Netanyahu's speech to Congress, March 3rd, 2015

[haman10]

Jon Stewart described it in the best way possible:


Stewart: Bibi’s Congress Reception Was ‘Longest Blowjob a Jewish Man Has Ever Received’ | Mediaite




@haman10 @ResurgentIran. @raptor22 @rahi2357

Lol

Nice article

 

[SouI]

Thats fact. Egypt and Jordan were armed by Brits and Jordan was even led by British officers to war against Israel. Later Israel even shot down British fighters.

The records say the otherwise. All the documentaries showed British officers training Israeli soldiers. Also the equipments and vehicles they use, donated by US,major EU countries and Russia.

So you had your back covered by almost the whole of notable world significantly.

If you want some source on this, watch any documentary about Israeli wars.

 

[500]

The records say the otherwise. All the documentaries showed British officers training Israeli soldiers.

LOL, there is no such documents. Brits cooperate with Palestine Jews from 1936-1939, during the Arab revolt. But then they switched to Arab side. In 1948 Brits were totally pro Arab.

Also the equipments and vehicles they use, donated by US,major EU countries and Russia.

Jews bought vehicles for huge price, mainly from Czechoslovakia + little France.

 

[ResurgentIran]

lol pretty funny

 

[raptor22]

 

[Dominance]

No, Iran Can’t Trigger a Nuclear Tsunami That Wipes Out Israel

Militaries have tried—and failed—to weaponize waves

by MATTHEW GAULT

On March 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before the United States Congress and warned the world of a nuclear armed Iran. The press has written a lot about the speech, even before he delivered it.

“Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” Netanyahu said March 2 during a preview of his speech at the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC.

Some of the stories were more credulous than others. One of the most provocative came from the Israeli military tabloid Debka File, which published an article about how Iran could use a nuclear bomb to trigger a tsunami in the Mediterranean, wiping out Israel in a single blow.

The title is frightening enough to get even the most hardened Internet cynic to click. Nukes are scary, yes, but could Iran develop one so powerful that it could cause a tsunami? What did Debka File know that everyone else didn’t?

Not much. “This nuclear bomb or device would be dropped from an IranAir civilian airliner on a regular run from Larnaca over the Mediterranean about 100 [kilometers] from the Israeli coast,” according to Debka File. “The delayed action mechanism would detonate the bomb and set off a tsunami.”

Fortunately for Israel, the site hasn’t done its research. No, a nuclear bomb couldn’t cause a massive wave to kill millions and cripple Israel’s economy.

This is an old pseudo-scientific theory, one that whackadoo tabloids parade out anytime there’s a natural disaster or nuclear threat.

Back in 2006, the Egyptian weekly Al Osboa reported that American and Israeli nuclear testing had caused an earthquake in the Indian Ocean. The 2004 earthquake triggered a tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people.

The oldest conspiracies are the easiest to debunk. There is just no explosive powerful enough—atomic or otherwise—that can displace the amount of water required to create waves powerful enough to destroy cities.
The Allies carried out a lot of far-out experiments during World War II. One of the most obscure ones is New Zealand’s Project Seal, which allegedly tried to generate a tsunami with explosives.

It was the brainchild of Thomas Leech, a professor at Auckland University. Leech detonated explosives off the coast of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula in 1944 and 1955, according to reports dating back to the late 1990s in the New Zealand Herald.

The paper learned about the experiments after New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade released documents about the project. A sensationalized version of the story later circulated in 2013.

The experiments didn’t work. The explosions weren’t large enough to create more than small, pitiful waves—because it takes an incredible amount of energy to displace water on a tsunami scale. Human militaries have yet to build a device capable of doing so, despite their best efforts.

The Tsar Bomba was the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated. The Soviet Union tested the monstrous hydrogen bomb above the Arctic Circle in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in 1961. The bomb had a 50-megaton yield and destroyed everything around it for 22 miles.

Impressive, but mother nature is far more destructive.

In 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of Japan. The quake created massive waves that devastated three Japanese prefectures and caused a nuclear meltdown. The earthquake released a TNT-equivalent of 480 megatons of energy, spread along hundreds of miles of fault line 30 miles below the surface of the Pacific.

For its part, the Pentagon also researched how explosions interact with waves. During the Cold War, the U.S. tested nukes underwater, and needed to make sure that doing so was safe. But the research raised questions about whether America could weaponize waves.

