This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About An Israeli Attack On Iran (But Were Afraid To Ask)

Marla Singer's picture


At least back in 2009 the most promising targets for damaging the Iranian nuclear program, specifically the weapons related development, were Plutonium production facilities (characterized primarily by the Plutonium Production Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor in Arak) and facilities critical to the "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" (most obviously the Uranium Enrichment Facility in Natanz and the Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan).  The Center for Strategic and International Studies' Abdullah Toucan released a detailed report comparing the mission requirements of strikes on these (and other) facilities with Israel's capabilities and concluded the mission was within Israel's grasp operationally.1  Normally we would call this report a "must read," but instead we've read it so you don't have to, as well as added some of our own research and secondary sources.  The report also examined the ballistic missile strike option and delved into some of the political and instability costs that an attack would extract (which we ignore for the purposes of this discussion).  Those sections are well worth reading, even if the political reality on the ground has changed since early 2009.

The Esfahan facility converts U3O8 to UF6 (Uranium Hexafloride), an interval product on the way to producing highly enriched (read: weapons grade) material.

The enrichment facility at Natanz is a gas centrifuge plant used (in theory) to process UF6 into 3-5% concentrations of U-235 for use in light water reactors (which has the unfortunate side effect of producing some 90% U-235, read: weapons grade uranium).  This is the famous underground centrifuge facility.  It isn't clear exactly how many centrifuges Iran is operating here (or elsewhere), but 1,000 is enough to produce around 20 kg of highly enriched uranium per year.  Iran admitted to the IAEA that it had 3,800 operational centrifuges here in late 2008.  About 7,000 are thought to be operating today.  Iran publicly aspires to installing 50,000 centrifuges in the Natanz facility in "the next few years."  The exact number is something of a mystery.

In addition, once operational, the Arak heavy water reactor has the potential to spit out about 8kg of weapons grade plutonium per year.  It is expected to become operational this year or in 2011, and after some warm up, would be at near full capacity to generate electricity (and plutonium) in 2013-2014.

How Much?  How Long?

The amount of fissile material required to create a nuclear weapon varies by the method of initiation.  In the case of the simple "uranium gun" (using high explosive to propel one sub-critical uranium projectile into another sub-critical uranium mass such that the total mass is super-critical) 20-25 kg of highly enriched uranium is required.  As a practical matter, more is likely to be used in a working weapon.  While the simplest design, the gun method is highly inefficient and not thought to be practical for plutonium weapons as plutonium's higher neutron emission rate means that plutonium criticality begins long before the masses meet.  Uranium has similar issues that must be overcome with sufficient uranium projectile speed.

The amount of material required for a weapon can be reduced by shifting to an implosion type weapon.  In this case, rather than using two sub-critical masses, a single sub-critical mass is squeezed together until it becomes super-critical.  High explosive is typically used, and the weaponization process is therefore complicated by the design and precision milling of high explosive around a fissile core with sufficiently symmetric detonation to squeeze the core evenly into a small mass.  Timing of multiple detonators in the high explosive around a fissile core is the key engineering challenge for these weapons, but as little as 15 kg of high enriched uranium or 6 kg of plutonium is theoretically sufficient to enable a crude implosion weapon.  Again, practical weapons will be likely to require more.

Efficiency of the reaction is a major factor in yield, and inversely proportional to weaponization development time.  Crude weapons are not likely to be efficient, and at the low end one might assume 10 kiloton yields for smaller weapons.

Bear in mind, however, that one does not have to create an actual fission weapon to cause quite a bit of trouble.  Even conventional explosives, when used to spread highly enriched material, have the potential to render wide swaths of land uninhabitable for long periods.  In this context, adding the "weaponization development" time required to design and test a working fission bomb might be a bit of wishful thinking.

Picking Targets.

The centrifuges required to produce weapons grade uranium are a particularly vulnerable part of the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly while operating, as it takes very little in the way of physical trauma to destroy one.  In addition, given their precision manufacture and the difficulty in replacing them, they are at least partially vulnerable to bottleneck and control via sanctions or embargo.  Additionally, it is highly complex to spread individual centrifuges out, meaning they are usually operated in banks of over 1,000 and "cascaded" into one another to produce more and more enriched product.  This presents a tempting, concentrated target.

Clearly, the Iranians recognize the alluring nature of the Natanz facility, given the lengths they have gone to in order to protect it.  The enrichment facilities were initially built 25 feet underground with 75 feet of dirt above concrete ceilings and walls in 2003.  Reportedly the facility was further hardened in 2006.  AAA sites now ring the area making "spot the Iranian air defenses" good sport with Google Earth.2


So we'll take 600,000 some square feet of concrete building...
and it's gone.  (Iran's Natanz facility 2003-2004)  Golf course planned in 2012!


There Goes The Neighborhood!
Air Defense Sites (probably a combination of Skyguard radar controlled
35mm and 23mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery) sprout up SE of Natanz between 2006 and 2009.


Valuable Iranian Real Estate Near Natanz
The Evolution of an Anti Air Site (probably radar controlled 35mm) 2005-2009


35mm AAA Near Natanz3

Both Arak and Esfahan are above ground, and therefore vulnerable facilities.  But even in the case of the Natanz facility, the 5,000 GBU-28 penetrating munition is likely enough to deal with even the thick earth/concrete defenses.  The issue is one of size.  At over 646,000 square feet of underground facility more than 20 would be required.  Of course, any significant losses among the strike aircraft would limit the damage.

The Limits of Iranian Air Defense?

Amusingly, Iran is rumored to have acquired 10 Pantsyr S-1E systems from Syria in 2007.  These mobile, tracked units are generally thought to be effective for critical facility protection and can be deployed in linked networks.  This is comic given what appears to be the total ineffectiveness these systems demonstrated against the Israeli attack on Syrian facilities in September of 2007.  Presently, the rumor is that the Israeli's used sophisticated jamming and/or cyber attacks on the advanced Russian weapons to blind them completely during the raid.4  It is not clear that Pantsyr systems were the only anti-air to be defending the Syrian site either.  The Pantsyr is the next generation of the SA-19 system and many anti-air systems use radar and fire control units similar to the Pantsyr's 1RS2-1E and 2RL80E units.  Potentially vulnerable also are the Russian Tor-M1 systems, of which Iran has liberally partaken.

Traditionally, the "Southern Route" for an Israeli attack (across the southern end of Jordan, into Saudi Arabia and then Iraq or Kuwait through to Iran) was discounted given the political ramifications of overflying Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.  Despite this, if the Israelis are determined to conduct the attack unilaterally, and rumors of Saudi permission for an overflight5 6 prove true (the Saudis denied this in 2009 and 2010)7 8 the only operational constraints would be the possibility of American fighter aircraft (which are the only armed aircraft flying over Iraq at present) and air defense units firing on Israeli strike groups, or Jordan picking off the plans during their short transit.  It is difficult to imagine American units firing on Israeli planes (especially since any Saudi agreement was almost certainly mediated by the U.S. State Department), making this route a potential "beg forgiveness instead of ask permission" approach.

Assuming the use of Israeli F-15E aircraft for GBU-28 delivery an attack on Natanz, Esfahan and Arak would require about 30 ground attack aircraft (a mix of F-15Es and F-16Is) and 40 anti-air defense and anti-air fighters (probably F-16Cs).  This works out to basically all of Israel's F-15E craft and a good slice of the F-16s on hand, but it is far from impossible.

Obviously, assistance from the United States would reduce the mission load, and increase the margin for error.  But will it be forthcoming?


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:02 | 437978 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

"beg forgiveness instead of ask permission" 

Israel does not ask 'permission' from anyone... ever

It does what it wants, when it wants, and calculates ITS interests alone

... the rest of the world can go to hell

(...and probably will)

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:05 | 437981 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

What country calculates anyone else's interests with any priority?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:11 | 437985 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

... not every country is a colonial settler state hell-bent on expansion under a losing demographic, Ms. Mossad.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:21 | 437994 VK
VK's picture

War is a racket, is a must read speech by the most decorated officer in US history-Smedley Butler. The only people who are going to profit if there is a war are the elite and a few corporations. When the rich argue, the poor die.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:03 | 438092 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

That's not Butler's point.  Butler's point is that he was a "gangster for capitalism".  He wasn't sent places to murder and conquer because it benefitted the government.  He went because the government's job is to benefit capitalists like Brown Brothers Harriman and United Fruit.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:20 | 438203 quintago
quintago's picture

translation of your comment: "you got it all wrong, but i'm going to continue and make the same point" .... so I can demonstrate I've read it too. 

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:29 | 437999 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

Sorry, which country are you referring to here? I can think of a dozen that fit the definition. (The UK, for example).

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:35 | 438003 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

... the colonial phase of history has largely ended (Southern Africa/India/ parts of Asia) and I have no apologia for the UK whatsoever. But your implication is everyone else is doing it - so that justifies whatever I want to do. It doesn't. That line of reasoning is a cover - and is itself highly symptomatic of apologia. It is similar to your rationale that every country looks after its own interest with the same degree of selfishness at all times. It is a static view, that is not born out by history... and again - is a cover for Israel to do whatever it wants. 

