@ishamid: well, I never took Duff very seriously. They remind me of how Sabrosky claimed that he had proof that Mossad was behind 911. Except that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and there is zero evidence here.
Of course, I cannot know for sure anything about Assange, but my strong gut feeling is that he is 100% real.
Pardon me if it seems like I am horning in, but here is my take on Assange. I tried to post this on a previous thread, but it somehow got lost in the Big Bit Bucket in the Sky.
I do NOT think Assange is a conscious agent for anybody. I think he really believes that he is doing good. The problem is, that he is an egomaniac, smoking his own dope, which makes him a useful idiot.
Think of the stuff that got leaked. Most of it was diplomatic gossip, and merely confirmed what most informed people already knew anyway. I, for one, learned nothing fundamentally new from any of this material.
Remember the “tracks of MICE” I spoke about earlier? I see it here. In Assange’s case, it is Ego that is the hook. There is no need to actively recruit a man like him, when his own big ego will induce him to do what you want anyway.
Duff’s rant seemed to be light on substance. Assanges’s sincerity in what he believes in I don’t doubt, but the issue as to whether wikileaks is or was to some extent coopted I am not qualified to say. So I take Assange at his word for now that he he is who he seems to be.
On another front: How did you like Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb? I’m surprised Wile E Coyote and an “ACME” logo did not come with it, lol. In any case, I think the man has finally jumped the shark on this one…
Duff’s rant seemed to be light on substance. Assanges’s sincerity in what he believes in I don’t doubt, but the issue as to whether wikileaks is or was to some extent coopted I am not qualified to say. So I take Assange at his word for now that he he is who he seems to be.
On another front: How did you like Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb? I’m surprised Wile E Coyote and an “ACME” logo did not come with it, lol. In any case, I think the man has finally jumped the shark on this one…
@Everybody: Pardon me if it seems like I am horning in
PLEASE DO! Consider that this blog has a standing invitation for comments, even off-topic ones. (The only thing a ban here is advertisements).
@Michael: Think of the stuff that got leaked. Most of it was diplomatic gossip, and merely confirmed what most informed people already knew anyway
Yes, and that is consistent with the low level classification (confidential, secret and top-secret) of the cables. Contrary to what these labels sound like, only fairly trivial stuff gets classified so low.
Why does everybody think Assange is some kind of plant or idiot? Just because Wikileaks leaked nothing about Israel? there is simple explanation to that too: a) stuff critical of Israel is a career-killer b) most of it would be classified MUCH higher c) a lot of that would be happening OUTSIDE the normal channels (remember of Office of Special Plans for ex.).
I see no reasons to suspect Assange of anything, including no reasons to think that he is being used.
@ishamid:How did you like Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb?
Yup, he sure is one bloodthirsty SOB… But at least this time around it will be clear on whose behalf the USA is going to war. Sure, the war on Iraq was also on behalf of Israel, but this time the lobbying is even more visible.
I almost posted Bibi’s speech here just to make sure everybody would see how insane that man is, but then I just assumed you all saw it too.
First we had Powell shaking his little bottle with flour/sugar inside, now we have Bibi drawing 19th century type bombs. I can’t imagine what they will come up with next….
Didn’t Duff claim Assange and Manning were homosexual lovers despite the fact the 2 have never meet?
Frankly I think Duff is a clown who also made the statement that Murdoch was Jewish and an Israeli citizen and everything like all the Muslim reporters/bloggers claim is a Zionist/Jewish conspiracy including the Ambassador killed in Libya.
“Think of the stuff that got leaked. Most of it was diplomatic gossip, and merely confirmed what most informed people already knew anyway. I, for one, learned nothing fundamentally new from any of this material”
That’s because the cables were restricted but not classified based on a network where 250,000 people had access to the cables and even then the western media would self censor and only print cables that suited their agenda like as Assange said in his interview with the Ecuadorian president The Guardian would not print the cable that exposed the off shore holdings of pro western President in Ukraine.
People were complaining about Israel but what I wanted to see that you would expect to be in the cables is terrorist trafficking in Turkey and into the Caucasus, the Balkans and The Hague Tribuneral and the Oligarchs with Mentap bank(YUKOS) and Boris Berezovsky.
