Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Ian wrote: "So Nik, do you support its efforts to down al Qaeda and other Wahhabi extremists?..."

Sure and I generally believe Iran's hostility to the West is unwarranted. Now that FIFA insists that Iran allows women to watch football (or else they would bomb Tehran with football balls or apply crippling sportive sanctions), I believe it could be a wonderful and friendly place: ttps://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/infant... . And I'm serious despite a joking remark.
It's amazing to see, while not officially admitted, how remarkably Israel's standing and relations improved with the SA and Gulf states in general in the face of mutual rivalry with Iran.
And specifically in the context of relations with the US - I'm confident Trump wants a better deal and not an invasion or conflagration with Iran.

US 'launched cyberattacks on Iran weapons' after drone downing https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/0...
US officials say the attacks on Iranian military computers disabled systems that control missile and rocket launchers.

Iain wrote: "Hey Nik, there's more important news to focus on, like Boris Johnson having an argument with his wife about spilled wine, while in his own home.

Apparently, this has been misconstrued as him being a potential killer...."

Boris seems to be a cool dude. Reminds a bit his Russian namesake.
To alleviate and mitigate conflagrations at home, he can maybe watch Iranian football and feel privileged

And it appears, from a news comment this morning, Trump is to add to the sanctions on Iran. This festering sore apparently needs continual poking.

Nik wrote: "And just as we speak, the reports are that the US military response was aborted in the last minute: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.c......"

All thanks to Mr. Trump. Thankfully Mr. Trump isn't a warmonger but I doubt our Aussies/ Kiwi friends are able to appreciate him in any manner whatsoever.

James wrote: "Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Israel could do it unilaterally and lead, with U.S. support in an air and naval capacity but an Israeli led foray would be more likely to ignite the entire middle-east. ...."

Or is the religious thing just an aside?

Really? Are you serious?

Ian wrote: "Nik wrote: "they can insist the renegotiated deal to be subject to Congress' approval." Insist? How? The President could still pull out. Congress is usually totally unwilling to "approve" anything ..."


https://www.reference.com/government-...

Under the U.S. Constitution the President has the power to make treaties with foreign powers. The treaty is subject to approval by a 2/3 vote by the U.S. Senate.

In the past administrations some of our Presidents have just made 'deals' with other countries in order to circumvent having the Senate officially approve an official treaty made by the President.

This is usually fine with the Senate since they have very little to answer for when it's time for re-election. The less they do, the more likely they'll be re-elected.

Only the U.S. Congress can declare war on another country, but they are more than happy for the President or the U.N. to take this power away from them so they won't have to answer to the public when it's time for re-election. This way they don't have to answer to the grieving American mothers and wives either.

Lance wrote: "When I launched this thread just one week ago today I suspected it’d be lively. We’d all have to agree there’s been some interesting developments since then… One of those being The Donald (Trump) r..."

Well Lance, I did try to tell you 3 weeks ago that Mr. Trump was no warmonger, but what do I know? I'm just an American :D

Lance wrote: "When I launched this thread just one week ago today I suspected it’d be lively. We’d all have to agree there’s been some interesting developments since then… One of those being The Donald (Trump) r..."

After reading the rest of your comments here you won't believe this but I thought the same thing about what Hillary would've done if she had won instead of Trump with the resulting body bags.

President Trump had ordered Sec. Mattis to withdraw from Syria a few months ago and the warmonger Mattis disobeyed the elected President of the USA which resulted in Mattis being asked to resign. Good riddance.

In the future, why not have a little more faith that Americans have the ability to decide which candidate will make the best President for OUR country :D

Thank you for commenting on All of OUR Planet...

Funny thing, Laurie, thaat I know of so many Americans who think you do not have the best President. OK, in fairness a lot of them are Dems, but they are still Americans :-)

James wrote: "Thank you for commenting on All of OUR Planet..."

LOL! Such hubris from a Kiwi :D Why, you'd think you were an American that ruled the world :D

Ian wrote: "Funny thing, Laurie, thaat I know of so many Americans who think you do not have the best President. OK, in fairness a lot of them are Dems, but they are still Americans :-)"

You're kidding! I surely didn't know that fact :D Have a great week Ian.

Iain wrote: "``Laurie wrote: "Lance wrote: "When I launched this thread just one week ago today I suspected it’d be lively. We’d all have to agree there’s been some interesting developments since then… One of t..."