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:58 | 438028 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

Ok. Take a step back. WHAT the hell are you talking about?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:40 | 438142 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

he is pointing out the vast amount of countries that are not war machines/control freaks


my beef with American support of Isreal is the fact that America believes in seperation of church and state... so WHY does America get sucked into Isreal's holy wars??  If the Isrealies want to move to Idaho then I would support them.. but American taxpayers shouldn't give a fuck about 2000 year old 'holy' sand dunes

fight for that 'precious' dirt with your own money, souls and time...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:10 | 438215 aldousd
aldousd's picture

It's not just a holy war.  There is a lot more to it than that.

Picture this, you're born in some town, and you live next door to your grand parents and when you get to be a reasonable age you go outside to play with the neighbor kids. Then, you grow up, go to school, and when you get out on your own you get married and figure, hey, let's buy a house and start a family.  But wait! This town is an israeli settlement in the west bank, wtf do you think you're doing buying a house in the town where you grew up? That's illegal expansion of terrorist settlement, mizzle time!


Anyway, I don't really know what to say about how the israeli's got back into their territory to begin with, it doesn't seem like a really smart idea to drop a bunch of people off and say 'you've got a state now,' however, the people living there now didn't do that. They're just hanging out trying not to die.  It's the same shit you'd do, no doubt.  I also have the same kind of natural empathy for the palestinians. Not really their fault either. Shit's just foo, and that's how it is.  

My point is, it's not just a holy war. There is way more to it than that.  


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:37 | 438473 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

The first part of the solution is to get Western nations out of the equation.  That primarily means the US and its warmongering Christian Zionists goaded on by Jewish Zionists and neocons, who've highjacked this country and its military to carry out the colonial policies of their brethren in Palestine.  The collective Israeli psychosis that "everyone is out to get us" is encouraged by these same dark forces.

The Israelis are a sick people, on the verge of self-annihilation.  The last thing they need is more encouragement to continue along on their path of destruction.  Far be it from me to get in their way, because I think it's obvious how I feel by now, but the scenario that you paint is valid, though I'm not sure how people fully informed about the place where they grew up that is stolen land in the middle of a squatter colony would necessarily want to go back, if they have a soul at least.

That being said, the only solution is one state.  Zionism needs to be eradicated and buried in the graveyard of other failed colonial enterprises (there's a plot right next to South Africa's Apartheid with a nice view overlooking the valley).  Jewish Israelis need to assimilate and learn to live like Arabs if they want to remain.  This is pretty much mandatory, because when in Rome...

So this is not really that hard of a problem to resolve.  It's just that a lot of evil people don't want it to get resolved, because it'll mean an end to the gravy train, or it means the Holy Lands revert, once again, back to the savage A-rab, something white Christians can't countenance, but fuck'em, they'll get over it.  And if they don't, we'll just have to have another Crusade in another couple centuries or so, because the White Man just never seems to learn.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:53 | 438972 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

" Jewish Israelis need to assimilate and learn to live like Arabs if they want to remain."

like this?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 13:18 | 439075 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Certainly not like this:

The difference being the video you offer is propaganda, while the above video is reality.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 14:19 | 439284 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

No doubt that that little boy's behavior is reprehensible, but he and his mother do not represent an entire group of people. There are bad people all over the world, in every country. But there is an institutionalized hatred towards Jews in the Arab world, that, unless you are there to see for yourself, you just wouldn't believe. There is a difference between name calling and teaching one's children to blow themselves up to create as much civilian damage as possible, and that human destruction has after-worldly rewards. You can glorify that all you want, but unless you have been there, understand the mentality, you will fail to grasp the situation. You cannot apply logic to chaos. If rockets were flying into your home on a daily basis, I doubt you would be so rational. Then again, you are Chumbawambu, middle east scholar, arm chair cowboy.

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 18:02 | 447725 laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

By Steven Simpson

It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.



However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?



There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.



Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. 



Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.



Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.



In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."



In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.



This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.



The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews -- not just Israelis -- pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."



Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.



Islam -- as currently interpreted and practiced -- cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:42 | 438488 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

thanks for the civil response.. it made zero sense to put displaced people into a land to displace another people..


If we support all this squawking from Israel, then how do we not grant American Indians their choice of land?

people get slaughtered all over the damn place yet the map should never change for the Jews???

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 17:30 | 439785 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

it made zero sense to put displaced people into a land to displace another people.

trojan horse.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:43 | 438494 still kicking
still kicking's picture

Isreal is the ONLY functioning democracy in the middle east, that is part of the reason for US support, the other part being that is is a democracy and an ally it allows us to maintain a foothold in the largest supplying region of oil on the planet.  You may hate it and I may hate it, but I guarantee you would hate living without oil and gas even more, so quit bitching about it.  And trust me the militant dictactorships in most of the middle east manipulate this issue every chance they get to make themselves look like victims.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:33 | 438699 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

you're an idiot.  The Saudis do not do business with us because of a nearby Jewish State...and remember how much oil we really get from the middle east anyway


and why in the world would your point be a reason for American interests??  if that was the case - then we should just invade those oil countries without any need for Israel..  like we already did with Iraq..  so WHY do we need Israel again??



Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:32 | 438910 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Definitely an idiot.  Not only is Israel not the "only" "functioning" democracy in the Middle East, it isn't even a democracy, but rather a religious theocracy based on apartheid.

Calling a country a "democracy" in which a minority parliamentarian is almost lynched by the majority is a comical take on politics.

Israel puts the "mock" in democracy.

I am Chumbawamba.

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 18:07 | 447739 laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

you mean, like Saudi Arabia?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 13:20 | 439084 still kicking
still kicking's picture

I love your inability to forward think, of course we do not invade and take yet, we are "friends" with the Saudi's but when the oil starts to slow or the competition with Russia and China gets to high, we take what we need.  I do not agree with it, but it has been discussed and planned for decades.  We protect Israel and they allow us access.  As for repressing a minority, do you mean like we Americans did to women, or the native indians or the african americans?  I believe we were still referred to as a democracy in those days.  I did not say it was proper or right or even righteous, but by definition it is a democracy. 

Don't let your hatred destroy your ability to reason.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 17:40 | 439801 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

We protect Israel and they allow us access.  As for repressing a minority, do you mean like we Americans did to women, or the native indians or the african americans?  I believe we were still referred to as a democracy in those days.  I did not say it was proper or right or even righteous, but by definition it is a democracy.

"women" are a majority, "minority" only in being lumped into the all encompassing category of "not white het male."

not sure how you define "democracy" - but the US doesn't have one.

"We protect Israel and they allow us access" = Trojan Horse. 



Mon, 06/28/2010 - 19:53 | 440075 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"that America believes in seperation of church and state"

That is a common misconception.

America believes in the separation of the church >>>FROM<<< the state. A very large difference.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:56 | 438170 Canucklehead
Canucklehead's picture

The decision was made by the countries of the world to give the Israelis their homeland back.  Some countries disagreed and as a result committed acts of war against Israel over a couple of generations.  Those wars resulted in appropriate expansions of Israeli borders to ensure safety of their citizens.  Israel fought back and now is a regional power to ensure Israel continues to exist.

Garbage countries continue to stoke the gutteral hatred of their populations to exploit the fact that Israel exists.  Look at what is happening in Turkey at the present moment.  Their turd president has been put in his place by world opinion.  Iran has seen the diplomatic reaction and realizes they are alone in calling for this upcoming fight.  It is appropriate and reasonable to take whatever measures are necessary to facilitate regime change in Iran.  Iran needs to heal and change the trajectory of their country's fatal delusions.

You can express all the hatred you want but that only assists Israel et al in formulating the plans needed to break Iran.

BumpSkool, it looks like you and Chumbawamba are shrills for the Mossad intent on deflecting popular opinion away from the Palestinians.  Your vitrol and expressed hatred does not play in households of the world.  What you want is not what the vast majority of people want.  As a result, everyone steers away from the course of action you are directing.  The end result is that events fall neatly into place for Israel.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:36 | 438396 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Canuck,  I'll be junked to hell and back for this, but thank you, thank you, thank you.  You are well spoken and eloquent, and you have said what I wish I had the skill to express. 

You may want to strenuously separate yourself from me by the time I'm finished here.

I'll get junked for this, as well:  I was raised by reasonable, thinking, rational Christian parents.  No, you idiots, that is not an oxymoron.  I was taught to study history, and history has described a fairly ugly scene for those who oppose Israel.  Nobody beats Israel.  They may lose battles, but they win wars.  Long before the US was an influence in the area, The Sons of Jacob were kicking asses and taking names.  This goes back a FUCK of a lot farther than you can even visualize, Chubbie-wumba.  You are camel spittle compared to the enormity of this epic and historic scene.  Just because you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual component of that which is going on in the all-important middle east doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Maybe it doesn't;  but your hope and assumption  doesn't automatically make it not so.  History PROVES that it's generally a good idea to hang with those who have historically been referred to as "God's Chosen People..." 

