Is Israel planning unilateral nuclear attack on Iran starting in December

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Below is a cogent argument that Israel is planning just that:

Is it a Conspiracy Theory or simply an informed view of a likely scenario? Certainly it contains many hallmarks of a conspiracy theory such as:
Secret planning
Speculation derived from known facts
Interpretations involving 'reading between the lines'

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article37585.html
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I do not see any need to remove my original questions as to whether people feel this falls under 'conspiracy theories' or simply 'a cogent argument'.

Also "Given that much of Iranian nuclear infrastructure is deep under ground (under a mountain), limited Israeli ground forces may also be deployed, or tactical nuclear missiles used to vaporise deep under ground infrastructure" may well be characterised as 'a brief mention' but lets be honest, this is the main thrust of the whole thing, all the preceding is merely a prologue.

 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
I do not see any need to remove my original questions as to whether people feel this falls under 'conspiracy theories' or simply 'a cogent argument'.
I think it qualifies as a cogent argument, although perhaps a very weak one. I find it's similar to arguing that Kennedy forced the Cuban missile crisis because he secretly wanted to nuke the USSR. What evidence is there that the purpose of Israel’s current military posturing is for anything other than protecting itself from local threats such as rocket attacks?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do not see any need to remove my original questions as to whether people feel this falls under 'conspiracy theories' or simply 'a cogent argument'.

Also "Given that much of Iranian nuclear infrastructure is deep under ground (under a mountain), limited Israeli ground forces may also be deployed, or tactical nuclear missiles used to vaporise deep under ground infrastructure" may well be characterised as 'a brief mention' but lets be honest, this is the main thrust of the whole thing, all the preceding is merely a prologue.
Sorry, I've put that back. I mistakenly removed it when I removed your cut-and-paste of the entire article. It would be helpful if you use
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Sorry, I've put that back. I mistakenly removed it when I removed your cut-and-paste of the entire article. It would be helpful if you use
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think it qualifies as a cogent argument, although perhaps a very weak one. I find it's similar to arguing that Kennedy forced the Cuban missile crisis because he secretly wanted to nuke the USSR. What evidence is there that the purpose of Israel’s current military posturing is for anything other than protecting itself from local threats such as rocket attacks?
Take your pick, there is loads out there:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57551572/israel-using-gaza-as-warm-up-round-for-iran/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2012/nov/04/israel-bombed-iran-nuclear-plants

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../9654122/Inside-Israels-nuclear-wargames.html

http://rense.com/general83/irwar.htm
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There is a lot of conjecture 'out there' on the use of tactical nukes by Israel, probably because it would be the only viable way of having any military affect on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure which is obviously the end goal and I think 'the logical progression and possible conclusions' were being explored. Lets face it how many times do they need to mention nuclear attack in the article, it kinda stands out.
Stands out? It basically renders everything else in the article moot.

Anyway, yes there is talk about such a use. I don't think this particular article, by some investment advisor, is really adding much. I don't think it's really a conspiracy theory either.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's where the attacks would be:



20 miles north of Qom, a holy city of a million people, and just 60 miles from Tehran. I think things would have to get incredibly crazy before the use of nukes near there would be seen as a net gain. Saying there's a 40% probability of it happening seems like vastly over-stating the case.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Here's where the attacks would be:



20 miles north of Qom, a holy city of a million people, and just 60 miles from Tehran. I think things would have to get incredibly crazy before the use of nukes near there would be seen as a net gain. Saying there's a 40% probability of it happening seems like vastly over-stating the case.
I hope with all my heart that you are right and I am wrong Mick.

It just seems to me there will be no alternative if a war resolution is followed and it seems we are getting further down that path. The only good thing is we haven't reached the point of no return yet IMO.

However, it has definitely started and even has a name, "Pillar of Cloud" or "Pillar of Defence"
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...rages-palestinian-rocket-attacks-2498810.html

Images of what is happening:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=O...zNPGY1AXOtICwAw&ved=0CEsQsAQ&biw=1000&bih=617
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I hope with all my heart that you are right and I am wrong Mick.

It just seems to me there will be no alternative if a war resolution is followed and it seems we are getting further down that path. The only good thing is we haven't reached the point of no return yet IMO.