The real problem is not Wikileaks but the 9/11 “truth” movement that no one really seems to question that hinders any real investigation of 9/11 or even asking the most basic logical and simple questions which unfortunately VINEYARDSAKER seems to follow like Thermite used in the collapse of the Twin Towers.
@VINEYARDSAKER
I’m surprised you haven’t post the video of the Neocon think tank implying that the US should set up a situation in which it will force Iran to retaliate and be used to start a war with Iran citing various historical examples although not 9/11.
Wikileaks corroborated an Obama war crime. But note that ABC also corroborated it.
In December 2009 upon Yemen, days before the Underpants bomber got on a plane (in direct? retaliation?) for Detroit, Obama used cruise missles packed with cluster bombs killing dozens of women and children.
Here is the Amnesty International article which tells of cables released by Wikileaks that corroborate the evidence of the US role in the cluster bomb war crime.
Here is ABC boasting about the airstrikes and naming “White House officials” as ABC’s source for the story. Their boast came the day after the missle strike.
ABC could have played the role of Wikileaks in corroborating Amnesty International’s work and ABC could have pushed for an investigation. As best as I can tell ABC immediately went black on the subject after their initial and singular news item.
ABC vs Wikileaks. One promotes the Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex line and is silent on US war crimes. One is a conduit for White House sources the other is persecuted.
(Someone may want to comment on the sheeple language used in the ABC broadcast, for example, “an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned”.)
One more note. The White House is supposed to cover it’s legal behind and they hadn’t done their homework. Obama tried to have the Yemen government take responsibility for the attack. I believe this lie was necessary because the US had not yet designated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as a “foreign terrorist organization”.
A conveniently back-dated document was filed with the Federal Register weeks AFTER the cruise missle attacks making the aforementioned designation. But I believe (am not a lawyer) THAT designation is not legally in force until the filing.
I like Roberts. It is all too rare to find a high-ranking government official who is willing to turn his back on the establishment and tell the truth, no matter what the personal cost. Roberts is one of these people.
@Saker: “Yes, I like Roberts too but I do notice that he turned against the establishment after he retired. I wish somebody did that before…”
Ah, that opens up a completely separate (and very large) topic.
It is a topic I have studied for most of my adult life. That is: “What do you do, when it dawns on you that a regime or organization you have loyally served for years, is either corrupt, or evil to the core?”
That is not such a simple thing to answer. I have studied every scrap of material about the Nazi rise to power and subsequent misrule I can get my hands on, and have done so since I was a teenager. I was obsessed with the question, “How could people of good will and genuine decency end up supporting such a monstrous regime?”
This excerpt from Milton Mayer’s “They Thought They Were Free” gives as good a summary as any of how the most civilized society in Continental Europe at the time could become ponerized:
So, what do you do, when you are up to your eyeballs in a regime, and conclude that it is corrupt and/or evil? Do you resign or retire, and speak out as a private citizen, like Roberts, Catherine Fitts and others? Do you stay, and (at the risk of your own life) try to sabotage it from within, as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris or Klaus von Stauffenberg tried to do? Do you take Solzhenitsyn’s advice, live quietly, and at least resolve to tell no lies – “Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me”?
I don’t have a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to that question. I can only say that any of the above approaches are more honorable than selling your soul to the Devil, running interference for psychopaths like Netanyahu, stoking the coals for nuclear war and persecuting decent scholars who try to tell the truth. That is what Walter Russell Mead does at his blog site. I imagine he must have a hard time living with himself. He is as wide as he is tall, and he must weigh at least 300 pounds. These are not the outward signs of a man a peace with his conscience.
I am not sure Paul Roberts could have done anything different or more effective than he is now doing. To the best of my knowledge, he neither committed nor participated in any official crimes during his tenure in office, and he has publicly spoken out against those he has become aware of. If 3% of Americans would do 3% of what Roberts has done, Americans would no longer recognize their country.
I found this article in spanish…I think the writer is cuban. Anyway Obama said in a speech in UN that a red line has to be drawn towards Iran. I found a very interesting article. Sorry I am in a hurry and I just copied and past in google..can make a better translation.