OOOOOhhhh, but you're red in the face, NOW, I bet.  "God's Chosen People" is a term thousands and thousands of years old.  I didn't make it up, "Fundamentalist Christians" didn't make it up, and US foreign policy didn't make it up.  The Jewish nation didn't even make it up. 

I'm just sick and tired of the small-mindedness in this forum regarding the Jewish Nation and its place in history.  It's WAY bigger than any of us can contemplate.  As for Marla, I don't think she comes from a historic/spiritual perspective on this issue, because I think she has professed to be agnostic or atheist.  Forgive me, Marla, if I am wrong on that.  Regardless, at least she is capable of seeing through her secular eyes the vastness and import of this issue.  And the potential ramifications of choosing the wrong path, for whatever reason.


Now:  I expect at LEAST 30 junks.  Any fewer, and I'll be sorely disappointed.  Let the hate begin!


Heil Chumba.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:50 | 438515 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the Bible is not considered a history text, or at least not one that is relevant beyond the first century AD.

Your problem is that you ignore the subsequent 2000 years of history where "God's chosen people" end up pissing off just about every community they come in contact with and are either repressed or ostracized.  Have you ever considered that the Jews were presecuted throughout history because they're basically a-holes?  I'm not saying this is the case, but one really must wonder why their entire history is filled with regret and disappointment.  The perpetual victim is this way for a reason, usually because of self-imposed conditions.

In our modern day, Jews of the Zionist or neocon persuasion have made a complete mockery of the Jewish religion and its history, using it instead as a vehicle for endless wars of subjugation.  And being a good Christian yourself, you know what the end game is already, because it's been foretold.  Are you going to be killing Jews that don't convert when the Rapture comes?  I'll bet you're looking forward to that, aren't you?

I'm sorry that you're totally ineloquent and cannot express yourself without resorting to childish vitriol that buries whatever meaning you might be trying to express under a shroud of self-imposed mental retardation.  Perhaps one day when everything you've ever believed in lays in broken pieces before you, you'll wake up.  Until then, stay out of my way because I will fucking steamroll over you everytime.

I am Chumbawamba.

Tue, 06/29/2010 - 00:48 | 440649 RichardP
RichardP's picture

"... using it instead as a vehicle for endless wars of subjugation."

Chumba - could you give the dates for five or six of these wars of subjugation?  And names for the wars, if they have names.  I've seen you make a comment like this on other occassions and I'm wondering to what you are referring.  I assume you mean that Israel attacked other countries.  I would like to educate myself about these wars.  Can I find them in Wikipedia?  There is not much writing room left at this spot so respond at the end of the thread if you want to.


Thu, 07/01/2010 - 11:50 | 446655 dkny
dkny's picture

 Have you ever considered that the Jews were presecuted throughout history because they're basically a-holes?

Lets see what happens when you take one teaspoon of history and mix it up with 5lbs of opinion:

  • Have you ever considered that dark skinned people were enslaved throughout history because they're basically a-holes?
  • Have you ever considered that women suffrage did not exist throughout history because they're basically a-holes?

Of course this can be extended to plenty other examples of effectively "blame it on the victim", such as: "she must have done something wrong, otherwise her husband wouldn't beat her up all the time".

Wed, 08/18/2010 - 20:04 | 529353 Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

This was absolutely brilliant!  'dk' your logic is razor sharp and reasoning crystal clear.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:53 | 438525 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

if this state is so great, then kindly tell all the long island jews again since they couldn't give a flying fuck about that sand palace either.


That jewish state is just a pawn for their motives.. all Jews know they rather live in and control other countries

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:23 | 438883 Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

You won't get 30; it'll just vanish into hyperspace at 20.  Just saying...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 17:56 | 439829 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I'm just sick and tired of the small-mindedness in this forum regarding the Jewish Nation and its place in history.  It's WAY bigger than any of us can contemplate. 

there's another thread here you might like mtomato2, has a PhD economist defending his superior knowledge against the bloggist-commoners, because y'know, the eCONoME is "WAY bigger than any of us can contemplate."

Learn to think outside the religiousity dude - your whole post, with the "they will junk me - stand back everyone" reads like a fucking martyr's rant.

I'll not junk you, since it appears to be a form of flagellation for you - and by the way, it only takes 20 to get disappeared.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:49 | 438511 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

why do you think that anyone not supporting Israel lunacy is automatically supporting the Mossad??  What if the majority of Americans couldn't give a fuck if both were incinerated? This Jewish state is a lap dog picking fights - forever

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:55 | 438780 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There was a struggle for independence already going on in Israel.
And guess who was winning?
Immigration mostly from the russian empire had been taking place for a long time before WWI.

The british empire reneged on it's multiple agreements to allow the establishment of a homeland since 1917 (Balfour declaration).
To make things worse, they placed strict immigration restrictions right during and after WWII. These immigration restrictions did not apply to arabs. That's right, the british empire was actually denying escape from extermination for millions of innocent civilians in Germany's death camps.

With or without the UN vote, Israel would have rightfully gained independence. The empire knew this, so they staged this event in order to save face.

The enlightened european democracies (with kings, queens and serfs) are the real enemy.
Striking Iran will only mean more business for the french/british/spaniard/belgian death merchants and for the grand master of them all sitting in Peter's throne.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:53 | 438075 doggings
doggings's picture

... not every country is a colonial settler state hell-bent on expansion under a losing demographic, Ms. Mossad.

the US is? can you not see that?

somebodys been making a fortune selling blinkers.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:40 | 438010 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

Review the history of western africa. Ghana and the Gold Coast revolution. You will find an example there. There are others.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:35 | 438026 Mercury
Mercury's picture

What country calculates anyone else's interests with any priority?

The United States alone unfortunately.  Who else practices such self-defeating ground troop level rules of engagement (and Escalation of Force procedures) with any regularity?

How many lawyers per battalion do you suppose the Russian and Chinese military have?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:02 | 438088 dantes1807
dantes1807's picture

Certainly not the Iranians. Now Iran is ordering breasts removed from mannqueins. The good thing for Israel is that they waste so much time on such nonsense.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:30 | 438458 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I have a friend who preaches incessantly about the "problems" of the Middle East, etc., being caused by their sexual repression.  It must have an outlet.  I'm beginning to see his point.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 16:04 | 438566 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Oh, it has an outlet. Let's see - males and females are separated until marriage yet Muslim males are males just the same and they are among other males.  Since some of those other males are too young to be considered "men"  a technicality is thus provided to avoid running afoul of certain other religiously prohibited behaviors.

Solve the above equation.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:58 | 438991 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

They have an outlet already - it's rape, with a guaranteed result of the raped person getting a death sentence for their "crime".

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:34 | 438002 rsi1
rsi1's picture

CTRL+C & CTRL+V = US Foreign Policy. Who chose it first?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:23 | 438660 DosZap
DosZap's picture

And, WE don't?, Like Marla said.

If I were Israel, the safety of my people, and nation is priority ONE..............Whatever it takes.

And they are definitely in the sights of Iran, and every other asshole country on the planet.Whatever they do, they are always the problem.

If just left alone, they would not be the aggressors people claim them to be.........but, with so many Anti Semites here....I am speaking to the wall.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:02 | 438813 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

If your safety relied on your ability to "wag the dog" where the dog is the most powerful country in the world, you'd think twice about wagging too hard and waking up the fleas.  (Perhaps I took that analagy a bit too far.)

The fleas, already unemployed, won't like it when gasoline is unaffordable, which is the indisputable fact that should allow you to see clearly through all of this posturing.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 18:18 | 439853 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

If just left alone, they would not be the aggressors people claim them to be

ahhh, the Israel-as-Garbo meme, yet again. . .

if being "left alone" meant no more cheap / free weaponry, and zero US taxpayer monies in support, then sure, I'm all for leaving Israel "alone". . .

and, for the hard-of-memory, I'll repeat: anti-zionist =/= anti-jew, and you may want to rethink your usage of "semite":

"The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites."  (wiki'd)

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:29 | 437998 Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

When I read texts like this, with its impersonal and pseudo-scientific tone and its craftily hidden point-of-view, I wonder if I myself am not a crypto-zionist. Let me explain. If the Jews* got their way and managed to start WWWIII, there is a good chance Israel would drag into the abysm the US Empire, NATO, the Dollar and so much of what is wrong in the world today.

Marla, your intention with this post is unclear to me. Would you care to elaborate?