However, it has definitely started and even has a name, "Pillar of Cloud" or "Pillar of Defence"
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...rages-palestinian-rocket-attacks-2498810.html

Images of what is happening:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=O...zNPGY1AXOtICwAw&ved=0CEsQsAQ&biw=1000&bih=617
What has started? When he wrote the article Hamas were firing rockets on Jerusalem, and tanks were massing on the border. Israel last invaded Gaza (for the same reasons) in 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War so this is hardly the culmination of some prophecy.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
Take your pick, there is loads out there:
I don't see any evidence that troop movements on the Gaza border are a planned and deliberate precursor to an attack, nuclear or otherwise, against Iran.

Talking head David Ignatius is certainly not arguing this in the CBS report. He said some people are floating a theory that an invasion of Gaza might be a necessary precursor to an attack on Iran. He never identifies these people or how likely they believe that scenario to be true. I think that is the very definition of the word "speculation". The threat of a conventional strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities was a possibility long before the recent televised war games simulation and the current flexing on the Gaza border.

The Rense posting is my favourite. It's a bizarre narrative whose premise is that since Israel lost 50 tanks in it's previous offensive into Lebanon, the only option for future attacks against Lebanon would be the use of a neutron bomb or an FAE! This would prompt "Arabs" to release designer super viruses and rain dirty bombs all over the place. The end result would be an irradiated middle east, a billion dead worldwide, and 50% chance of total global war. Fascinating stuff.

Of course, before invading Lebanon again, the Israelis could always fit their tanks with some basic protection against anti-tank missiles and insure commanders adhere to the common practices of tank warfare. This might reduce tank losses and prevent the use of neutron bombs and uber viruses.:rolleyes:
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I don't see any evidence that troop movements on the Gaza border are a planned and deliberate precursor to an attack, nuclear or otherwise, against Iran.


The Rense posting is my favourite. It's a bizarre narrative whose premise is that since Israel lost 50 tanks in it's previous offensive into Lebanon, the only option for future attacks against Lebanon would be the use of a neutron bomb or an FAE! This would prompt "Arabs" to release designer super viruses and rain dirty bombs all over the place. The end result would an irradiated middle east, a billion dead worldwide, and 50% chance of total global war. Fascinating stuff. .:rolleyes:
Yep, I agree that appears a highly sensationalised outlook/assessment but in fairness this is a conspiracy thread.

It does seem OTT but it does also have a serious point in that, if this attack does escalate to include Iran, (and Israel has made no bones about what it would 'like to do' and how it would like U.S backing), how is that going to impact in the area.

Syria may well decide to become involved, (as in the past) and undoubtedly Russia has serious if tenuous interests in the area. China? I don't have any idea what there position is.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
I'm not an armchair general or weekend diplomat so I don't know what Syria is likely to do or what motivates China. It seems the threat of an attack on Iran's reactors has a historical precedent. They did it before in Iraq and Syria regardless of what was happening in Gaza at the time. Suggesting the likely use of nuclear weapons by either side is beyond ridiculous to me.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm not an armchair general or weekend diplomat. It seems the threat of an attack on Iran's reactors has a historical precedent. They did it before in Iraq and Syria regardless of what was happening in Gaza at the time. Suggesting the likely use of nuclear weapons by either side is beyond ridiculous to me.
Neither am I. I'm simply interested in what goes on in the world and how it fits into my view of right and wrong and all areas between. It's simply my view and I appreciate others hold different views. I'm not even saying 'my view is right' and often I hope it isn't. I am willing to change my views if credible evidence shows I have it wrong.

"It seems the threat of an attack on Iran's reactors has a historical precedent. They did it before in Iraq and Syria regardless of what was happening in Gaza at the time."

Yes they did but that is not comparable because the facilities were not protected by being deep under a mountain.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/826/the-attack-on-syrias-al-kibar-nuclear-facility

Also I love the symbology of 'Osiris' class reactor and Operation 'Babylon'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

It cannot be ignored however that Korea has nuclear capability and has not been attacked. How is that inconsistency reconciled.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
It cannot be ignored however that Korea has nuclear capability and has not been attacked. How is that inconsistency reconciled.
OK... so maybe I'll pretend to be a diplomat.

I would argue that nuclear weapons are a political bargaining chip and everyone knows that actually using them does not lead to any practical advantages. WWII being the exception where only one country had the bomb. Maybe Israel wants to deny Iran the political advantage that possessing a nuke would give them. If there was any actual advantage to using nukes, I believe India, Pakistan, China, N Korea, Israel, the US or the former USSR would have done so long ago.