You certainly have summed it up beautifully when it comes to the rancor between the left/right POV these days. And the virtue signaling - aye yi yi, I don't know if I can stand any more of that either.

I'm just thankful that Mr. Trump has kept us out of yet another war and I appreciate his creative way of checking Iran besides the usual boots on the ground mentally.

So nice to talk to such a gentleman here too :D

You have a great week too, Laurie

``Laurie wrote: "LOL! Such hubris from a Kiwi :D Why, you'd think you were an American that ruled the world :D "

Oh, the naivety of patriotism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT...

Chances of US-Iran tensions escalating are ‘very, very high,’ says former advisor to Tehran https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/24/chanc...

It's probably not too comforting to surmise this thread is being repeated in and out of the White House with equally dodgy speculations. For what it's worth, my head agrees with most of what Ian has said. (that's probably because I suspect mine is even older than his and they both go back some way in histrionic politics). Israel can't be left out of this argument; they coined the idea with Obama that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear capability and the rest follows from there. But why not? I ask. As above, I can't see much point in Iran, or any other country, spending their entire GDP and more in acquiring nukes and bankrupting themselves and, I suspect, Iran also realised that when they agreed the stop to their enrichment programme. They were desperate to mend their economy and now they are even more desperate after Trump imposed further sanctions. History tells us that by driving a country into poverty is the best way to help them arm themselves for war (Germany/Japan). Social unrest has increased dramatically outside of Teheran and even there business people are making noises about the massive rise in inflation and shortage of commodities. I can imagine the Ayatollah asking 'will noone rid me of this pesky sanctions' and many willing hands throwing petrol on Trumps hot stones. They are trying to frighten the EU to oppose Trump and not join the sanctions. It's no longer just about money for Iran; it's getting nearer to being about survival for much of their population. So, fan the flames at your peril Mr. Bolton. But first, read some history. Even Ceasar failed in Persia.

P.K., you asked the question and I'll gladly answer it-:) There is a perfect understanding between all the signatories of the deal with Iran, that it shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, incl Britain, France, Germany, Russia. Obama and Israel initiated it? Maybe, but others agreed and didn't require much persuasion. And no worries Israel won't be left out of this. Now why? Iran declares death to America, death to Israel. And not only it declares it acts through proxies against them constantly having a fat record of 'accomplishments'. We can't depend on whether ayatollahs rational, would they want to attempt to destroy Israel or not. If somebody wishes you death or destruction you better deal with it before s/he is able to deliver on it.
Why is S.Korea and Japan are so worried about nuclear N.Korea?
Why was there Cuban crisis in the past? Couldn't Cuba as a sovereign state have as much missiles as they possibly wanted?
And don't forget if Iran goes ahead S. Arabia is next in line for those who think they might be a little tough.

And what is asked from Iran in return for lifting of sanctions and 'normalization' (if they want) - very little: give up weapon grade nukes (they claim they don't want it anyway), means of their delivery and support of terrorists proxies. Trump reiterated those just today. They can have sanctions lifted soonest, but they wouldn't even negotiate (until now) would they?

James wrote: "``Laurie wrote: "LOL! Such hubris from a Kiwi :D Why, you'd think you were an American that ruled the world :D "

Oh, the naivety of patriotism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT..."

Oh, it James again...the Kiwi that roared!

Iain wrote: "``Laurie wrote: "Iain wrote: "``Laurie wrote: "Lance wrote: "When I launched this thread just one week ago today I suspected it’d be lively. We’d all have to agree there’s been some interesting dev..."

Maybe time to get extremely vocal in return and let them read up on their own hypocrisy?

Great idea but it's probably hopeless. I think we'll just have to be patient and hope they grow up and stop throwing temper tantrums like a 2 year old. smh :(

P.K. I am not sure your head is older than mine (assuming we refer to age).

Now, why would Iran want to enrich uranium? They have decided to devote much to having a nuclear energy program, and they may simply not trust the west not to choke them of enriched material, OR of taking the spent rods and process them. The problem is, they have had decades of general sanctions and similar trouble. On top of that, they do a deal to promise not to use the uranium for nukes, and then when the stop and have international inspectors agree they are honouring their obligations, the US pulls the plug because it decides it wants to stop Iran from doing other things. For example, it wants to give their friendly Saudis the right to bomb the shit out of Yemen and pay no price.