* before the faux-moralistes start screaming, it is the state of Israel that makes the conflation between Judaism and Zionism. It is, after all, a self-styled "Jewish State", or - "Judenstaat" as Teddy Herzl used to call it-. The conflation is embedded in the fabric of the state and its epitome is the "Law of Return" that applies to Jews only, wherever they come from. If you are Jewish, and do not like being held responsible for the crimes committed by Israel in your name, you are welcome to join the fight to put a stop to these crimes. For inspiring examples, look up Gilad Atzmon, Ilan Pape, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Jeff Blankfort...just for starters...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:33 | 438001 teaddy bearish
teaddy bearish's picture

this article is preaty acurate yet the piece missing is what does the iranians will do if they counter attack ...

it seems some time ago pentagon official feared iran might send few thousand spec ops into irak to "heat the situation" if they were invaded

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:05 | 438098 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

In addition to closing off the Strait of Hormuz, Hizbullah and the Sadrists in Iraq could open new fronts.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:54 | 438165 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

If the US even allows them to attack.

Consider this one fact that hasn't been addressed by the speculation in these comments or the well written post:

The US will not allow Israel to fly over Iraq.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:07 | 438388 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

Well, this is tough to reconcile with the rumored Saudi agreement. That would only have been brokered by the US. So either there is no agreement, or you are wrong, or there is an agreement in which the US took no part. Pick one.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:12 | 438413 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Rumored. Saudi Arabia has an interest in high oil prices too.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 13:12 | 439047 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

And let's not forget that out of everyone, the Saudis fear Iranian regional hedgemony the most. The Saudi royals are terrified of a Shia uprising in Arabia.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 18:52 | 439926 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Shia are the minority in that country.

Sun, 07/11/2010 - 12:29 | 462908 velobabe
velobabe's picture

G E M I N I ?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:47 | 438017 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

When I read texts like this, with its impersonal and pseudo-scientific tone and its craftily hidden point-of-view

texts like this -> their impersonal

text like this -> its impersonal

(agreement error)

impersonal and pseudo-scientific tone

So to satisfy your two complaints here, you'd like a personal and scientific tone instead?  Are you sure that is what you are asking for?  I'm not sure you understand science very well, but ok.  Or, perhaps you are looking for Bill Nye the Science Guy?  But that's your personal affair I suppose.  Or are you just listing a standard set of faults that you have written down on a legal pad somewhere just in case you run across some internet post that befuddles you and you need a quick reply?

and its craftily hidden point-of-view

So craftily, in fact, that it apparently evades even the author!

Marla, your intention with this post is unclear to me. Would you care to elaborate?

A number of events suggest we might see action against Iranian nuclear sites.  It's not clear, of course, but it seems prudent to explore the viability of an "Israel only" and an "Israel and Uncle Sucker" attack against critical nuclear sites in Iran.  Fortunately, I happen to have been watching this issue closely and enjoy sharing my observations with Zero Hedge readers.  Perhaps I'm being overly broad here, but I suspect that Zero Hedge readers with an interest in assets that may be affected by a strike on Iran (holders of crude, those invested in the middle east, or frontier markets, or risk currencies or equities, or any market unable to blow off the uncertainty of a conflict with a country that has the potential to shut down Straits of Hormuz traffic for any material length of time- you know, sort of anyone at all) would be interested in some data and analysis on the potential practicality of such a strike and its timing.  Or just like to play with Google Earth.  You know.  The sort of geopolitics that impact finance.  And your gas prices.  And the economy.

Or... are you just confused because I didn't put a Star of David or Crescent at the top of post to help you determine if I am a rabid Zionist/Muslim you could attack mindlessly- because obviously anyone who comments on these events must be some kind of extremist (rather than an agnostic investor looking to have a leg up on the rest of the market), right?

Grow up.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:44 | 438063 Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

Thank you for checking my text, Marla. Let's not forget however that "logic is to grammar as the body to the clothes" (Schopenhauer). I accept your stated purpose for the post, but at a logical, substantive level I wonder why would you be afraid of me "attack[ing] [you] mindlessly" other than as an emotional expression of your own parti pris. 

I take your intimation that I should grow up at heart, and will be on the lookout for warmongering sophisms even more keenly in the future.


Incidentally, here is an interesting deconstruction of impersonal, technical-sounding warmongering propaganda by George Galloway


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 18:33 | 439890 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

thanks for that brilliant link - gotta love Gorgeous George!

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:13 | 438387 RoRoTrader
RoRoTrader's picture

The following was from CSIS 2005.......also around the same time the Oxford Research Group did an assessment of the subsequent 'fallout' from an Israeli and/or Israeli/American attack against Iran (sorry, I cannot find it in files, but it exists).

Concerns/Background: By far the world's most important oil chokepoint, the Strait consists of 2-mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a 2-mile wide buffer zone. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz would require use of longer alternate routes (if available) at increased transportation costs.   In the context of the current US position towards preventing the further development of Iran's nuclear capability and openly considering military options against Iran the  Center for Strategic and International Studies recently assessed Iran as being now the only regional military power that poses a significant threat to the Gulf.   Aside from detailing Iran's already significant conventional military capabilities to conduct land and naval asymetrical warfare the CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization of its military including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping missles.   It is Iran's missle arsenal that poses the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially the US Navy.   In essence Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf and of all the missles in Iran's arsenal the most dangerous is the Russian made SS-N-22 Sunburn.   The CSIS report states, "These missles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach MACH 3 at high altitude. Its maximun low-altitude speed is MACH 2.2, some 3X faster than the American made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes 2 short minutes to cover its full range." The CSIS report also stated, "The Sunburn missle, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection is capable of inflicting terrible damage to these(implied carrier battle groups) ships if IRAN chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders."
Sun, 07/11/2010 - 12:27 | 462896 velobabe
velobabe's picture


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:13 | 438613 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Oh, bullshit.  This article was just mental masturbation (with a virtual dildo).

You perhaps impress war nerds and lonely internet trolls who get off when someone with a Helena Bonham Carter picture on their postings starts talking about anti-aircraft batteries and bunker-buster munitions.

Go back to your cave and ponder some more.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:09 | 438040 Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

What she just did to you with that comment is outlawed in 34 continental states; Puerto Rico and all of Europe. That wasn't an ass kicking; it was a straight fucking KO with a chainsaw attached to a pick up truck.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:43 | 438069 Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

A statement long on fluff but devoid of substance, CB.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:54 | 438078 Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

As opposed to what; your Noble-worthy comments?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:14 | 438620 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Fuck, dude, why don't you go get a room.  Let us know how her feet smell.

Tue, 06/29/2010 - 01:09 | 440683 Eric Cartman
Eric Cartman's picture

How her feet smell? That's not likely. You sport fuck em.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:25 | 438123 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Agreed.  The work reminds me of a young Kierkegaard.  I'd find her more authentic if she'd just openly take Israel's point of view rather than pretend to be neutral.

Maybe Obama parked that fleet there as a reminder to Israel that the tail don't wag the dog...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:08 | 438393 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

I'm not at all neutral. But I'm not blind.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:19 | 438434 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Not blind about what?

The problem with Intelligent people is the unconscious tendency to color facts and events in a way that supports their bias.  I know this because I am guilty of it.  This is why I enjoy the feedback I get from informed people, every once in a while I learn something new and change my opinion.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:16 | 438401 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Well she is an investor (or speculator as the specific case may be) posting on a finance/investment site and I actually think a clear-eyed assessment of the situation as critical and accurate as possible adds far more value in such a context than well argued flag waving does. Cheerleading for a particular outcome isn't the best way to handle one's finances after all.

update: Sorry, I should know better than to try and stick up for Marla at this point. Just not necessary. She's still patrolling comments with a sniper rifle!

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:19 | 438431 nopat
nopat's picture

Just go ahead and delete your account now, drive your car head-on at speed into the bollards in front of your local pharmacy as if possessed by the spirit of some ancient, demonic god (Dozer the Dozerian, perhaps?) and demand to know which aisle they keep the icepicks and thorazine.  At no point in your incoherent, rambling hot mess of a post did you manage to point to one definitive item of contention other than your own uneasiness and insecurity that somewhere, in this great big world, there are people far more intelligent than you talking about subjects you don't understand.  Hate the Jews, hate America for their capitalist imperialism...fuck, prefer Pepsi over Coke, I don't care.  When your argument devolves from a basis of fact prescient to the discussion at hand to how you feel about those facts, you should realize this is now the point in your life where you need to call a friend to help you get past that little bit of resistance the brain pan is giving you.

Finish the job and spare us the perverse tragedy of someone having to reconcile years of self-denial.  This is not an attack, just an observation...

Sun, 07/11/2010 - 10:39 | 463028 Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

Dude, I never heard of the psychotic drugs you have mentioned, and will not look up. Your post speaks more of your desperate conflicted soul than of mine. I want integrity, and to put a stop to the doublethink and hypocrisy that has become the rule in our American Empire. Now, to your own soul-healing, you do not have to be a Jew to be a criminal Zionist as much as not all criminal Zionists are Jews. You can break free of the mind control. It's up to you.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:19 | 438117 Zina
Zina's picture

Gilad Atzmon, Ilan Pape, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Jeff Blankfort, my respect to them.