“Initial interest in waves was primarily to appraise them as a … hazard to … testing,” stated the Handbook of Explosion-Generated Water Waves. The handbook is a dense and lengthy Office of Naval Research study from 1968 that summarized everything the Pentagon knew at the time time about blowing stuff up in the ocean.

“As large thermonuclear devices were developed,” the report continued. “Questions arose as to the tactical and/or strategic implications of the wave systems that were produced.”

Some of the data in the report came from Operation Hardtack I, a series of nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific in 1958. The military designed some of the tests to see just how much water a nuclear explosion could displace.

TheUmbrella and Wahoo nuclear detonations occurred in shallow and deep water, respectively. Both explosions shot huge ******** of water into the air, but neither triggered devastating, coast-destroying waves.

“Theoretical and experimental studies revealed the relatively inefficient wave making potential of large explosions,” the handbook explained. “In many cases most wave energy is dissipated by breaking on the continental shelf before reaching shore.”

The thought of Iran armed with nuclear weapons is terrifying to many, especially its neighbors. The world needs to have a civilized discussion about what it means should the country ever develop the technology.

But conspiracy theories about tectonic super-weapons, tsunami bombs and nukes pushed out of the back of civilian airliners foul the air around the conversation. There’s enough to be afraid of without bullshit claims easily dismissed by a quick Google search.

No, Iran Can’t Trigger a Nuclear Tsunami That Wipes Out Israel — War Is Boring — Medium

 

[Taygibay]

LOL Actually, Dominance mate, Iran could bury Israel under a tsunami …

provided that :

a nuclear war head of over one megaton ( 5-10 being my minimum estimate )

and it be buried at the Cyprian arc at a depth of at least 30 km and detonated.

Ask any of your local geologist expert with plate tectonics understanding.

Of course, and I'll say this out loud without flinching, if Israel / the West was to let that happen without noticing anything …
the ensuing destruction ( which would also bury Istanbul and Cairo BTW ) would have been earned IMHoO and a huge victory for Iran even if the plan itself was traitorous.

And if people in Occident are fooled by politico-strategists into voting for war hawks on account of such a plan, well we are too dumb to deserve democracy in the first place, a long-held belief of mine.

Tay.

One source if needed : Shimon Wdowinski: Research: Eastern Mediterranean

 

[Dominance]

Mark Fitzpatrick: Netanyahu’s False Analogy

Date: 06 March 2015
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strongest argument against the impending nuclear deal concerns the prospect that Iran could get away with cheating, especially after the limits on the enrichment programme expire in about 15 years. If and when an agreement is reached, the Western nations involved in the talks will have to provide a substantive response. Since the debate is already raging, here are my two cents.

Verification of non-proliferation rules depends on the ability to detect cheating in a timely manner. Just as important, however, is the will and ability of states to enforce the rules in time. As Netanyahu noted, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is charged only with documenting violations; it doesn’t have authority to physically stop them. This power is left up to the United Nations Security Council, or to concerned states acting individually or collectively.

North Korea provides a favourite example for those who, like Netanyahu, condemn the emerging Iran nuclear deal. As he stated, inspectors knew when North Korea ‘broke to the bomb’ in late 2002, and they couldn’t do anything about it. The inspectors had to leave the Yongbyon nuclear site as directed. North Korea went on to pull out of the NPT and to resume reprocessing, separating enough plutonium for up to six weapons.

Why, then, did concerned states not take action to stop North Korea – and what lesson does this leave for the Iran case? China, as usual, protected its client state from any meaningful Security Council action. When the crisis first erupted, the United States took unilateral action by stopping all fuel-oil deliveries that had been agreed under the Joint Framework. But no forceful action was taken to enforce the agreement, which the George W. Bush administration wanted to kill off anyway.

Two factors precluded US-led military action to prevent North Korea from acquiring the additional a-bomb material. The most immediate factor was that in early 2003, the United States was gearing up to lead an invasion of Iraq and did not want the distraction of opening up another front. The more enduring factor was that the United States’ allies and partners in the region had zero appetite for military confrontation over North Korea’s nuclear programme. As in 1993–94 when the first North Korea nuclear crisis erupted, South Korea in particular was absolutely opposed to a military attack that would likely restart the Korean War and devastate its capital. Seoul lies within range of hundreds of North Korean long-range artillery systems. They hold South Korea’s economic and political centre hostage.