Trump accuses Iran of being the biggest sponsor of terrorism. Who knocked out some NY buildings? How come ISIS had huge caches of weapons made by the likes of Raytheon?

Which gets us to Nik's point. There was no problem of Iran giving up nukes. There was a deal. That leaves "missiles" and "terrorist proxies". The missiles can reasonably be used for conventional explosives, or does Nik think that the Saudis and presumably Israel, should have the right to bomb whoever they want, when they want, and pay no price?

Yes, Iran has made these statements "Death to Israel" and so on, but what has it actually done. Actually, the likes of Trump and Bolton have stated they could annihilate Iran (or N Korea). Talk! I agree Iran should have more sense than to say these things, and some sort of negotiated settlement is required, but negotiation is not "You will do what we want, and we will do what we want."

P.K. wrote: "They were desperate to mend their economy and now they are even more desperate after Trump imposed further sanctions. History tells us that by driving a country into poverty is the best way to help them arm themselves for war (Germany/Japan)...."

Yup. But unfortunately not many people can see how extreme economic sanctions can be tantamount to military attacks.

``Laurie wrote: "James wrote: "Thank you for commenting on All of OUR Planet..."

LOL! Such hubris from a Kiwi :D Why, you'd think you were an American that ruled the world :D"

Hey Laurie - Whilst we encourage freedom of speech in this group we discourage denigrating nationalities on the basis there's good and bad to be found in every nationality and within every political or religious persuasion be it left/right or Christian/Muslim (for example). So pls ease up on us Down Under Undergrounders. We ain't remotely anti-American.
Sgd.
Sensitive Kiwi

Oh dear! A sensitive kiwi. And there may be Aussies reading this. I foresee trubble :-(

I doubt any US company would be selling weapons to Iraq any time after the first Gulf War and the Raytheon missiles I saw in a TVG clip were definitely more recent than that. I believe most people believe the Saudis were sending weapons to enemies of Assad, and the so-called "moderates" would not be able to hold them from ISIS

I think Iain's oil-price link is a bit optimistic. Iran would not succumb and plead to stop. It might have to if it ran out of ammo, but that would be about it.

Nik wrote: "P.K., you asked the question and I'll gladly answer it-:) There is a perfect understanding between all the signatories of the deal with Iran, that it shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, i..."
I agree with all that, Nik. And more. Trump's decision to leave the denuclearisation treaty with Iran was because he or whoever, decided that Iran stopping nuclear fusion was not enough; they want Iran to get out of Syria and Iraq and stop fomenting trouble in Gaza and Yemen. and to recognise Israel. Well, good luck to all that. It's like asking them to stop worshipping the Shi'ite allah and recognise other religions exist. Ironically, as in Turkey, there is a vast support for secularism in Iran but it doesn't reach the parts that matter. My point was that Iran with a nuclear capability would be no more dangerous than it is now. Without Russia having it we would have had WW111 by now. Without Pakistan and India having it we would have had that continent ablaze. There are more ways to face your enemy and Iran works at them very successfully. In the end only people can make the difference, not weapons. This has been Europe's approach to Iran, a little step at a time. That is why foreign officers from Britain, France and Germany are in Iran at the moment; telling them softly that they don't agree with Trump's approach, be patient and hope the b..... is dumped next year. But the problem with that is that Europe have to make a decision to face-down Trump and defy sanctions, despite the financial consequences. But otherwise the consequenses will be worse. Long ago Iran threatened to sink ships to block the straight of Hormuz. If that happens two thirds of the world's oil supplies dry up. If Trump thinks all the cards are stacked in his favour he needs to think again - and so does Europe.

Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "P.K. I am not sure your head is older than mine (assuming we refer to age).

Now, why would Iran want to enrich uranium? They have decided to devote much to having a nuclear energy prog..."

All good and pertinent research on Iran's capabilities, Iain. Add to that that they have a pemanent army of over 200.000, over 1500 combat tanks and 150 strike aircraft; not a little capability at all. Perhaps someone got through to Trump with some of your research (like the defense chiefs) before he decided not to push a button.