I don't know why N Korea's nuclear program was not bombed. Perhaps the US thought Kim Jong Il was just too bat shit crazy and didn't want to risk a conventional war in s. Korea. Perhaps China had something to do with it. (I'm assuming you weren't asking why Israel didn't attack N. Korea's nuclear facilities)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Everyone who has nuclear weapons has plans for using them.

It cannot be ignored however that Korea has nuclear capability and has not been attacked. How is that inconsistency reconciled.
It can be ignored if you want to ignore it, and NK hasn't got any politicians (AFAIK) who have said they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Iran hasn't been attacked either.

Also war tends to be bilateral - "a" vs "b" - what "c" did in completely different circumstances half a world away with "d" may or may not be simlar - but does not have to be any sort of precedent if "a" doesn't want it to be.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
OK... so maybe I'll pretend to be a diplomat.

I would argue that nuclear weapons are a political bargaining chip and everyone knows that actually using them does not lead to any practical advantages. WWII being the exception where only one country had the bomb. Maybe Israel wants to deny Iran the political advantage that possessing a nuke would give them. If there was any actual advantage to using nukes, I believe India, Pakistan, China, N Korea, Israel, the US or the former USSR would have done so long ago.

I don't know why N Korea's nuclear program was not bombed. Perhaps the US thought Kim Jong Il was just too bat shit crazy and didn't want to risk a conventional war in s. Korea. Perhaps China had something to do with it. (I'm assuming you weren't asking why Israel didn't attack N. Korea's nuclear facilities)
So you and I can at least agree this is about political manoeuvrings. That means the whole 'argument' over whether or not a sovereign state, (the cradle of civilisation no less), should be 'allowed' to have nuclear armaments, let alone nuclear reactors, is complete BS. Sounds like a conspiracy to me but I could be wrong.

So what is it really about?

Oil?

Regime change?

NWO?

Religion?

Just asking!
 

SR1419

Senior Member
It cannot be ignored however that Korea has nuclear capability and has not been attacked. How is that inconsistency reconciled.
It might be because NK already has nuclear weapons with clearly stated intention of using them should they be so provoked...(see "deterence")

Whereas Iran supposedly doesn't have them yet and supposedly isn't trying to get them.

The idea being attacking the facilities might hinder or prevent their development.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
So you and I can at least agree this is about political manoeuvrings.
Sure, why not. Political manoeuvring and serious military action in the interest of self preservation... this motivates both sides.

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a bunch of players, each acting in their own self interest. Sometimes the players find their interests align, and sometimes they don't.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Sure, why not. Political manoeuvring and serious military action in the interest of self preservation... this motivates both sides.

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a bunch of players, each acting in their own self interest. Sometimes the players find their interests align, and sometimes they don't.
Ok, so are you saying its all about securing your own best interests and the ends justify the means?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It might be because NK already has nuclear weapons with clearly stated intention of using them should they be so provoked...(see "deterence")

Whereas Iran supposedly doesn't have them yet and supposedly isn't trying to get them.

The idea being attacking the facilities might hinder or prevent their development.
NK hasn't always had nuclear weapons, it is very recent so sorry but that argument doesn't fly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699

What has the international community done about the programme?
Multiple rounds of negotiations have taken place between the North, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.
In September 2005, after more than two years of on-off talks, North Korea agreed a landmark deal to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions.
But implementing the deal proved extremely difficult and the talks stalled in April 2009 over the issue of whether North Korea was fully disclosing its nuclear assets.
In July 2011, contact began again between the US and North Korea aimed at restarting the talks.
Less than six months later, North Korea's long-time leader Kim Jong-il died. He was succeeded by his son, the young and inexperienced Kim Jong-un.
In February 2012 North Korea suddenly announced it had agreed to suspend nuclear activities. It also said it was placing a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Its reward would be food aid from the US.
But that deal has now been suspended following Pyongyang's 13 April 2012 rocket launch.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
Ok, so are you saying its all about securing your own best interests and the ends justify the means?
I think trying to describe what "it's all about" is near impossible. People have written volumes and only touched on a few issues regarding the middle east.

I think it's safe to say that some people want more land. Others want their land back. For some it's a very real religious concern. Others use religion as a pretext. They all want a better life and when diplomacy fails, they're willing to kill to get it, or to preserve it. Hasn't this been the case of all conflicts throughout history?

