good.

Ignoring your patronising tone, it has gotten through to me what you've posted.

I've merely pointed out that if all this is such open knowledge and taken seriously, as soon as Israel comes under any nuclear threat, there'll be at least half a dozen heavily armed nuclear states ready to join in on an attack on Israel on the basis that they (or their allies and/or oil supplies) will be attacked if they sit around to discuss what to do over a pint.

Feel free to make reply like an adult.

BuilderPlumber

wes wrote: »

Except that they have made peace with some of there neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) and the entire Arab League still have peace offer on the table, which every Israeli government has ignored since it was made. The simple fact is that successive Israeli governments are far more interested in colonizing the West Bank, than any kind of peace deal.

That is true. There tends to be a very noticeable anti-Islam attitude in Western media more often than not. Somehow, the Israelis are this nation surrounded by evil neighbours. Well, who are their neighbours?

Lebanon: a war weary nation much more interested in getting itself together. Hezbollah may hate Israel but they are not foolish enough to try an all out war on them they know they won't win. Even Hezbollah want to move on too.
Jordan and Egypt: Made peace with Israel years ago and renewed conflict with Israel is not in their interests whatsoever.
Cyprus: There you go, across the sea a little is a non-Muslim neighbour.
Syria: Yes, a bitter enemy of Israel. But Assad has other worries obviously and plans to survive if he can. The last thing he wants is war with Israel.
Iraq: Under Saddam, a bitter enemy of Israel. Now, Iraq like many other nations has too many problems of its own to solve to think much about Israel.
Iran: historically, has never had animosity with Israel. A lot of exaggerated rhetoric comes from Iran more to appease Arabs than genuine hatred in many regards. Saying nice things about Israel even in Ireland would make you very unpopular. Iran and Israel have done plenty deals to crush common enemies.
Turkey: Israel's closest Muslim ally until 2010 when Israel attacked a Turkish ship. Turkey is unlikely to go to war ever with Israel and has cooled relations more than severed them.
Libya: Gadaffi once was Israel's biggest enemy but in recent times (even under Gadaffi), Libya has posed no threat whatsoever to Israel. Again, it has other worries.
Sudan: Has harboured al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists in the past, definitely hates Israel. But, Omar al Bashir has other problems than starting wars with powerful enemies.
Afghanistan: Even at the height of the Taliban/al Qaeda era, Israel was way down the list of enemies. That regime would place the US, UK, EU, Iran, Arab states, China, Serbia, Australia and India all above Israel as their enemies. Now, Afghanistan is mired in problems and its government indifferent to Israel.
Pakistan: Does not recognise Israel. Probably again as a move to placate domestic sentiment with radicals in the country. Like Iran, Pakistan is a Persian country and needs to show they are shoulder to shoulder with Arabs. In theory, Pakistan is along with India and Israel the only Middle East country with nukes (and the only Islamic nation), but it is a moderate country under the present and recent governments. The military is not going to let any radicals hold office either.
Malaysia, Indonesia and other Muslim countries: These tend to not recognise Israel in solidarity with Palestinians but pose no threat to Israel either.
Saudi Arabia: yes, supports Hamas etc. But is not ever going to directly go to war with Israel. Like Iran, SA has to spout anti-Israel rhetoric for political purposes - in SAs case to show it is the leader of the Arab world and stands up for the Arab people. It is also the chief Islamic nation (Mecca and Medina). Other gulf states follow suit and back up SA.
Hamas/Gaza: Hamas have begun the process of transition from violent terror group to political party. Within it, there are many voices and most do not want a war with Israel they can't win. Gone are the days of Hamas suicide bombings as they no longer serve Hamas' agenda in any way. Islamic Jihad (al Qaeda's Palestinian wing) obviously remain a huge threat but even here there is division.

By and large, then, there is no real threat to Israel. All countries (inclusive of Iran) would recognise a two state solution in return for concessions. But, Israel's hawks do not want peace and solutions because that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Zebra3

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Syria: Yes, a bitter enemy of Israel. But Assad has other worries obviously and plans to survive if he can. The last thing he wants is war with Israel.

And remember part of Syria has been illegally annexed by Israel, and is being colonised, and now is having its natural resources stolen.

All against international law.

Rogue state indeed.

old_aussie

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The Saudi Arabians ain't happy with the deal either.

As for Israel bombing Iran, I'd imagine Iran would have enough firepower to hit them back hard and this would drag the Americans into it to fight Israels corner.

Israel from one side and saudia arabia from the other side attack iran.