Jorge Gomez Barata
(I)
Israelis and Americans have not only drawn a “red line” for Iran, but have put an ultimatum. Only they know where the limit has been drawn and where they want to extent the conflict. Known the rush of Israel, all depends on the commitment of U.S. military capabilities and the Persian state. When arms speak any appeal to diplomacy is idle. Moreover, those who in good faith assume that Iran is not seeking nuclear bomb, wonder why exposure for something that is not wanted. While the Persian state, though at great cost, can harm Israel, can not hope to prevail in a military confrontation with the U.S., the Zionist state and NATO, which could only make the Soviet Union which, to sustain undertook strategic parity in an arms race that left her exhausted. The attack on Iran requires the transfer from Europe, Asia and the United States aircraft carrier, submarines, surface ships and battle orders deployment in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean seas, the Caspian and Arabian as well as the Indian Ocean and the basification aviation and bombing attack in Israel, Turkey, Gulf countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of North Africa and the former Soviet territories of Central Asia. Although a considerably smaller scale, Iran has few friends and no military ally, without leaving its territory, will do the same about their opponents. In the United States and its companions, the operation involves two main aspects: attack Iran and defend Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will surely be the subject of the Iranian reply. This is primarily air defense, and antisubmarine anticoheteril. With its forces and means, in addition to attacking Iran must protect its population, its military and civilian facilities more sensitive (especially nuclear and oil). Although there may be actions previously isolated and restricted unleash aggression United States, Israel and their allies will attack with everything and from all directions, but surely the concentrations of troops, naval bases and military airfields, as well as command and control centers priority targets cover the entire depth attack Iranian territory from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea and from the borders with Armenia and Azerbaijan to the Pakistan and Afghanistan. Naturally nuclear facilities, especially those for the enrichment of uranium, are prime targets. The Gulf War, which involved some 2,500 aircraft, more than half of them Americans, who in five weeks yielded about 100 000 tons of bombs, gives an idea of the scale of the operation to be prepared and for which the countdown may have begun. Yet none of the conflicts in which the United States has participated has used the ability to launch missiles from its territory from bases in Europe. There’s always a first time. However, inasmuch as the Red Line has two sides, Iran’s response can also be fatal, not least because no one knows exactly what weapons has not shown nor to the best of its determination.
@Michael, Jorge & Lurker: I am pressed for time right now. Will get back to all your points on Tuesday, God willing. (Jorge, no worry, I am fluent in Spanish). Cya on Tue.!
@Michael: How could people of good will and genuine decency end up supporting such a monstrous regime?”
That is also a question which I have asked myself very often. I used to be very naive about that, in particular during the bad old days of the Cold War when I myself was very much of the Western “system”, loyal, brainwashed and terribly ignorant. Then, I began to meet my supposed enemies (folks from Communist or Socialist countries) more and more often and they just did not fit the image I had of them at all. Eventually, the war in Bosnia really opened my eyes to the realities of the Empire. And since I was not good at not speaking my mind, my career crashed. Then I met even more people, people who opened my eyes to a very disturbing reality: the percentage of good people is, I think, roughly the same everywhere regardless of the ideology which these people believe in. This, in turn, suggests to me that most people do not really choose the ideology they end up embracing, but that they simply go with what is around them, at elast in most cases.
@Jorge: no doubt in my mind at all. The attack on Iran will happen.
@Anonymous Lurker: weird. I don’t know for sure who the guy in the middle is, but the guy on the right is that sorry SOB of Bernard Henri Levi, the “philosopher” who ordered France to attack Libya. One of the most disgusting people in Europe, for sure.
@anonymous:NICE!! Visually well done, and it did put a big smile on my face.
Alas, in real life this is not realistic, at least in my opinion. For one thing, the animation seems to suggest that not only would Hezbollah push back the IDF but it would hold the ground taken. That, in my opinion, and to my great regret, is not possible. Hezbollah is a *FANTASTIC* insurgency, a world-class resistance and liberation force, but that does not AT ALL translate into the ability to go on the offense, engage a powerful mechanized military, and then hold ground.
Consider this: the number one tactic of Hezbollah is NOT TO PRESENT A TARGET and then, attack from all sides with small units. This is not how you defeat an armored brigade. Also, to hold territory you have to present a target, and as soon as Hezbollah presents a target, you can count in the Israelis to unleash a tsunami of fire upon it.