Israel stole the name of the Jewish people.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:44 | 438150 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Marla's intention is simple, to help investors assess the risk of an Israeli strike upon the value of  their portfolio investments. This is the only reason why I am reading this article.

Long after I am dead, I am certain that political contention between Israel and her neighbours will survive and continue to be an ongoing drama designed to entertain and confuse our monkey minds for the benefit of the war profiteers.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:04 | 438194 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I'm betting against any such raid.  My logic is as follows:

Oil is cheep.

Someone doesn't like cheep oil.

This is a shameless attempt by someone to release and highlight selective information to pump the price of oil before delivery.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:13 | 438414 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

Well this is what Zero Hedge is for. We spill out what facts we find, thread them together in the sort of connections that occur to us and apply some analysis based on our (admittedly jaded) backgrounds and predispositions. I find it interesting that your complaint does not challenge any of the facts that I have presented, or offer more than a few sentences in support of alternate theories, but, again, this is the essence of Zero Hedge. We report, reference and analyze. You decide (to ignore us) (or not).

Of course, if our material on 35 mm Anti Aircraft Artillery, Command Destroyer Escort Squadrons, the commanders of Carrier Strike Groups or time-lapse graphics of air defense construction development is not to your liking, you can always head over to the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times for better information.  I think the New York Times is still mostly free online, actually.

See also: Our policy on conflicts and full disclosure.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:22 | 438439 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

All of these arms work just as effectively against the IDF Air Force.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:48 | 438507 Thoreau
Thoreau's picture

I disagree; Marla's intentions seem pretty obvious, in a pathetic, dogmatic kind of way.

And Marla, like most of the other posters, probably has no fucking clue what war is really about. Ever had a bullet whizzing by those permed locks, Marla? Ever greeted a family member who was wrapped in an over-sized, black hefty bag? Been there, done that.

It may be fine and dandy to play armchair-zionist; but trust me, Marla, you definitely don't want to "be" there, or "do" that. Get a grip, an imagination, and some fucking compassion, girlfriend.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:35 | 438005 Wernerempire
Wernerempire's picture

"But will it be forthcoming?"

The carrier group moving through the Suez canal already answered that question.

You don't deploy additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf without plans of operation.

(and, please, BumpSkool, stop confusing the messenger with the message, no?)

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:38 | 438008 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

... the messanger's position is well documented on these pages - peruse. Attempts to weed out "messages" from those who deliver them deny that there is a political point of view, when, of course, there is. For everyone.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:44 | 438013 Wernerempire
Wernerempire's picture

Gosh, figure me fooled, until you told me so, I had no idea that Marla's persona is synonymous to "Ms. Mossad". Mind to share some facts for your reasoning?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:47 | 438018 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

... the record speaks for itself. Do you really believe this article is innoncent? Its is indicitive of the same techniques that MSM use. Get you caught up in detail of "what an attack would look like" - it preps the psychology to accept it as inevitable.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:53 | 438021 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

Since it speaks for itself, you will have no problem citing a few of its utterances. Right? Just to be clear- because you seem to love the passive voice- your dismissal of the piece is based on the premise that I am a shill for Israel?  Or are there specific facts or conclusions that you have issue with?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:06 | 438034 BumpSkool
BumpSkool's picture

The counter point was something in the comments section and not from the article itself. I didn't "dismiss" the piece ... I said there is a mindset behind it - which I have explained. We can forego the need to try and search for the record of all of our statements here by a few simple questions:

1) Are you a Zionist?

2) Do you believe in Israeli settlement of the West Bank?

3) What do you view as a just settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian question?

4) Would Israel be justified in a military attack on Iran?


I'll go first

 1, 2 and 4 = No

3= the deal that's been on the table for years, but Israel refuses, i.e. - a return to pre-1967 lines, a continguous P. state on West Bank and Gaza, internationl administration over Jerusalem. (Notice how I am NOT calling fo Israel's destruction.... as I am sure someone will try an accuse me of it.)

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:14 | 438042 Wernerempire
Wernerempire's picture

So, you don't have any argument pertaining to Marla's article, and thus she first has to explain her intricate involvement with the Israeli question? Huh?

Do you always reason like that, with everybody? 

Or is that a reasoning you hold dear with only selected people?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:16 | 438044 scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

I have just emailed your post to Mossad BumpSkool...just for a laugh.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:18 | 438048 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Don't forget:

5) David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar?

That shit needs to be out in the open and on the table before serious discussion can proceed.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:33 | 438134 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The band should have been named "David Lee Roth".  Then there would have been no "Sammy Hagar."

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:19 | 438253 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

First off... Zionist is a really loaded term.  You are going to have to define it.  Failing that, I can, instead, give you a summary of my feelings towards Israel / Arabia / whatever.

A.  I have very mixed feelings about the political leadership and the premise under which many Israelis operate.  There is, without a doubt, a siege mentality at work that colors a lot of decision making.  That mentality is readily enabled (more on this later) which is an explanation, but not an excuse.  Understanding this is both important and difficult.

B.  As ugly a fact as it is, two of the recognized means of asserting sovereignty (I'll not make the distinction between de jure and de facto) are conquest and occupation.  It's not particularly clear that we are dealing with terra nullius here, but conquest applies either way.  (The others are cession, accretion and prescription).  What Israel controls, it controls.  Life's hard.  Order pizza.

C.  I notice you only included the West Bank.  Why?  Setting aside for a moment questions of legitimacy, I don't blame Israel one bit for insisting on control of the Golan Heights.  Having stood in Had Nes looking West it is pretty easy for me to say that losing that high ground is an existential threat to Israel.  I wouldn't give that up were I Israel.  Right or wrong.  Gaza and West Bank... well... that's another matter.  To wit:

D.  The West Bank/Gaza are a huge clusterfuck.  Israel should have worked out at least a shared-authority agreement as a bridge to some sort of sovereignty solution down the road.  That presupposes the residents (and eventually citizens, one hopes) of those lands would find some way to co-exist... even integrate.  That seems highly unlikely this month.  In Israel's defense, they seemed to head towards something similar for awhile (though it probably cost a PM his job).  In Israel's critique, they then took the most flimsy excuse to backtrack immediately.  Of course, politically, handing that land over is just not possible because voters will sack any administration that gives that much away right now.  This is a pity.  I really think that integration and some sort of reconciliation is the only path.  That makes it effectively doomed for the time being.  See below.

E.  Given D, it just isn't helping when parties which shall remain nameless insist on delivering high explosives to within the boundary of the personal space of Israeli civilians and soldiers alike by impulse powered or patsy powered delivery systems on a weekly basis.  No government is going to be able to work out a compromise when Qassam and Grad rockets (not to mention mortar rounds) are killing grandmothers who have long since lost any detectable levels of venom for anyone but their mail lady and the neighbor's dog that barks well past 8:00 pm.  I mean seriously.  That's not military action.  I can't help but laugh when the same people who decry "western imperialism" fail to see the same cravings and mandates (writ even larger) from their pet middle-eastern causes.  It is this willful blindness more than anything that kills the cause for Arabs of all stripes.  Cool it, people.

F.  Even given E, Israel is far too dominated by its military.  Of course, that is only possible because their siege mentality is constantly reinforced.  But, right or wrong we live in the real world.  They are never going to back down until there is some hint that it will benefit them.  No one has presented a convincing case therefor.  We are surprised they refuse to come out of their bunkers?  Please.  Like it or not, they are conditioned to defend themselves- sometimes very aggressively.  Either beat them at that game or out maneuver them politically.  Arabs: How's the former working out for you?  Ok then.

G.  As much as I want to side with Palestinians and Arabs generally in these matters, the 1970s are over.  True, Travolta is back, but we are way past the point where hijacking airplanes is a daring and courageous (if desperate) plea for global attention.  At this point those groups are all over the major papers of the world every day.  Militant action isn't about drawing attention to your cause anymore.  That work is done.  To the extent that sort of militancy has become simply an excuse to run "Lakers Riots" amok all over the world (and it has) and given that you don't land the planes in Libya and let the hostages off like honorable terrorists any longer, the time has come to cool it.  Arabs... your inability to control your extremists is killing you.  If you can't handle these people how are you going to run the civil nation state with a progressive attitude towards human rights that SHOULD be the global ideal (Janet Napolitano are you listening to us?)  Want to be a modern sovereign?  Act like it.  Get a handle on it.  What developed country permits RPGs and explosives loosely concealed under overcoats to leave its borders?  Get your extremists under control.  Period.  Democrats, Republicans, same fucking deal- but with less worry about the explosives.  Who the hell gave Sharron Angle a microphone and why is that intern still drawing breath?  Still, that microphone hasn't killed anyone yet, now that I reflect on this.  See the difference?  If not, stop reading now.

