Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 60 MINUTES: Why Ex-Mossad Chief Is Speaking Out

Posted 8 years ago on March 12, 2012, 3:01 a.m. EST by Reneye (118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Wow....Its either sour grapes, or propaganda has reached new heights.




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

He just does not want to see Israel destroyed, as is the same for most Israelis. Probably doesn't want to see world war three between the US, Russia and China triggered.

US military and intelligence officers came out with a similar message in a full page ad in the Washington Post recently warning Obama against a war on Iran.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

He didn't say anything that we didn't know before. Really, really.

[-] -1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Well, GF, technically that is quite correct - but what matters is how he was saying it! So if it can come out then we must might be able to find the way out e.g. by dissoving the Zionist State and creating a new Israelo-Palestine state that does NOT recognize a religious qualification for proper citizenship!

If this were done Palestinians could get their redress - and Iran be forced to put up or shut up!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

No, it doesn't matter how he was saying it. Israel has always been back and forth with Iran depending on whom is running the show. Why? Because they are not Arabs, they are Persians. Thus, it would be easier to work with the other outsiders.

Further, we have already discussed elsewhere on this forum that the US and Israel is still appealing to a rather small group in Iran in an attempt to overthrow their government.

No two party state. Israel will not be dissolved. No division.

[-] 0 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

By "Israel will not be dissolved" I presume you mean the existing Zionist state relations i.e. that Palestinians (both Israeli Arabs & Occupied Territory Palestinians) will continue to be heavily exploited and discriminated against.

WW3 - here we come!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You are making the assumption that WW3 hasn't happened yet simply because it isn't happening on our soil.

[-] 2 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

By "our soil" I would presume you would be referring to the whole Earth. But the reasons leading to WW3 stretch over many decades - indeed at least from WW1.

If by "our soil" you mean the long-ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, I would not yet call it WW3, not until either the N-weapons fly or the USA invades Iran in force. Or do you mean something else by "our soil"?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

I am telling you that your count is off by what has already transpired in the ME even by their count. Especially by their (the countries in the ME) count.

[-] 0 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

I am mystified by what you mean by "your count is off".

Do you mean the numbers of people killed in the I/P conflict or the ME in toto in the last 1 year or .....60 years???? I am not from the USA so you may be using jargon I am unfamiliar with. So unless you explain your words I have no idea as to what you are referring to by "count is off" and "our soil."

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

How many countries need to be involved before you call it a WW?

Edited for: You fail to take into account the region. In doing so, you neglect much that is involved.

[-] 2 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Aah! Now I think I see what you mean. When a country is heavily involved in war it is easy for its citizens to imagine WW3 has already begun. I'd understand an Iraqi for thinking this in the last decade - with something over 1,000,000 dead and ongoing strife!

To have a World War one needs the involvement of the major world powers and/or the outbreak of nuclear war. The retrospective decision as to the time of outbreak of a particular war can be hard to calculate - but this is unlikely. The entry of one major power will tend to bring others in on its side e.g. the USA would bring in Britain, Australia etc., the entry of China bring in Russia and the Central Asian Republics - and vice versa.

WW2's origin is easy to calculate for the West - but how does one count China's casualties, since Japan invaded China proper in 1937 but did not attack the USA until 1941. That we only count China's casualties after Pearl Harbor but not before becomes an odd and Eurocentric form of counting.

Now it may be true that survivors of WW3 writing the horror-history of the past come to date the beginning of WW3 to some yet-unspecified event that has already happened e.g. the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006, the Mavi Marmara incident or the attack on Jenin or even Sept. 11th 2001 or the attack on Iraq.

But the point is that we have not yet reached the "hot war" state - though for the relatives of those who have died in various conflicts this does not ease their pain one iota.

Numbers killed can also define what constitutes a World War. Tens of millions were killed in only 3 wars - the two World Wars and the Taiping Rebellion (10-15 m dead) but the last was a Chinese civil war so is by definition not global despite indirect foreign involvement.

Certainly a sudden strike by Iran upon Israel or Israel upon Iran in the next few months would, I suspect, constitute the trigger for hot war, a true WW.

So I would expect at least 10 countries, including at least one major power, to be involved in a significant way before a WW was declared. (The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 is hardly a world war since the Taliban only occupied the southern 3/5 of the country on Sep. 11th so were easily overrun by the "Coalition of the Wilting"!)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

nuclear weapons aren't going to solve Israel Palestine relations

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

They are purely a deterrence. No one is insane enough to use them. Except a fanatic - terrorist.

If Nuclear war happened it would be over for the world. Even if only one side loosed their arsenal - USA Russia China etc etc

Because even if most blew-up with out hitting there intended target. We would be blown into a nuclear winter and the living would wish that they had died.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Fanatic terrorist = global finance, the force behind most wars and terrorism.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

They are not fools enough to release start instigate a nuclear war.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

I see that this Israeli spymaster is on board for "regime change" in Iran in order to weaken Iran. Iranian "dissidents" are mainly patriotic and i hope that some who catch this can see that trying to overthrow the government there is to play into the hands of their country's mortal foes.


[-] -1 points by Xxantoss (-3) 8 years ago

If your country is about to be descimated by war, your last option is an atomic bomb. If Iran isn't attacked before the 'nuke' is finished than they will be impossible to safely attack. That is why no one fights back against North Korea's missile strikes. They have a big bomb and they would use it. Do not underestimate the danger of desperation. This 'Occupy' thing is simply disgusting. It is distracting people from the real issues in the world today. Give up your crys of propaganda and righteousness. You are blaming others for your own problems like children. GROW. UP. The rich don't care and your only putting working citizens out of a job when you close down their operations. It is counter-productive. The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few? Isn't that what I have seen on here, that you want socialism? THESE ARE THE REAL ISSUES! WW3 has a high possibility of starting, and you are sitting here bickering and whining about things YOU CAN'T CONTROL. Lots of the people who are rich WORKED FOR IT. Maybe if you spent more time working and less time bitching you would get money too. The majority don't care about a zionist state, the majority don't care about your hopeless organization. When I complain about you to my friends the look at me and ask 'who's occuping what?' THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU. You are all about 'the majority' so stop being hypocritical. Leave this 'occupy' thing behind. It is causing the '99%' to suffer. They lose jobs when you shut down things, they suffer because of YOUR actions. Blame the people in charge, I don't care. But at the end of the day, no matter how it happens, you made things worse... Think about that before you respond.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the US has nuclear bombs

Israel has nuclear bombs