In the Iran case, the situation is the opposite. In the event that Iran was to cheat and spurt to nuclear weapons, US partners in the region would want the United States to act forcefully. The former king of Saudi Arabia exhorted the US to take military action to end Iran’s nuclear programme, famously calling for the United States to ‘cut off the head of the snake’. Israel’s interest in US military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is also well known. Iran could retaliate with conventionally armed missiles, but missile defences would deflect many of them, and the damage inflicted by any that got through would be limited. Unlike North Korea, Iran does not hold any neighbour hostage. Nobody would hold back the US from dismantling Iranian nuclear facilities by force.

Sceptics claim President Barack Obama would hold back of his own accord, out of an aversion to war. I disagree, but it is an irrelevant argument. If there is an agreement, Iran will not be breaking it to spurt for a bomb within the last two years of Obama’s tenure. Iran’s programme won’t be close enough to a weapon to hazard such a gamble. The question to be asked is whether Obama’s successors would enforce an Iran nuclear deal by taking military action. Surveying the likely field of candidates, I certainly would not want to bet against Hillary Clinton or any possible Republican president ordering air-strikes. I doubt Iran would take that bet either.

The sunset clause in an Iran nuclear deal is Israel’s most troubling concern. When centrifuge limits are eventually lifted, Iran would be free to build the industrial-sized enrichment plant it has long envisaged. It is argued that the IAEA is incapable of adequately safeguarding such large bulk facilities, in part because of the size of the material unaccounted for (MUF) that cannot be monitored.

Given improved approaches, techniques and inspection rights, the IAEA contends that it can detect diversion at enrichment plants. The issue then again becomes one of enforcement action. The breakout period will be considerably reduced if, in the future, Iran follows through with plans to install the equivalent of 120,000 first-generation centrifuges. Ideally, a nuclear deal would lead to more economic rationality on the part of Iran’s decision-makers, who would know that it is far more economical for Iran to buy enriched uranium fuel than to produce it indigenously. The ideal outcome cannot be presumed, of course. But we can probably presume a continued willingness on the part of US leaders to enforce the deal through military action. Such a deterrence posture should serve to keep Iran nuclear-weapons-free.

Mark Fitzpatrick: Netanyahu’s False Analogy | IISS

 

[Arminkh]

lol pretty funny

 

[Ulysses]

I feel Israel is dragging us to a major war which many Americans do not want.

I hope Iran finds a balance to work something out

 

[Arminkh]

I feel Israel is dragging us to a major war which many Americans do not want.

I hope Iran finds a balance to work something out

An unnecessary war indeed.

I think US and Iran are getting there. Fingers crossed!

 

[Dominance]

Netanyahu’s Iran Thing

Roger Cohen

MARCH 6, 2015

Let’s begin with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iran logic. He portrays a rampaging Islamic Republic that “now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sana,” a nation “gobbling” other countries on a “march of conquest, subjugation and terror.” Then, in the same speech, he describes Iran as “a very vulnerable regime” on the brink of folding.

Well, which is it?

The Israeli prime minister dismisses a possible nuclear accord, its details still unclear, as “a very bad deal” that “paves Iran’s path to the bomb.” He says just maintain the pressure and, as if by magic, “a much better deal” will materialize (thereby showing immense condescension toward the ministers of the six major powers who have been working on a doable deal that ring-fences Iran’s nuclear capacity so that it is compatible only with civilian use). Yet Netanyahu knows the first thing that will happen if talks collapse is that Russia and China will undermine the solidarity behind effective Iran sanctions.

So, where is the leverage to secure that “much better deal”?

Netanyahu lambastes the notion of a nuclear deal lasting 10 years (President Obama has suggested this is a minimum). He portrays that decade as a period in which, inevitably, Iran’s “voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year.” He thereby dismisses the more plausible notion that greater economic contact with the world and the gradual emergence of a young generation of Iranians drawn to the West — as well as the inevitable dimming of the ardor of Iran’s revolution — will attenuate such aggression.

With similar sleight of hand, he dances over the fact that military action — the solution implicit in Netanyahu’s demands for Iranian nuclear capitulation — would likely set back the Iranian program by a couple of years at most, while guaranteeing that Iran races for a bomb in the aftermath.