H.  Nixon went to China.  Russia melted into a pool of butter.  Who is going to come to the United States in the same vein?  Annoyed with US Support for Israel?  Divide and conquer.  With the support Palestinians have here (the entire Fourth Estate... hello) how could an overture with some real sacrifices not drive a wedge into the U.S. - Israel front?  Worried about Israeli dominance?  Counter it in a way as American as apple pie.  LOBBYISTS.  Oh, right.  That's not going to work.  Your public image has been trashed by "a few indiscretions."  Like, for instance:  Suicide bombers.  Rockets.  Terrorism.  Hijackings.  Videotaped be-headings.  An oil spill in the gulf looks tame by comparison to your antics- BP only killed 11 people in 2010 (so far).  Like it or not no American is afraid of the guy on the plane wearing the Yamaka.  Whose fault is that exactly?  Probably not the guy in the Yamaka- but I'm just guessing.  That's going to take time to overcome.  Time spent proving that the extremists can be controlled.  Can that be done?  Ya got me.  Not while Arab pride/shame is a major part of the cultural identity of your clan.  I used to think perhaps we only needed Arafat's generation to weaken, retire and die.  I see now that at least one more generation has to pass into feebleness first.  Israel too has to cap its extremists.  Backdooring sovereignty with strategic settlement, for instance, is just beyond the pale.  But it is civil.  And that paints a deep contrast to the black deeds on the other side.  A bunch of buildings in the desert is a boring bit of news footage.  Severed heads laying in pools of blood in the streets of [pick your city] is going to win that fight every time.  Sure you want that coverage?

I.  Arab media has become famous as dispensers of unadulterated propaganda.  At least Israel knows enough to bend the truth very very hard rather than just trying to snow everyone.  Sure, that might work on the locals, but everyone gets Al-Jezzera now.  Get cleaner than Israel.  Issue corrections.  Critique the loons in your party.  What?  They will behead you if you object?  Well, that sounds a lot like an internal problem to me.  Perhaps you need to address some basic free press and human rights issues first?  Do that and the rest might get easy.

J.  Stop depending on the United Nations.  This is an entity with exactly zero credibility anymore.  Nigeria is on the Human Rights Council for crying out loud.  Who cares if Uganda votes for your resolution?  Move on.

K.  It blows that there are 10+ members of the "nuclear club."  This is absolutely no reason to want 11+.  Moreover, let's just face it: Permitting another country with a powerful religious (and apocalyptic) element in the highest echelons of its executive, a penchant for violent expansionism, a rather crude attitude towards women and homosexuals and world famous ignorance to obtain nuclear weapons is a seriously bad idea.  (Of course, the first country to fit that description is the United States, but that ship has sailed).

You don't have to go through all these points to realize that:

1) Are you a Zionist?

2) Do you believe in Israeli settlement of the West Bank?

3) What do you view as a just settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian question?

4) Would Israel be justified in a military attack on Iran? a crock of shit construct (but it helps).

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:41 | 438331 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

With regard to D, you seem to presuppose that Palestinians will never have the right to vote in Israel and that two states (with some with real or limited sovereignty) are the only solution. Given this, do you agree with the following statements (in general):

1. Israel wants its settlers to continue to take more land to expand it's borders.

2. Israel does not want a political relationship with "Palestine" because of this.

3. It is in Israels best interest to continue the conflict.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:51 | 438356 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

With regard to D, you seem to presuppose that Palestinians will never have the right to vote in Israel and that two states (with some with real or limited sovereignty) are the only solution.


I actually think that one state (eventually) is the only solution.  Two states is just a stepping stone thereto.

Given this, do you agree with the following statements (in general):

I don't give you that, actually, but even so...

1. Israel wants its settlers to continue to take more land to expand it's borders.

Simplistic.  Who in Israel?  No country is a monolith.  Has the more hawkish leadership used settlements to solidify otherwise disputed land?  Sure.  Is that "Israel," hardly.

2. Israel does not want a political relationship with "Palestine" because of this.

Again, your broad "Israel" weakens your question.  Certainly there are a lot of dead enders that have no desire to have any relationship with Palestine.  What proportion are these?   I have no clue.  Neither do you.

3. It is in Israels best interest to continue the conflict.

Ignoring for the moment that I have disputed your premise, on which this question is based: over what time period?  And even if it is, so what?  It is a long drive from what is politically possible and what is "in the best interests of the nation."  To wit: The deficit in the United States.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:10 | 438400 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

If they are given the right to vote they will greatly change the political balance in the country as the population of Israel would increase by about 1/3rd.  The population trend seems to favor the Palestinians.  This is why I assumed they would never be given the right to vote.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:19 | 438433 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

So it sounds like you would assume that there will never be illegal immigrant amnesty either?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:27 | 438449 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

My gut feeling is as follows:

In the USA there is a tendency for TPTB to want to dilute democracy and create division.

In Israel there is a tendency for their leadership to maintain the status quo.

Personally, I wish they would setup an equivelent to Ellis Island on the border where they could enter legally and become citizens.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:55 | 438538 dkny
dkny's picture

In Israel there is a tendency for their leadership to maintain the status quo.

One thing you should bear in mind that you cannot expect things to happen magically overnight. What seems like a status quo may very well be a necessary long process of normalization following a very long period of hostilities.

The thought that this matter can be resolved by turning a switch, or by simply withdrawing to pre-1967 borders as BumpSkool indicated above, is utterly ridiculous. Without a cooloff period and normalization of relationships we'd be back at square one, while Israel would be without a buffer zone, and I think it is pretty evident why that buffer zone is so strategically important.

Still, the problem is compounded by outside actors that have nothing better to do than to stir pot, e.g. Nasrallah & Hezbolla. Nasrallah is a fine example for an agitator, as all he does is brainwash his followers into believing that they must fight the evil state of Israel. If he didn't have this gig, do you think he'd just go back to college and pick up an accounting degree?

Of course not! There are too many people with vested interests for this situation to continue as Israel is the perfect scapegoat for the regional dictators to divert attention. That said, I am sure that there are certain groups in Israel that prefer the status quo as well, such as the more wacky settlers, but I would still make a distinction between them and the former listed, as the former have a very tangible violent component in their agenda.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:58 | 438983 caconhma
caconhma's picture

You people are assholes.

You are all having fucking dementia. Do you forget how your government promised you to pacify Iraq in a few weeks for `$40-60B?

No war ever went by the best war-games regardless for the best planning efforts: Soviet vs Nazi Germany or Soviet vs Afghanistan, America vs Vietnam, Korea, Iraq or etc., Following the American failure in Korea, Stalin was preparing a war with the USA. Thanks God, Stalin death (or his murder) saved the world from WWIII in 1953.

As for Iranian mullas, they will be gone in a no time. This will be their final hour but American and Israeli will have a much more determined and capable enemies inflicting incalculable damage to America future. In just 5-10 years, being stuck in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and who know where else, the USA will allow China to become a superpower imposing its will on America. American empire will be ruined like the Soviets just 20 years ago.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 14:36 | 439337 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

But we will be where all the oil is...the oil that China needs to become a superpower. Check mate, China!

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:18 | 438636 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

As soon as Israel takes action against the settlers instead of tacitly endorsing their behavior I will concede my point.  How a state behaves is how a state aught to be judged.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 14:37 | 439344 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

Then, by that logic, all British and Americans are war criminals

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 21:08 | 440240 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I don't follow you.  If I built a house on a reservation 'just cuz' the US government would kick me out.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:15 | 438621 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Marla - you bring yourself to such rational thought until you forget all the money/support/arms that Israel gets from the U.S.   If for not its sugar daddy, Israel would be applying the same 'non-military' response that you mock from its neighbors.


And using the term 'Life is tough, order pizza' just shows the bully tactics ingrained in their brain since the world could of easily said that in the 40's..  yet now, no compassion emits as they feel empowered.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:35 | 438707 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Marla tries so hard to rise up above the Ugly American but, sadly, fails.

As she picks up the Arab hand and repeatedly jabs it into the Arab face, then asks, "Oh, Arab, why are you hitting yourself in the face?", you can almost detect a smirk beginning to form on her smug visage.

Yes, Marla, those A-rabs would be so much more tolerable if they would just do what you tell them and stop trying to self-determinate.  Things would be so much easier if they would become shop-a-holics to replace the blown-out wreck that is the American consumer so we can sell them shit and continue to live a life of luxury detached completely from the mayhem and chaos that our diseased lifestyles cause throughout the globe.

Nope, none of this is your fault.  Keep fucking that chicken.

BTW, I put a grammar mistake in this message so that you could focus on that and use it to begin your retort, since you really won't have anything else to which to reply.  I must say, though, I'm impressed with tour work today.  Not one run-on sentence!  Good girl.  You get a star.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:39 | 438479 dkny
dkny's picture

3= the deal that's been on the table for years, but Israel refuses, i.e. - a return to pre-1967 lines, a continguous P. state on West Bank and Gaza, internationl administration over Jerusalem. (Notice how I am NOT calling fo Israel's destruction.... as I am sure someone will try an accuse me of it.)