Who can vouch that nuclear Iran will not be more dangerous? Nuclear Gulf? Besides, all these regimes rest on dictatorial governance prone to civil unrest. What happens in such case?
Nobody asks from Iran to recognize Israel. Israel doesn't need it nor any favors of ayatollahs. Appeasing radical groups and regimes just transpires weakness, which they all sense very acutely. They respect strength not gestures. It might look differently from places, where ppl don't know how much time they need to get to a bomb shelter or don't even have those bomb shelters.
For Israel nuclear Iran is pretty much like nuclear Cuba for the States.
As of pulling Iran out of Syria this reported to be discussed today btw Bolton & Patrushev in Israel. Let's see whether any understanding comes to fruition as a result.
I'm sure the deal is within reach and a diplomatic solution is the best, however the States also don't need favors and if they wish, and probably they can knock out Iranian nuclear and ballistic program paying little price, by appropriate aerial means . The brunt of the response would most likely be borne by allies - Israel, Saudia.
Anyhow so far - it's who blinks first game, which brings the moment of truth yet nearer. Let's see

Nik, I don't think Cuba is relevant here. The US decided that nobody would put missiles anywhere near its borders, despite the fact that it is happy to do that to the USSR. The USSR backed down to avoid nuclear war, AND because the geography made it too difficult for the USSR to sustain a Cuba base with what was already there. As it happened, the US belief that nothing could go wrong nearly started WW 3, when their navy started harrassing a Soviet sub. How could that old sub do anything to the mighty US fleet? Well, they had nuclear tipped torpedoes. They did not need to hit the ship - merely get close.

You are correct that the US air power can take out known Iranian fixed stuff on the surface, given time. We don't know what the losses will be, but it is far from clear what the US political view will be if they lose a carrier in doing it. Iran has enough stuff to close the Gulf, and countries that depend on Gulf oil will be extremely unhappy. It would probably throw the world into a depression. And the next problem would be that things would not stop there. Iran would keep fighting. As shown by Saddam, massive losses does not stop their resolve, and the need to get payback will be strong. Unlike in the time of Saddam, they are now more organised and well trained. There is no surgical option that ends the issue, but merely a match that starts a very long conflagration. The US has the military strength to prevail in a sense, but at a very high cost, and the US public may not be prepared to pay the price as they realise it is the likes of Bolton that causes it.

I think Cuba is a good analogue to convey the significance of the continuation of nuclear path by Iran.
Were you impressed by Saddam's resolve? I thought he was kinda shown his place rather quickly.
Yeah, mighty Iran is extremely formidable and I hope no one needs to test it, but luckily not a match to the States. maybe an impressive disabling of just one of their assets will cause them reconsider their stance? Many here believe they are rational

Nik, the biggest impression Saddam made on me was his stupidity, but it is sort of wrong to say the US won in Iraq. Sure, it rolled its tanks all over Iraq, and did some prodigious looting as shown by the loss of Iraq's historical assets, but the conversion of Iraq into a Shia dominated society, the rise of ISIS, and the general costs thereof, make it seem to me like a rather odd victory. Exactly what did it achieve? One could question the rationality of the latest sanctions directed personally at the financial assets of the Grand Ayatollah - according to the Iranians, he hasn't got any, and if true, that is merely a general irritant that makes negotiations much harder and gains nothing.

The problem with military strategy is that to claim a victory you have to achieve a stated objective. If the objective is to bomb Iran, kill x number of Iranians, then the US will have no problem, and the price does not necessarily have to be too high. provided what follows next is not included.

Ian, the purpose in not to kill even a single Iranian, nor to topple the regime, invade, etc. The purpose is to remove the specific threats, which can be done amicably (if Iran doesn't intend to pose any, as they claim) or militarily (less preferred option).
Some estimate that ayatollah has tens of billions of secret funds. For example: https://www.debka.com/new-trump-sanct... Not sure, I believe it, but that's another version and I assume when applying new sanctions the US had some idea behind them.
Guys, it's really astonishing to read here how many seem to understand 'martyr and lofty Iran' and how 'evil US' is endangering the world. Is this really your evaluation of the situ? Is Iranian rejectionist position really how it should defuse the tensions?

Nik, my views have nothing to do with good or evil of the participants, but rather what the outcome will be. As for removing threats, threats to whom? Is helping defeat ISIS a threat to anyone other than ISIS? Is giving the Shiites in Yemen means to sustain themselves a threat? Yes, Iran threatens to do things if it is bombed, but that threat is voided through not bombing. You say there was a threat of nuclear weapons. However, the deal Obama struck had International Inspectors ensuring that all nuclear material was properly accounted for so with no material there would be no nukes. That threat was dealt with.

