• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel engaged in covert war inside Iran: report

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
11,655
Reaction score
3,612
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Israel engaged in covert war inside Iran: report - Yahoo! News
LONDON (Reuters) – Israel is involved in a covert war of sabotage inside Iran to try to delay Tehran's alleged attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, a British newspaper said on Tuesday, quoting a former CIA agent and intelligence experts.

An intelligence source in the Middle East told Reuters last year Israel planned to target Iranian nuclear scientists with letter bombs and poisoned packages and had set off explosions in Iran. Analysts offered similar accounts and said such tactics would be credible, but no confirmation has been available.

And what about all the ones that the Israeli secret operatives don't get caught or blamed for? I assume our western media will portray it as a terrorist element of Iran vying for control no matter what.

This article is creepy. If Iran was trying to nuke the world that would be scary. If their leader was telling the truth and they where only pursuing it for energy purposes then this is even scarier.
 
I have no idea as to whether Iran is trying to build a Nuclear weapon and I suspect neither does anyone else other than the Iranians.
However we have seen that Iran does openly support both Hezbollah and Hamas and that these two entities have been designated as being Terrorist groups (IMHO quite correctly).
Iran has openly called for the destruction of Israel and recently Turkey is hosting groups that also call for this.
Israel as any other nation is fully entitled to defend itself from attack, if taking the fight to the enemy's backyard is required than I see no reason why this should be discouraged.
Israel must be aware that there are some 30,000 Jews holding Iranian citizenship and that these folk may well be held hostage.
 
If this is true, it would not surprise me. Israel takes Iranian nuclear development the most seriously, even over the United States. If so, they will do whatever it takes to curb nuclear development. My main concern is, if Iran is actually just pursuing an innocuous energy policy, Israel could antagonize them into actually making nuclear weapons out of revenge. If the CIA knows about this operation, then Iranian intelligence definitely knows.

I still think Iran's economy matters more to it than war though.
 
Israel absolutely has to take action now with Obama being elected. If it doesn't it may be forced into using nuclear weapons in order to defend itself.


Isreal can no more rely on Obama then US soldiers can.
 
If i was Iran, i'd be stocking up on weapons just in case.
 
If i was Iran, i'd be stocking up on weapons just in case.
Yes. Because, if left alone, Israel will...
...do nothing.
 
Israel engaged in covert war inside Iran: report - Yahoo! News


And what about all the ones that the Israeli secret operatives don't get caught or blamed for? I assume our western media will portray it as a terrorist element of Iran vying for control no matter what.

This article is creepy. If Iran was trying to nuke the world that would be scary. If their leader was telling the truth and they where only pursuing it for energy purposes then this is even scarier.

That is scary. People need to wake up to this.
 
Both Iran and Israel scare the crap out of me.

Israel has nukes and might elect a far far right fascist religious nationalist government.

Iran is run by a bunch of religious nutjobs who are funding world wide terror (and have since the 1980s), and possibly working on a nuke.

Not sure which of the 2 would be more inclined to use a nuke, both are probably insane enough to do it.
 
Both Iran and Israel scare the crap out of me.

Israel has nukes and might elect a far far right fascist religious nationalist government.

Iran is run by a bunch of religious nutjobs who are funding world wide terror (and have since the 1980s), and possibly working on a nuke.

Not sure which of the 2 would be more inclined to use a nuke, both are probably insane enough to do it.

Israel would definately use them in the event of a possible attack from Iran. Iran would use them if they knew they worked.
 
Israel would definately use them in the event of a possible attack from Iran. Iran would use them if they knew they worked.

I sure hope not. We be close to the end of the world.

Using nuclear weapons is beyond insane. Any nation, Israel or Iran, using nukes, will go down in history along side Hitler. The amount of damage and collateral damage will be felt all around the world.

The areas nuked will be unliveable for generations, the people damaged for generations. The winds will take the fallout across the planet, over land making food for billions and cause mass starvation and death.