Before 2006 Hezbollah had *years* to prepare the terrain in which in fought. That will not be the case in Israel.
I could give you many many many more reasons why I do not believe that Hezbollah can free Galilee from the Zionist occupation, believe me.
This animation is, however, an excellent way to scare the shit out of the Israelis who are mostly cowards and who will over-react to any Hezbollah special force which would be introduced into Galilee.
Create panic, disrupt IDF operations and create chaos, these are, I believe, realistic goals for the Resistance. Ideally, infiltrating Hebrew-speaking units in IDF uniforms would probably create a total freakout on the Israeli side who would soon “see” Hezbollah fighters even where there are none :-)
Assange is the darling of the leftist Western media, a quasi Che Guevara, he has been given more air time than just about any dissident ever has.
It’s just too contrived to be taken seriously, if he was a genuine threat he’d have been dead a long time ago, his appearance on RT just about seals it.
Definately shades of Anatoliy Golitsyn and the new left.
A Macedonian CIA asset came out (fearing for his life) with fantastic intel and even produced pictures of Karadzic’s changed image years before his capture and even mentioned he was protected by 4 US secret service agents and not one Western media outlet ran the story.
I saw that clip on tv … But there are those like Gordan Duff who think it’s all a game:
http://goo.gl/oK5AG
Go figure.
Peace
@ishamid: well, I never took Duff very seriously. They remind me of how Sabrosky claimed that he had proof that Mossad was behind 911. Except that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and there is zero evidence here.
Of course, I cannot know for sure anything about Assange, but my strong gut feeling is that he is 100% real.
What is your take on Duff and Assange?
Pardon me if it seems like I am horning in, but here is my take on Assange. I tried to post this on a previous thread, but it somehow got lost in the Big Bit Bucket in the Sky.
I do NOT think Assange is a conscious agent for anybody. I think he really believes that he is doing good. The problem is, that he is an egomaniac, smoking his own dope, which makes him a useful idiot.
Think of the stuff that got leaked. Most of it was diplomatic gossip, and merely confirmed what most informed people already knew anyway. I, for one, learned nothing fundamentally new from any of this material.
Remember the “tracks of MICE” I spoke about earlier? I see it here. In Assange’s case, it is Ego that is the hook. There is no need to actively recruit a man like him, when his own big ego will induce him to do what you want anyway.
OK, now it’s Ishamid’s turn!
Duff’s rant seemed to be light on substance. Assanges’s sincerity in what he believes in I don’t doubt, but the issue as to whether wikileaks is or was to some extent coopted I am not qualified to say. So I take Assange at his word for now that he he is who he seems to be.
On another front: How did you like Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb? I’m surprised Wile E Coyote and an “ACME” logo did not come with it, lol. In any case, I think the man has finally jumped the shark on this one…
Peace
Duff’s rant seemed to be light on substance. Assanges’s sincerity in what he believes in I don’t doubt, but the issue as to whether wikileaks is or was to some extent coopted I am not qualified to say. So I take Assange at his word for now that he he is who he seems to be.
On another front: How did you like Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb? I’m surprised Wile E Coyote and an “ACME” logo did not come with it, lol. In any case, I think the man has finally jumped the shark on this one…
Peace
@Everybody: Pardon me if it seems like I am horning in
PLEASE DO! Consider that this blog has a standing invitation for comments, even off-topic ones. (The only thing a ban here is advertisements).
@Michael: Think of the stuff that got leaked. Most of it was diplomatic gossip, and merely confirmed what most informed people already knew anyway
Yes, and that is consistent with the low level classification (confidential, secret and top-secret) of the cables. Contrary to what these labels sound like, only fairly trivial stuff gets classified so low.
Why does everybody think Assange is some kind of plant or idiot? Just because Wikileaks leaked nothing about Israel? there is simple explanation to that too: a) stuff critical of Israel is a career-killer b) most of it would be classified MUCH higher c) a lot of that would be happening OUTSIDE the normal channels (remember of Office of Special Plans for ex.).
I see no reasons to suspect Assange of anything, including no reasons to think that he is being used.
@ishamid:How did you like Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb?