US just feed them(Israel and SA) support if needed.

old_aussie

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Lebanon: a war weary nation much more interested in getting itself together. Hezbollah may hate Israel but they are not foolish enough to try an all out war on them they know they won't win. Even Hezbollah want to move on too.

Really, where did you get that idea from?

Maybe you should inform hezbollah, they are still calling for the destruction of Israel.

Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration", ending "any imperialist power in Lebanon", Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of the State of Israel,

old_aussie

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Iran and Israel have done plenty deals to crush common enemies.

Can you give me a link or tell me about one of these plenty deals?

And who was the common enemy.

Some history....
During the early 1980s, Iran was isolated regionally and internationally. This diplomatic and economic isolation intensified during the ran-Iraq War, In which almost all neighboring Arab states, except Syria, supported Iraq logistically and economically. According to some observers, Saddam Hussein fought on behalf of other Arab states that viewed Iran as a potential threat to their stability

BuilderPlumber

Zebra3 wrote: »

And remember part of Syria has been illegally annexed by Israel, and is being colonised, and now is having its natural resources stolen.

All against international law.

Rogue state indeed.

I think Israel have no regard whatsoever for international law. They are probably the only country who do not respect aspects of international law. I believe a blind eye is turned because they are not a state to be messed with.

When the West exaggerates the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq, by North Korea, by Iran, by Pakistan/India (yes, there was uproar from the West when both got nukes back in the 1990s!), etc., they in reality know who is the most dangerous country to tangle with. Israel!

Suppose the West and Israel's deteriorated (perhaps over renewed friendship with Iran being considered as more important than relations with Israel) and years of poor relations developed leading to conflict? That would present a very dangerous situation. Israel's leaders are all the things the West lead us to believe Saddam and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were. Plus a lot more besides. Israel could among other things:

-Launch missiles at oilfields in Arab countries and Iran, thus crucifying Western economies and those of Russia and China.
-Organise Mossad to undertake terrorist attacks.
-Launch nuclear weapons at a whole lot of European cities and at Mid East Western bases.
-Disrupt shipping in the Red Sea and Mediterranean.
-Turn Jerusalem into a Jewish only city, barring all Christians and Muslims.
-Stoke hatred between Jews, Christians and Muslims.
-Assassination of any moderate voices in Israel (of course, we have seen that happen).

etc, etc. The West are very much afraid of Israel. Without doubt, Israel would definitely be the most dangerous regime in the world today if it was cornered. The philosophy of the West is that they are rogues but they are our rogues!

BuilderPlumber

wes wrote: »

Its relevant in that even if the Samson option wasn't a bluff, its not one that really matters, as Israel is in no real danger, and there government has a habit of hyping things up, to distract from there own shenanigans in the West Bank.

Also, if this was a serious option, surely every Western country would be supporting the idea of a WMD free Middle East, and not ignore Israel's nuclear arsenal every time someone brings it up.

The very fact that Israel has this strategy to prepare nukes to destroy everyone if cornered just shows how dangerous they are. But, yes, it is a last resort. While I cannot see it happening that Israel would destroy itself along with enemies, I could see them use a nuke against some (non-oil producer) enemy if it was needed. They are too clever to nuke the likes of Iraq, Iran or the Arabian peninsula as these lands are too valuable. But they could temporarily disrupt oil supplies by using conventional weapons. Akin to Saddam's setting Kuwait's oilfields on fire.

RainMaker

I thought the stated aim of Iran's nuclear program all along was purely the supply of energy... looking at the agreement, nothing seems to have changed there, so not sure where all the talk of Iran's nukes is coming from!

Quote regarding the "agreement":

"Obama made plain in a late-night appearance at the White House after the deal was sealed that if Iran did not meet its commitments during the six-month period covered by the interim deal, Washington would turn off the tap of sanctions relief and "ratchet up the pressure".

"There are substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon," he said. "Simply put, they cut off Iran's most likely paths to a bomb."


So still no nuclear bomb for Iran, unless they make it illegally which would still be punishable

Zebra3

old_aussie wrote: »

Israel from one side and saudia arabia from the other side attack iran.

I think you need to get your atlas out.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think Israel have no regard whatsoever for international law. They are probably the only country who do not respect aspects of international law.

Nobody disregards international law more than the US.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Aidric wrote: »

Would you have a link to that doc? Haven't heard about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LovkrOC2lpk

BuilderPlumber

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody disregards international law more than the US.

I think (for better or worse!) the US and international law are one and the same. The global policeman and all that! They enforce international law but often do not obey it themselves. Israel is probably the only country in the world the US is really afraid of making an enemy of. Israel can flout international (i.e. US-enforced) law all the time and the US turns a blind eye.