If you think that Israel nuking Iran or visa versa wont have environmental impact on the US.. think again. Even the fall out from Chernobyl reached the US.
 
Israel engaged in covert war inside Iran: report - Yahoo! News


And what about all the ones that the Israeli secret operatives don't get caught or blamed for? I assume our western media will portray it as a terrorist element of Iran vying for control no matter what.

This article is creepy. If Iran was trying to nuke the world that would be scary. If their leader was telling the truth and they where only pursuing it for energy purposes then this is even scarier.

Yeah right, next you're gonna tell me the sky's blue!
 
I sure hope not. We be close to the end of the world.

Using nuclear weapons is beyond insane. Any nation, Israel or Iran, using nukes, will go down in history along side Hitler. The amount of damage and collateral damage will be felt all around the world.

The areas nuked will be unliveable for generations, the people damaged for generations. The winds will take the fallout across the planet, over land making food for billions and cause mass starvation and death.

If you think that Israel nuking Iran or visa versa wont have environmental impact on the US.. think again. Even the fall out from Chernobyl reached the US.

That's why I feel that it is important to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the fate of more than the middle east is at stake.
 
I sure hope not. We be close to the end of the world.
hardly.

Using nuclear weapons is beyond insane. Any nation, Israel or Iran, using nukes, will go down in history along side Hitler.
Anyone... like Truman?

The amount of damage and collateral damage will be felt all around the world.
The areas nuked will be unliveable for generations, the people damaged for generations. The winds will take the fallout across the planet, over land making food for billions and cause mass starvation and death.
That depends -entirely- on how many nukes are used.

If you think that Israel nuking Iran or visa versa wont have environmental impact on the US.. think again. Even the fall out from Chernobyl reached the US.
The US and USSR tested nukes for decades. Some of them where very big and very dirty. What environmental impact was there on the US?
 
Last edited:
I sure hope not. We be close to the end of the world.

Using nuclear weapons is beyond insane. Any nation, Israel or Iran, using nukes, will go down in history along side Hitler. The amount of damage and collateral damage will be felt all around the world.

The areas nuked will be unliveable for generations, the people damaged for generations. The winds will take the fallout across the planet, over land making food for billions and cause mass starvation and death.

If you think that Israel nuking Iran or visa versa wont have environmental impact on the US.. think again. Even the fall out from Chernobyl reached the US.

Looking up Chernobyl babies is enough to make anyone never want a nuke used.

English Russia » More Chernobil
My Chernobyl Adventure Part 2: The dirty bomb details
 
I sure hope not. We be close to the end of the world.
nukes come in all ranges of power. A bombs are significantely less destructive than H bombs.

Using nuclear weapons is beyond insane.
At the current rate of proliferation it seems inevitable that they will be used in a future conflict.

Any nation, Israel or Iran, using nukes, will go down in history along side Hitler.
the US didn't, much to your chagrin I'm sure.

The amount of damage and collateral damage will be felt all around the world.
depends on the weapon, weather, and geography.

The areas nuked will be unliveable for generations, the people damaged for generations. The winds will take the fallout across the planet, over land making food for billions and cause mass starvation and death.
then why didn't this doomsday happen in 1945? That's right, because those nuclear weapons weren't very powerful. I doubt Israel would drop bombs to annihilate itself in the process, buts it possible if Iran were to attempt a total destruction of Israel. Afterall Israel did prep such weapons to be used on Egypt via trucks during their conflict as a saftey precaution.
 
hardly.

Anyone... like Truman?

The nukes used in Japan were small compared to a modern nuke. But the ramifications are still felt today in the cities nuked. There are still being born deformed babies and the survivors still suffer from the after effects. And Truman will forever be remembered as the only leader to use a nuke on human beings. When I think of Truman, I dont think of him as a great leader than won WW2, but as the man who nuked Japan to end WW2.