Yup, he sure is one bloodthirsty SOB… But at least this time around it will be clear on whose behalf the USA is going to war. Sure, the war on Iraq was also on behalf of Israel, but this time the lobbying is even more visible.
I almost posted Bibi’s speech here just to make sure everybody would see how insane that man is, but then I just assumed you all saw it too.
First we had Powell shaking his little bottle with flour/sugar inside, now we have Bibi drawing 19th century type bombs. I can’t imagine what they will come up with next….
Didn’t Duff claim Assange and Manning were homosexual lovers despite the fact the 2 have never meet?
Frankly I think Duff is a clown who also made the statement that Murdoch was Jewish and an Israeli citizen and everything like all the Muslim reporters/bloggers claim is a Zionist/Jewish conspiracy including the Ambassador killed in Libya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4l79ES2yLg
@Michael
“Think of the stuff that got leaked. Most of it was diplomatic gossip, and merely confirmed what most informed people already knew anyway. I, for one, learned nothing fundamentally new from any of this material”
That’s because the cables were restricted but not classified based on a network where 250,000 people had access to the cables and even then the western media would self censor and only print cables that suited their agenda like as Assange said in his interview with the Ecuadorian president The Guardian would not print the cable that exposed the off shore holdings of pro western President in Ukraine.
People were complaining about Israel but what I wanted to see that you would expect to be in the cables is terrorist trafficking in Turkey and into the Caucasus, the Balkans and The Hague Tribuneral and the Oligarchs with Mentap bank(YUKOS) and Boris Berezovsky.
The real problem is not Wikileaks but the 9/11 “truth” movement that no one really seems to question that hinders any real investigation of 9/11 or even asking the most basic logical and simple questions which unfortunately VINEYARDSAKER seems to follow like Thermite used in the collapse of the Twin Towers.
@VINEYARDSAKER
I’m surprised you haven’t post the video of the Neocon think tank implying that the US should set up a situation in which it will force Iran to retaliate and be used to start a war with Iran citing various historical examples although not 9/11.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-washington-think-tank-the-us-should-provoke-iran-into-taking-the-first-shot/
Well, here, score one for Julian.
Wikileaks corroborated an Obama war crime.
But note that ABC also corroborated it.
In December 2009 upon Yemen, days before the Underpants bomber
got on a plane (in direct? retaliation?) for Detroit,
Obama used cruise missles packed with cluster bombs
killing dozens of women and children.
Here is the Amnesty International article which tells of
cables released by Wikileaks that corroborate the evidence
of the US role in the cluster bomb war crime.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen-2010-12-01
Here is ABC boasting about the airstrikes and naming “White
House officials” as ABC’s source for the story. Their boast
came the day after the missle strike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcg3TNSRPs
(You might want to keep a downloaded copy of this video.)
It is interesting to contrast the ABC broadcast with
alJazerra’s made at nearly the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHyHWXEpFXw&feature=player_embedded
ABC could have played the role of Wikileaks in
corroborating Amnesty International’s work and ABC
could have pushed for an investigation. As best as I can tell ABC
immediately went black on the subject after their
initial and singular news item.
ABC vs Wikileaks. One promotes the Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex line and is silent
on US war crimes. One is a conduit for White House sources
the other is persecuted.
(Someone may want to comment on the sheeple language used in
the ABC broadcast, for example, “an imminent attack against
a U.S. asset was being planned”.)
One more note. The White House is supposed to cover it’s legal behind and they hadn’t done their homework. Obama tried to have
the Yemen government take responsibility for the attack. I believe this lie was necessary because the US had not yet designated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as a “foreign terrorist organization”.
A conveniently back-dated document was filed with the Federal Register weeks AFTER the cruise missle attacks making the
aforementioned designation. But I believe (am not a lawyer) THAT
designation is not legally in force until the filing.
http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/ida-arabian-also-jihad-74650022
“Orders from federal agencies or the Executive Branch do not become effective until they have been published in the Federal Register.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+Register
Here is Paul Craig Roberts on Iran and Assange:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/29/how-the-governments-lies-become-truth/
I like Roberts. It is all too rare to find a high-ranking government official who is willing to turn his back on the establishment and tell the truth, no matter what the personal cost. Roberts is one of these people.