Your assertion is false while ignoring many historical details, or the trivial facts that The Sinai peninsula was returned to Egypt, while the peace process initiated under Rabin in the early 90s did work towards a gradual return of the West Bank and Gaza.

Also, one should point out, as your statments reeks of the oft cited resolution 242, that saying the the return to the pre-1967 offer has "been on the table for years" is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

As I've pointed out in another thread, the pre-1967 borders existed pre-1967 for a good 17 years following the 1948 war; yet the concept of a Palestinian state was never implemented by the Jordanian and Egyptian colonial forces in the West Bank and Gaza. That should make you wonder if there wasn't a different agenda.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:47 | 438755 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

While you may not realize it (or perhaps you do, and are simply being disingenuous, which wouldn't be surprising because the minions of Israel are legion) you are employing the deflection tactic.

The problem here was not caused by Jordan's or Egypt's failure to create a Palesdtinian state.  That has absolutely zero relevance in the historical context.  The geographic boundaries of the Middle East that haunt us in the current day are fictions imposed by the imperialist West.  To Arabs who lived there, who had traveresed those deserts for millenia, those borders were meaningless.  The West Bank and Gaza were never supposed to be set aside for a Palestinian state.  This wasn't even a consideration under the Balfour Declaration nor even the UN partition plan.

The problem is, always has been, and always will be, until Israel is eradicated as a political entity.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:28 | 438901 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

So all of those Jewish historical sites are not sufficient evidence that, you know, Jews lived there a few thousand years before Balfour?  Why didn't the UN choose, say, Argentina as a place to settle the Jews?  Why didn't they give Germany to the Jews?  How about NY, you know, affectionately called "Hymie town"?

Or was it a great Jewish trick - they actually lived in north america and sent spies over to build temples and scatter around some relics because they all really desired to live in the middle of a barren wasteland.  Those wily Jews!  Always trying to steal the best locations!

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:40 | 438939 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

...a few thousand years before...

Are youy even cognizant of the words you write?

Let's parse this short and simple snippet:



It's cute when Hollywood bimbos play stupid because that's their shtick.  But when you do it, it's not, because you really are stupid.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 15:10 | 439434 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Your conclusion, in sum:

time+"stuff happened"=Jews have no claim on the Holy Land, and they are poopyheads.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 20:36 | 440170 nmewn
nmewn's picture


The Judeophobia is running rampant around here lately.

You see, it can't possibly be that we, in America, have become so fucking stupid we elect a junior Senator (or ANY Senator for that matter) as our president, who's only "executive" experience for the position seems to have been sitting as one of many board members on a Annenburg funded project to better educate young black children in Chicago which promptly destroyed millions in capital with ZERO results and he claims he was a social worker also.

It can't possibly be that through our own greed and avarice we elect the slimeiest scuzzballs we can find to the weigh insignificant matters of life, death, prosperity, poverty etc.

It can't possibly be that we allow those with NO skin in the game to actually VOTE...hello Alexi de Tocqueville.

No it's the JEWS fault that the Egyptians shut down the Rafah border crossing with Gaza FORCING a "relief flotilla". It's the JEWS fault that the Jordanian army slaughtered Palestinians who tried to take over their country. It's the JEWS fault that the Arab's & Persian's use the Palestinian's as they're little dagger to torment their own selves because they are full of self loathing.

This all seems so familiar...but I can't quite place my finger on it.


Tue, 06/29/2010 - 00:46 | 440647 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

as soon as we give all the land back to the American Indians, the Romans, and Mongols then we can talk about whatever land the Jews had...


and you can say a hundred others deserve said piece of land

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 13:32 | 439118 dkny
dkny's picture

Well, your first paragraph says quite a bit about your approach to this matter, but nevertheless, I will reply to your "borders-don't-matter" response.

The real disingenuous thing is to ignore historical facts, and that is that you had jews living in the area even under the Ottoman empire right along the local arabs. What took place is that with jewish immigration into the region, and land purchases, the balance of power was shifting and certain individuals did not like and advocated for violence against the jews. The origin of the violence is from the arab side on political grounds, while later on it was present on both sides (as I'm sure you'd be happy to point out the Irgun as some sort of trump card).

Additionally, the Balfour declaration really doesn't support your argument, since words did not equal actions, and the British severely limited jewish immigration throughout the period, so the only thing of some importance was the UN General Assembly resolution to divide the area into two states where the jews would have autonomy in an area where the majority of residents were jewish, but all would be citizens of the new state. So far so good and doesn't seem so outrageous, even though post-1948 the borders did not end up being as per the UN.

Now, since you are intent on removing all responsibility from the neighboring nations for the current situation, I would like to remind you that prior to start of major hostilities in 1948 the Arab League called the for the Arab residents to leave their homes and get out of the way of their onslaught.

At that point, and in conjunction with its decision to start a war, the Arab League has responsibility over the situation of the refugees.

It might be easy for you to make pompous declarations that borders don't matter, but you don't even consider the consequence of what if the British just packed up and left and the UN never debated the matter. There would be a power vacuum in the region, and the major forces from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria would have rushed in for a land grab and we would be in the same situation as the West Bank and Gaza were for 17 years: no such thing as a Palestinian state.

In truth, now that I think about it, the jewish population might have had an easier time without a declaration of a state, as it was more cohesive than the Arabs which undoubtedly would have fought each others to gain more land for themselves.

So, while focusing on that tree you do not see the forest, and absolve main actors from any fault in the matter. While they spoke of the Palestinian cause, their real goals were very much far from it.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:43 | 438739 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Give me ONE reason (that is a good one), that Israel SHOULD give back what was taken after being attacked, for no reason in '67.

Spoils of War...........You attack me, to destroy my Nation,WE whip your ass, in 6 Days............and you expect concessions?,You also want Jerusalem, as part of the deal?.

I cannot figure out any way, Israel should be the bad guys here.

You start the shit, and I AM THE AGGRESSOR?.

Just MHO.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:49 | 438764 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

On the same note, give me ONE reason we should leave Iraq after one of our soldiers was visciously MURDERED by an IED when he was patrolling the streets of Baghdad.

Simple people should not spoken to and not speak.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:30 | 438904 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

What's that you wrote a couple of posts up about using the "deflection" tactic?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:41 | 438943 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

It's called "analogy".  Look it up, in conjunction with "irony".

You might want to use a dictionary above the 6th grade level.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 13:37 | 439159 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

It's not possible to use an analogy to deflect?  In any case, stop with the analogies, because you aren't good at them.

That deserved a pass if you had first answered his question.

Lurn how two spel "viciously" and then come back and lecture me on language.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 13:33 | 439142 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

Could you please define what "Zionsim" means to you? Because this is a term that has been misused and misunderstood quite often. Zionism, in its broadest sense, is the belief in a Jewish state. The Vatican is a Catholic state. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Wahabist states. Iran is an Islamic republic. Pakistan is a muslim state. There are also Communist states, like N. Korea and China, that, while not religious, are very resistant to "outsiders" and repressive to its own people. If you are against the idea of a Jewish state, are you also against these other homogeneous countries?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:00 | 438030 Wernerempire
Wernerempire's picture

Ummm, ya man, I neither tapped out nor went limb, and you are just prancing about with no shots???

A) The record of the persona Marla speaks for what exactly? Citations, please.

B)Do you, or do you not acknowledge that Iran is at current pretty much surrounded at all sides with military threats, north, east, south and west, that NO country has issued any grand public statement of support for Iran, and that Iran has abandoned it's "flotilla of 100,000 volunteers" to sail to Gaza? Well, do you?


I see  you perusing about the "techniques (of the) MSM"  and "prep psychology".... to what end is unclear to me.

So, how do you interpret the facts?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:37 | 438007 doomandbloom
doomandbloom's picture

I know its conspiratorial..but these are a few statements from somewhere...

'When a populace, or nation grows too strong and begins to think creatively, two or three of the AndrrAka Royal Lineages ( illuminati)  engage in conflict against other AndrrAka lineages in order to kill off the surplus peasants through war. In staged wars created by such conflicts, the populace of any rogue nation is decimated,impoverished and brought under control again.'

While US and Israel clearly are the aggressors...what if all 3 ( US, Israel and Iran) are involved? THAT would be depressing...


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:41 | 438486 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Cliff Notes, dude!

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:54 | 438022 Tic tock
Tic tock's picture

It's a charming piece of rationale: Israel lauches a pre-emptive attack against Iran, Iran retaliates, US certain to aid Israel materially if Syria, etc., also attack Israel. Assume they do, Israel gets thoroughly hammered, so does Iran. Israel almost certain to be ravaged by war for the forseeable future, Iran, what becomes a second Iraq? Who can afford to occupy Iran? end result: Israel gains a pyrhhic victory. Lots killed, started by Israel.. thre years down the road, a perfect solution. ..