That depends -entirely- on how many nukes are used.

And size... and where... and what winds there are at the time...

The US and USSR tested nukes for decades. Some of them where very big and very dirty. What environmental impact was there on the US?

Who knows. Seriously, you expect the government of the US, USSR, Britain, France and China to admit that their nuclear testing (above ground) had environmental effects on civilian areas, let alone in the areas they nuked?

Why take nuclear testing underground if there was no environmental problems? Last US above ground nuke was in 1962, last US nuke test in 1992.. why go underground? The Russians did the same. As did the Brits, French and Chinese?

I aint saying that there will be environmental damage to the US, but I am saying that there is a real possibility depending on size, where and when (wind wise) any nuclear explosion in Iran or Israel above ground. Chernobyl, a non explosion, covered most of Europe (to Southern France) with fallout and we are still seeing the impact of that today. Odd animal births (2 heads, 3 legs and so on) are just some of the issues that have been recorded in countries close to Ukraine.

But regardless that, the environmental damage to the region will impact the US financially, especially on the oil front. Remember Europe can live with high oil prices far better than the US can, as we have seen when oil was 130+ dollars a barrel. Thats not saying we will be immune though. As for the enviormental damage to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and onwards, the whole Gulf region not to mention Eastern Europe and Northern Africa could easily be effected. We are talking about a very large portion of the worlds population.

But it all depends on wind, size and where.. and amount.
 
Israel engaged in covert war inside Iran: report - Yahoo! News


And what about all the ones that the Israeli secret operatives don't get caught or blamed for? I assume our western media will portray it as a terrorist element of Iran vying for control no matter what.

This article is creepy. If Iran was trying to nuke the world that would be scary. If their leader was telling the truth and they where only pursuing it for energy purposes then this is even scarier.

All major world powers have extensive espionage services. Its as paramount if not more than having a strong military. To think that these clandestine services perform act in virtuous and law abiding manners is to be truly detached from reality. Though, some are much more wiling to take drastic measures than others. Israel is no exception, in fact the Mossad are known to be both quite merciless and vicious yet undeniably effective.



As for Iran's nuke"uller" program I suspect they intend to be in a position where sometime in the future they can easily turn their "peaceful program" into a full blown arms program. All they need is the right stimulus and propaganda as justification. Then they will blame others for "forcing" them to make weapons to "defend" their peace loving selves. E.G. US aggression or israeli nukes, or [insert excuse here].

Times running out Europe. Your children will ask why you were so blind to the obvious dangers of nuclear proliferation.
 
the US didn't, much to your chagrin I'm sure.

The US wrote the history books, what you expect. But had someone nuked the US, and the US wrote the history books... then you bet that the person would be on the same level as Hitler.
 
Truman will forever be remembered as the only leader to use a nuke on human beings.
How many people died from firebombing tokyo?

When I think of Truman, I dont think of him as a great leader than won WW2, but as the man who nuked Japan to end WW2.
of course YOU don't. You are far to anti-american to render worthy opinions on anything American. But I'm sure you know that, as well as most on this board, already.

Who knows. Seriously, you expect the government of the US, USSR, Britain, France and China to admit that their nuclear testing (above ground) had environmental effects on civilian areas, let alone in the areas they nuked?
not for propaganda purposes as you would like, no. The US has paid civilians in the Marshall Islands for their suffering. Perhaps you should look into what reparations have been made instead of whining about events that you know little about.
 
The US wrote the history books, what you expect. But had someone nuked the US, and the US wrote the history books... then you bet that the person would be on the same level as Hitler.
So Spanish history books compare truman to Hitler?

Stick a fork in it, you're done.
 
So Spanish history books compare truman to Hitler?

Stick a fork in it, you're done.

That's not what he's saying at all.

He's saying that if someone nuked the US, Americans would equate that person to Hitler.