Yes, I like Roberts too but I do notice that he turned against the establishment after he retired. I wish somebody did that before…
@Saker: “Yes, I like Roberts too but I do notice that he turned against the establishment after he retired. I wish somebody did that before…”
Ah, that opens up a completely separate (and very large) topic.
It is a topic I have studied for most of my adult life. That is: “What do you do, when it dawns on you that a regime or organization you have loyally served for years, is either corrupt, or evil to the core?”
That is not such a simple thing to answer. I have studied every scrap of material about the Nazi rise to power and subsequent misrule I can get my hands on, and have done so since I was a teenager. I was obsessed with the question, “How could people of good will and genuine decency end up supporting such a monstrous regime?”
This excerpt from Milton Mayer’s “They Thought They Were Free” gives as good a summary as any of how the most civilized society in Continental Europe at the time could become ponerized:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
So, what do you do, when you are up to your eyeballs in a regime, and conclude that it is corrupt and/or evil? Do you resign or retire, and speak out as a private citizen, like Roberts, Catherine Fitts and others? Do you stay, and (at the risk of your own life) try to sabotage it from within, as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris or Klaus von Stauffenberg tried to do? Do you take Solzhenitsyn’s advice, live quietly, and at least resolve to tell no lies – “Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me”?
I don’t have a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to that question. I can only say that any of the above approaches are more honorable than selling your soul to the Devil, running interference for psychopaths like Netanyahu, stoking the coals for nuclear war and persecuting decent scholars who try to tell the truth. That is what Walter Russell Mead does at his blog site. I imagine he must have a hard time living with himself. He is as wide as he is tall, and he must weigh at least 300 pounds. These are not the outward signs of a man a peace with his conscience.
I am not sure Paul Roberts could have done anything different or more effective than he is now doing. To the best of my knowledge, he neither committed nor participated in any official crimes during his tenure in office, and he has publicly spoken out against those he has become aware of. If 3% of Americans would do 3% of what Roberts has done, Americans would no longer recognize their country.
Saker
I found this article in spanish…I think the writer is cuban. Anyway Obama said in a speech in UN that a red line has to be drawn towards Iran. I found a very interesting article. Sorry I am in a hurry and I just copied and past in google..can make a better translation.
Jorge Gomez Barata
(I)
Israelis and Americans have not only drawn a “red line” for Iran, but have put an ultimatum. Only they know where the limit has been drawn and where they want to extent the conflict. Known the rush of Israel, all depends on the commitment of U.S. military capabilities and the Persian state. When arms speak any appeal to diplomacy is idle.
Moreover, those who in good faith assume that Iran is not seeking nuclear bomb, wonder why exposure for something that is not wanted. While the Persian state, though at great cost, can harm Israel, can not hope to prevail in a military confrontation with the U.S., the Zionist state and NATO, which could only make the Soviet Union which, to sustain undertook strategic parity in an arms race that left her exhausted.
The attack on Iran requires the transfer from Europe, Asia and the United States aircraft carrier, submarines, surface ships and battle orders deployment in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean seas, the Caspian and Arabian as well as the Indian Ocean and the basification aviation and bombing attack in Israel, Turkey, Gulf countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of North Africa and the former Soviet territories of Central Asia. Although a considerably smaller scale, Iran has few friends and no military ally, without leaving its territory, will do the same about their opponents.
In the United States and its companions, the operation involves two main aspects: attack Iran and defend Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will surely be the subject of the Iranian reply. This is primarily air defense, and antisubmarine anticoheteril. With its forces and means, in addition to attacking Iran must protect its population, its military and civilian facilities more sensitive (especially nuclear and oil).
Although there may be actions previously isolated and restricted unleash aggression United States, Israel and their allies will attack with everything and from all directions, but surely the concentrations of troops, naval bases and military airfields, as well as command and control centers priority targets cover the entire depth attack Iranian territory from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea and from the borders with Armenia and Azerbaijan to the Pakistan and Afghanistan. Naturally nuclear facilities, especially those for the enrichment of uranium, are prime targets.
The Gulf War, which involved some 2,500 aircraft, more than half of them Americans, who in five weeks yielded about 100 000 tons of bombs, gives an idea of the scale of the operation to be prepared and for which the countdown may have begun. Yet none of the conflicts in which the United States has participated has used the ability to launch missiles from its territory from bases in Europe. There’s always a first time.