What better assures Israel’s security, a decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program that prevents it making a bomb, or a war that delays the program a couple of years, locks in the most radical factions in Tehran, and intensifies Middle Eastern violence? It’s a no-brainer.

No wonder Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party’s House Leader, saw Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as an “insult to the intelligence of the United States.” Netanyahu’s “profound obligation” to speak of the Iranian threat to the Jewish people proved to be a glib opportunity for fear-mongering and evasion above all.

Netanyahu’s credibility is low. In 1993, in an Op-Ed article in The Times headlined “Peace in Our Time?” he compared the late Yitzhak Rabin to Chamberlain for the Oslo Accords. Rabin’s widow never forgave him. For more than a decade now, he has said Iran was on the brink of a bomb and threatened Israeli military action — and hoped his hyperbole would be forgotten. He called the 2013 interim agreement with Iran a “historic mistake”; the accord has proved a historic achievement that reversed Iran’s nuclear momentum.

Invoking Munich and appeasement is, it seems, Netanyahu’s flip reaction to any attempt at Middle Eastern diplomacy. Here, once again, before the Congress, was the by-now familiar analogy drawn between Iran and the Nazis. Its implication, of course, is that Obama, like the great Rabin, is some latter-day Chamberlain.

The kindest thing that can be said of Netanyahu’s attempt to equate Iran with the medieval barbarians of Islamic State, and to dismiss the fact that Iranian help today furthers America’s strategic priority of defeating those knife-wielding slayers, is that it was an implausible stretch. Of course Netanyahu mentioned the Persian viceroy Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jews, but not Cyrus of Persia, who ended the Babylonian exile of the Jews. The prime minister’s obsessive Iran demonization runs on selective history.

The Islamic Republic is repressive. It is hostile to Israel, underwrites Hezbollah and has sponsored terrorism. Its human rights record is abject. The regime is wedded to anti-Americanism (unlike the 80 million people of Iran, many of whom are drawn to America). But the most important diplomacy is conducted with enemies. Given Iran’s mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, there is no better outcome for Israel and the world than the successful conclusion of the tough deal sought by Obama; one involving the intensive verification over an extended period of a much-reduced enrichment program that assures that Iran is kept at least one year away from any potential “breakout” to bomb manufacture.

One word did not appear in Netanyahu’s speech: Palestine. The statelessness of the Palestinians is the real long-term threat to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Iran has often been a cleverly manipulated distraction from this fact.

Among foreign leaders, nobody has been invited to address Congress more often than Netanyahu. He now stands equal at the top of the table along with Winston Churchill. Behind Netanyahu trail Nelson Mandela and Yitzhak Rabin. That’s a pretty devastating commentary on the state of contemporary American political culture and the very notion of leadership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/opinion/roger-cohen-netanyahus-iran-thing.html

 

[Solomon2]

When I say prove it, I don't mean quoting a website that 'perceives' Nasarallah's speech in their own way, and that website happens to be close to Sa'ad Hariri group. There are videos of most of Nasrallah's speeches, please provide it if there is one.

Temper's calmed down a bit: link.

 

[Serpentine]

Temper's calmed down a bit: link.

So here's what Nasrallah said:

But I’ll tell you. Among the signs […] and signals which guide us, in the Islamic prophecies and not only in the Jewish prophecies, is that this State [of Israel] will be established, and that the Jews will gather from all parts of the world into occupied Palestine, not in order to bring about the anti-Christ and the end of the world, but rather that Allah the Glorified and Most High wants to save you from having to go to the ends of the world, for they have gathered in one place–they have gathered in one place–and there the final and decisive battle will take place.

So, where does he say that he wants to kill the Jews?

He mentions that in some Jewish and Islamic sources, it's predicted that Jews will all gather in one one place, so if a decisive battle happens, the was is easier to be fought. Yes he is saying that a war will happen. He didn't mention anything about killing all Jews around the world.

That obnoxious creature (Netanyahu) also has said Iran wants to kill all Jews in Israel and around the world, meanwhile Iran refuses to touch its own Jewish population and Hezbollah has denied any involvement in attacks contributed to it around the world (which are lies). So if a group is hell bent on killing all Jews, it wouldn't deny involvement in any attacks against Jews like AMIA bombing. AMIA looks more like an inside job, just like Bulgaria, Thailand and India attacks.


'Sacrifice' few in order to buy sympathy for millions and to spread propaganda against your enemy.