You don't need the existence of a NWO to make sense of why Israel is threatening to move into Gaza.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think you assumed your imaginary 'diplomat status' very well. It is a very cogent answer if we limit it to the Gaza situation but if we look at it in a wider more long term view, that would require a much more in depth analysis.

But you are right, volumes have been written and still the problem persists.

All I can say is, from a personal point of view, I see no justification to the level of force being used against an unarmed population and a poorly armed militia.

Israel has historically taken more and more land, ostensibly to act as a buffer zone, to which end that appears successful.

What has been created is a massive 'open prison camp' and we are seeing the put down of that rebellion using overwhelming force.

Obviously the people in there are unhappy and will protest at their perceived persecution, (at being put in a prison camp).

Significantly, the mortar attacks on Israel are as a response to assassinations of Hamas' leaders by Israel.

The motor attacks have resulted in 3 Israeli deaths. I don't condone that but it does not justify the murder of hundreds of civilians and the destruction of Gaza for all it's inhabitants.

Even the Nazi's in occupied Paris did not wreak that level of retribution for attacks by the French Resistance.

I see it as on a par to what is happening in Syria.

I see it as hypocrisy that 'the west', who are supposed to be 'the good guys' do not condemn it in the same way.

This is the effect of the mortar shells fired at Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2011

Typically, they cause no damage, often even landing in their own area.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
So you and I can at least agree this is about political manoeuvrings. That means the whole 'argument' over whether or not a sovereign state, (the cradle of civilisation no less), should be 'allowed' to have nuclear armaments, let alone nuclear reactors, is complete BS. Sounds like a conspiracy to me but I could be wrong.

So what is it really about?

Oil?

Regime change?

NWO?

Religion?

Just asking!

I think it's really about a pre emptive strike. Any time I see NWO or religion mentioned (assuming "religion" means some kind of prophecy) for some reason I see some people salivating over the thought.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I
Significantly, the mortar attacks on Israel are as a response to assassinations of Hamas' leaders by Israel.
well that is rubbish - they have been going on all year - not that this is an argument about right or wrong - just about debunking that particular piece of false information.


The motor attacks have resulted in 3 Israeli deaths.
5 now - a soldier and civilian were killed recently

I don't condone that but it does not justify the murder of hundreds of civilians and the destruction of Gaza for all it's inhabitants.

Even the Nazi's in occupied Paris did not wreak that level of retribution for attacks by the French Resistance.
GODWINS LAW!!

and of course also completely wrong:

But they did in Czechoslovakia, in Italy, in Greece

This is the effect of the mortar shells fired at Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2011

Typically, they cause no damage, often even landing in their own area.
so it is OK to shoot at Israel as long as you don't actualy manage to do much damage, and only kill 1 schoolboy when you hit a school bus with an anti-tank missile? Or a man checking on his 9 month pregnant wife? Or a 56 year old sitting in his appartment?

the "kill ratio" was heavily one-sided in 2011 with many more Palestinians being killed than Israelis - which makes one wonder at eth sanity of continuing random rocket attacks against an enemy that you KNOW is going to retaliate "in kind" but with much higher lethality.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
GODWINS LAW!!

and of course also completely wrong:

But they did in Czechoslovakia, in Italy, in Greece
Thank you for alerting me to 'the guidline' known as Godwins law. I was unaware of it.

It appears to be aimed at being a deterent to ad hominem attacks. This certainly wasn't how I used it. In fact I was very respectful of Trigger Hippie's 'cogent argument', with which I was in full agreement.

I simply attempted to widen the scope of the very civil debate and added my personal opinion, which is hardly an 'original thought' but simply a widely held view with which I agree.

so it is OK to shoot at Israel as long as you don't actualy manage to do much damage, and only kill 1 schoolboy when you hit a school bus with an anti-tank missile? Or a man checking on his 9 month pregnant wife? Or a 56 year old sitting in his appartment?

the "kill ratio" was heavily one-sided in 2011 with many more Palestinians being killed than Israelis - which makes one wonder at eth sanity of continuing random rocket attacks against an enemy that you KNOW is going to retaliate "in kind" but with much higher lethality.[/QUOTE]

Amnesty International have IMHO, forcefully and articulately set out what they think the 'bigger issues' are and I agree with them.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-...eli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So when is the U.S. backed, Zionist attack going to start?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...e-for-not-striking-iran-2012-12#ixzz2Gjuln4Sf






 
Top