We build cities on a whim, who is there of the line of David and who deserves his city. Should the muslims even be allowed to publicly contend that a building is an icon necessary? Can't settle this by the law, resort to guns, destroy yourselves, do youreally think over this bondholders would have paitence to waste?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:55 | 438024 vicelord
vicelord's picture

I hate to burst your bubble, but this is routine, apparently.  They swap out carries in the gulf all the time.  There's nothing out of the ordinary here, and, if there was anything to it, it was simply to get Iran to back off their threat of a flotilla into Gaza... and it worked.



Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:00 | 438029 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

You might be right. And, as I pointed out in my last piece, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is due to rotate out in July anyhow. But then again, who knows? And given that bit of uncertainty, shall we just not post anymore?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:49 | 438072 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Just for grins, let's apply some good ol' strategery.

Equipment is moved into the theater at just the time when a normal rotation is expected.  However, the military operation takes place prior to the actual rotation.

Is it a perfect stealth operation?  Kinda hard to have a real stealth operation with equipment the size of an aircraft carrier.

While a rotation is possible, it amuses me the posters who use words such as IS NOT and WILL.

Again, if arrogance was only intelligence...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:43 | 438491 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

How much does it cost the U. S. to move all this hardware around?

What is the return on this "investment"?  Do we just add that to the cost of gasoline?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:46 | 438754 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture


The ROI is "our" ability to control the world's reserve currency and inflate away all "our" problems. Until "we" no longer can.

I highlight "our" and "we" because it is "my" government who is making these decisions, mostly against "our" consent and desire. But since "we" are conditioned to believe it is "our" government and "our" troops and "our" war, it's "our" problem. Of course, it's also "our" currency that allows us to enjoy a higher standard of living that we would enjoy if not for the underlying wars and deceptions.

Thus making "us" all responsible for "our" military/industrial/governmental complex.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:20 | 438876 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I am hereby edified.  Thanks.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 15:02 | 439411 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

didn't Iran recently stop accepting Euros in favor of dollars? If so, do we really want to reverse that with a bombing?

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:17 | 438046 Wernerempire
Wernerempire's picture

Really? Routine swaps with Israeli warships in the convoy through the Suez canal? Happens all the time?

Tue, 06/29/2010 - 01:40 | 440721 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Yes.  We practice with the navies of other countries all the time.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:56 | 438025 Jacob Dreizin
Jacob Dreizin's picture

Given that no government outside of Iran wants Iran to go nuclear, it truly says a lot about the decline of the West that the “hyperpower” USA and its espresso-drinking lackeys in NATO prefer to outsource this work to an insignificant speck like Israel, which alone is barely up to the task.


Those of you who are unemployed, virgin / no girlfriend, living in your mom’s basement, eating Cheetos for breakfast (e.g. Chumba), might want to wake up and seriously think about what the ISLAMIC BOMB means for you.


It is bad enough that Pakistan, with an estimated 100 nukes, is literally disintegrating before our eyes.  Who knows where that plutonium will end up?  Israel will disappear at some point, but that nuclear material will remain.  And now you are cheering for Iran to have the bomb, too?


It is one thing to be a genuine pacifist, it is another thing to be a hypocrite who just wants to see big bad Uncle Sam get a bloody nose.


I hasten to add that Iran too is an empire, only 50 percent Persian.  It will collapse at some point (as it has many times in the past) and that nuclear material is going to go all over the place.


At least Uncle Sam’s poison is underground in South Dakota.  The collapse of Iran won’t be so clean.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:02 | 438032 doomandbloom
doomandbloom's picture

I must apologise in advance for the very conspiratorial nature of my post (again!). I just find it funny when things i dont want to believe in keep propping up.

This mainly because you mentioned plutonium;-)

‘Plutum is another concern. The AndrrAka have hidden communication passages through which they meet and import and export material. One of these materials is activated plutonium. The Terran( earth) Andaar-Aka produce enough activated plutonium to export to Ovvala ( parallel earth) to run the Skandrr power grids.'

Maybe i need to stop watching Star Trek ...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 15:15 | 439459 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

"The Terran( earth) Andaar-Aka produce enough activated plutonium to export to Ovvala ( parallel earth) to run the Skandrr power grids.'"


Typical Andaar-Aka. They also control the Ovvala media. And the Skandrr banks.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:25 | 438052 docj
docj's picture

Well said, Jacob.

But you have to realize that not all of this vitriol reflects the desire - need, really - to see Uncle Sam's nose bloodied.

It's easily as much about making sure The Jews are put in their place.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:56 | 438784 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Yes, because always and forever, it is about destroying The Jewz.  Nothing is ever about what The Jewz do, it's only the reaction to their right to be God'z Chozen People(TM) that is the problem.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:13 | 438843 docj
docj's picture

And I've spoken in support of "what The Jewz do" where, precisely?

But many thanks for proving my point for me.  Very handy to have an example close-by for the scroll-lazy.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:46 | 438955 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

It's easily as much about making sure The Jews are put in their place.

Come on, that schoolyard bullshit doesn't work.  I've been around a while, ya know?

But if you want to pick a fight, sure, here I am.

Please explain the conspiracy which is only intent on "making sure The Jews are put in their place".  How does that work?

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 15:29 | 439492 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

There it is!!! "The chosen people". With a trade mark, too!

If a Christian believes that one will only go to heaven if one believes that Jesus is the Lord and Savior of all mankind, does he not see himself as chosen? Or a Muslim in the practice of the koran and teachings of Mohammad believing that that is the one, true way to Grace? Every religion sells itself as special. It's just marketing. No one actually believes it.

"Chosen for what?" has always been the question that jews ask. A bit of a joke, really as not much good has come to Jews throughout the ages. But going the "chosenite" road is very telling of you. Perhaps you might feel more comforatable on some other site such as stormfront or More like minded people, guys like you that get knocked down but then get up again. Because no one is going to keep you down, Chumbawamba. No one.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 19:00 | 439952 svendthrift
svendthrift's picture

Re: stormfront etc.

These shouts are rapidly losing their effectivness. At the next Zionist meet'n'greet y'all might want to discuss toning it down. At some point, in the very near future, these words will have no meaning at all.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:16 | 438415 lucasjackson
lucasjackson's picture

I am unsure whether it is your lack of geopolitical understanding, or your utopian view of the rest of the world, but I can assure you that many nations, perhaps even a slight majority wish to see a nuclear armed Iran.  Insofar as you claim an Islamic Bomb will bring about much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments I recommend you review the ethnic and cultural diversity of Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers.  Also, are you aware of the current state of affairs in DPRK? The technology is approximately 7 decades old.  There are superior methods to achieve a positive outcome, rather than dictating which peoples may or may not have this technology.  Signed  Rabbi Jewie Von Hebrewstein in reply to  Jacob Dreizin

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 19:35 | 440041 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Those of you who are unemployed, virgin / no girlfriend, living in your mom’s basement, eating Cheetos for breakfast (e.g. Chumba), might want to wake up

bad ad hom trolling there jacob, rather juvenile in fact. . . rather surprised you didn't continue with a "I had yer mom" reference. . .


Sun, 07/11/2010 - 20:34 | 463624 laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

you make some good points. I dont get the 8 junk flags; for what? you are making points and not using profanity, so there should be no junk flags.

anyway, at present levels of immigration and birth rates western europe will be majority muslim in 10-20 years. what's going to happen to all their nukes then? you are right, nuclear weapons will be everywhere in the future. And you are right about the pollution. Dont ever live downwind of a us military base or drink ground water from a well within 5 miles of a us military base. the army is the biggest polluter in the world, next to china's army and merchant marine.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:04 | 438033 Übermensch
Übermensch's picture

What was the point of this article???

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:06 | 438036 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

My god man. Did you learn NOTHING from it? That's either very impressive, or very sad. I'm not certain which.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:11 | 438041 Übermensch
Übermensch's picture

My, my sensitive today aren't we Marla...

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:33 | 438059 Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

Level of idiocy present in many [most] of these comments does that to people. Also; while the only thing you lazy fucks know is how to spew shit all over someone else's rather brilliant work [and thus someone else's time] and throw one stupid thing after another; being a *bit* sensitive about that is somehwat expected. So; unless you can put up [a valuable contribution] you better shut the fuck up or at least take an effort in understanding the topic at hand and the topic you try to "improve" with you comments. This is the best analysis you can get on this topic [and for free that is] and what do you do; you take a shit on it and play a higher moral ground. 

FYI; This is not going against you; Its that I jut found your comment to be the one to left mine which goes to, well, the majority here; actually you're cool in my book.

Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:16 | 438627 Thoreau
Thoreau's picture

Perhaps Marla's next article will cover Israeli nuclear production and proliferation? I somehow think not.


Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:59 | 438795 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Actually, the next article should just be a photo montage of Cheeky licking Marla's asshole clean after she takes a major dump.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sun, 07/11/2010 - 12:33 | 439559 velobabe
velobabe's picture


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!