However, inasmuch as the Red Line has two sides, Iran’s response can also be fatal, not least because no one knows exactly what weapons has not shown nor to the best of its determination.
Hi Saker, a tangent from the Assange topic…
I can’t find any other photos to corroborate this pic – anyone seen what he looks like elsewhere online?
Photo: “Innocence of Muslims” director Nakoula Basseley Nakoula at a table with slain US diplomat in Libya Chris Stevens
http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=350818
@Michael, Jorge & Lurker: I am pressed for time right now. Will get back to all your points on Tuesday, God willing. (Jorge, no worry, I am fluent in Spanish). Cya on Tue.!
The Saker
@Michael: How could people of good will and genuine decency end up supporting such a monstrous regime?”
That is also a question which I have asked myself very often. I used to be very naive about that, in particular during the bad old days of the Cold War when I myself was very much of the Western “system”, loyal, brainwashed and terribly ignorant. Then, I began to meet my supposed enemies (folks from Communist or Socialist countries) more and more often and they just did not fit the image I had of them at all. Eventually, the war in Bosnia really opened my eyes to the realities of the Empire. And since I was not good at not speaking my mind, my career crashed. Then I met even more people, people who opened my eyes to a very disturbing reality: the percentage of good people is, I think, roughly the same everywhere regardless of the ideology which these people believe in. This, in turn, suggests to me that most people do not really choose the ideology they end up embracing, but that they simply go with what is around them, at elast in most cases.
@Jorge: no doubt in my mind at all. The attack on Iran will happen.
@Anonymous Lurker: weird. I don’t know for sure who the guy in the middle is, but the guy on the right is that sorry SOB of Bernard Henri Levi, the “philosopher” who ordered France to attack Libya. One of the most disgusting people in Europe, for sure.
Sorry for the short replies today!
Cheers,
The Saker
OT Possible future in which China turns out to be Uncle Sam’s nemesis
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-it-could-happen-part-one-hubris.html
http://www.english.moqawama.org/uploaded1/essaysimages/big/2012/09/jalel_995x650%20_en.swf
@anonymous:NICE!! Visually well done, and it did put a big smile on my face.
Alas, in real life this is not realistic, at least in my opinion. For one thing, the animation seems to suggest that not only would Hezbollah push back the IDF but it would hold the ground taken. That, in my opinion, and to my great regret, is not possible. Hezbollah is a *FANTASTIC* insurgency, a world-class resistance and liberation force, but that does not AT ALL translate into the ability to go on the offense, engage a powerful mechanized military, and then hold ground.
Consider this: the number one tactic of Hezbollah is NOT TO PRESENT A TARGET and then, attack from all sides with small units. This is not how you defeat an armored brigade. Also, to hold territory you have to present a target, and as soon as Hezbollah presents a target, you can count in the Israelis to unleash a tsunami of fire upon it.
Before 2006 Hezbollah had *years* to prepare the terrain in which in fought. That will not be the case in Israel.
I could give you many many many more reasons why I do not believe that Hezbollah can free Galilee from the Zionist occupation, believe me.
This animation is, however, an excellent way to scare the shit out of the Israelis who are mostly cowards and who will over-react to any Hezbollah special force which would be introduced into Galilee.
Create panic, disrupt IDF operations and create chaos, these are, I believe, realistic goals for the Resistance. Ideally, infiltrating Hebrew-speaking units in IDF uniforms would probably create a total freakout on the Israeli side who would soon “see” Hezbollah fighters even where there are none :-)
Thanks for the link!!
Assange is the darling of the leftist Western media, a quasi Che Guevara, he has been given more air time than just about any dissident ever has.
It’s just too contrived to be taken seriously, if he was a genuine threat he’d have been dead a long time ago, his appearance on RT just about seals it.
Definately shades of Anatoliy Golitsyn and the new left.
A Macedonian CIA asset came out (fearing for his life) with fantastic intel and even produced pictures of Karadzic’s changed image years before his capture and even mentioned he was protected by 4 US secret service agents and not one Western media outlet ran the story.
But Assange farts and it makes headlines.