And since many Americans equate Osama bin Laden and his 3,000 some-odd deaths to Hitler (which is nothing compared to either Truman bombing, or Hitler for that matter), I'm sure they would.
 
That's not what he's saying at all.

He's saying that if someone nuked the US, Americans would equate that person to Hitler.

So Japanese history books regard Truman as a Hitler?



And since many Americans equate Osama bin Laden and his 3,000 some-odd deaths to Hitler (which is nothing compared to either Truman bombing, or Hitler for that matter), I'm sure they would.
And they would be wrong.

There's a clear distinction in the goals and means by wish the two men kill civilians that causes different labeling of their actions: terrorism vs genocide.
 
So Japanese history books regard Truman as a Hitler?



And they would be wrong.

There's a clear distinction in the goals and means by wish the two men kill civilians that causes different labeling of their actions: terrorism vs genocide.

Isn't using atom bombs to make someone comply by scaring them into submission terrorism? The Japanese attacked military targets. We attacked cities.

Right now they are trying to kick out one of our nuclear ships out of their harbor as we speak. They are very sensitive about it.
 
So Spanish history books compare truman to Hitler?

Stick a fork in it, you're done.

I dunno never read a Spanish history book, since I aint spanish. But I have read British, American, Danish and translated ones from other languages, and like most western history books, Truman is not vilified for killing 220000 people in 2 shots. What he did is justified in history books because it was to stop a war that cost millions of lives. They also do not glorify Truman for doing it. In fact the real good ones actually tell the story of him having a hard time making up his mind to use the nukes.

Now if another person of lets say, the enemy, was responsible for 220000 deaths, do you not think that he would be characterized as a villain in some way? Most Axis "atrocities" during WW2 are today seen as that, atrocities, and the people involved are vilified. But we were the victors, and hence wrote the history books. If the Nazi's had won, then those acts would not have been mentioned in that light (if at all). See my point?

Another great example is one I came over just the other day. You know the island of Diego Garcia right? Did you know that the island was inhabited when the British leased the island to the US for military reasons. The US demanded that the population was removed and the Brits forced them off. On top of that the people were denied British citizenship, despite being kicked off a British island... that has since been reversed thanks to legal action in the UK. Point is, where is that in our history books? And while we all agree that when Stalin forcefully displaced people, when Mao did so, or when other "enemies" did so, then it was bad.. but when the UK, US or other "allies" did it, then it is okay?

Killing 220000 people in an instant is a horrible thing, regardless of who and why, but Truman is not put in that light is he now? Because the west wrote the history books and it was accepted that the instant death of 200000 people was some how acceptable. But Saddam killed 200000 people and is not exactly seen in the same view as Truman is he? Saddam was at war too. How about the allies bombing Dresden and killing 40000 people in one night. Not even the German's managed to kill that many in one night over the UK, but we don't think that the tactic of the USAF and RAF over Dresden was bad.. was war after all. But it is widely accepted that when the German's bombed London and other cities, it was almost a war crime.

Or how about how American history books and movies portrait the Indian wars. The Indians massacred the white man and were bad, and the US Army was good and noble. Custer is a hero, yet he lost, not to mention, his actions were not exactly what I would call noble.. unless you think killing women and children is a good thing. Yet the Indians were for many decades seen as the "bad guys" and savages.. but of course they lost in the end and the US won.

As I said, the victor writes the history and loser becomes the villain.
 
Isn't using atom bombs to make someone comply by scaring them into submission terrorism? The Japanese attacked military targets. We attacked cities.
The US military is a terrorist organization just like Osama's. No differences. Terrorism is terrorism no matter the intent, rationale, or circumstances :roll:

Right now they are trying to kick out one of our nuclear ships out of their harbor as we speak. They are very sensitive about it.
we've had issues with our military personnel and their civilians that flamed this uproar. That and not all Japanese are happy with the US having military at their country (as can be expected). Overall relations appear strong, nonetheless.
 
Back
Top Bottom