No, the problem is Trump wanted something more. He denies it, but effectively he wants regime change and better access to US commercial interests. Everything Trump has done so far has been about money, including helping Saudi interests so he can sell more weapons. In the Star Trek terminology, he has the Ferengi philosophy. (Probably towards women too, judging from the stories we hear.) Of course he is not endangering the world. How you got that idea I have no idea, although he will be endangering oil supplies but hey, the US is trying to export surplus oil and gas. That will be at a much higher price.

However, what is wrong with the idea that the biggest guy on the block shouldn't have everything he wants, especially when it is at someone else's hurt, and when he gets what he wants, why, he wants more.

Ian, to stress that your idea is absolutely baseless of Iran just talking bad while doing good, you might want to familiarize yourself with this : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_... Not something I collected. Now, make even a 50% 'discount' for the 'alleged' and the list of Iranian 'accomplishments' would still be impressive. The threat to whom is there: to all those who suffered from Iranian malignancy, many of whom belong to what is tagged the 'West'.
Your idea of what Trump wants is of course a sheer speculation, so far disproved by the developments.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to check what amendments to the deal the US wants? To negotiate or raising tensions is the proper stance in your opinion? Canada, Mexico and others kinda went this route and nothing bad happened.
Now if US goes after defusing some of Iranian assets, Iran will try to block the straight and disrupt oil trade, won't it? Is it legitimate in your eyes: They can do nothing to the US so they want to harm the rest of the world and their neighbors? Will you applaud Iran for standing up to the US by retaliating against others? Pathetic - just my opinion, of course

The Wikipedia article is full of allegations An alliance with al Qaeda is just nonsense. The attacks by Hezbollah against Israeli and US interests are almost certainly true. However, the question is, why did Hezbollah form? The answer is the Israelis invaded Lebanon. There was a demonstration with unarmed citizens waving anti-Israeli placards, of the sort "Israelis go home!" Then some sort of Israeli armoured vehicle got lost and drifted into the square where they were demonstrating. Had they simply got into reverse and left, probably all would have been well. But they didn't. They sat there, the crowd approached and started chanting and the situation started to look difficult, but the Israelis were in an armoured vehicle so what could go wrong? Well, the Israelis decided to repel the crowd, with machine gun fire. Someone made a video of it, and I saw this on a history program. The Shiites decided they had to fight back.

So we are left with the statement if the Shiites kill, it is terrorism; Fair enough? Maybe. If the Israelis or the US does it, it is a surgical strike in self defence. Is terrorism in the eye of the beholder? Just because you sit in an aircraft or behind a screen controlling a drone, does that make what you do not terror?

As an aside, I have just seen in the news that Bolton gave a speech in which he stated it was the US policy to overthrow the regime in Iran. The speaker looked remarkably like John Bolton to me. At the same time, it appears that Congress is discussing the constitutionality of strikes, and is demanding Congress has to approve. We shall see.

I don't know, Ian, you pick some episodes, I'm not even aware of to tell what: that hezbollah is legitimate in your eyes?
Maybe you'd want to look at this account of their history, aims, foundation background and so on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
More, interesting to see, who considers it terrorist and who doesn't:
"The following entities have listed Hezbollah as a terror group:

Arab League The entire organization Hezbollah [339]
Australia Hezbollah's External Security Organization [340][21]
Bahrain The entire organization Hezbollah [18]
Canada The entire organization Hezbollah [20]
European Union Hezbollah's military wing [341][342]
France The military wing of Hezbollah [24]
Gulf Cooperation Council The entire organization Hezbollah [36]
Israel The entire organization Hezbollah [17]
Japan The entire organization Hezbollah [27]
Netherlands The entire organization Hezbollah [343][25]
New Zealand Hezbollah's military wing Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, since 2010 [22]
United Arab Emirates The entire organization Hezbollah [344]
United Kingdom The entire organization Hezbollah [38]
United States The entire organization Hezbollah [16]

The following countries do not consider Hezbollah a terror organization:

China The People's Republic of China remains neutral and maintains contacts with Hezbollah [337]
Cuba Hezbollah operates a base in Cuba [345]
Iran [346]
Iraq [347]
North Korea Allegedly supports Hezbollah [348]
Russia Considers Hezbollah a legitimate sociopolitical organization [336]
Syria [349]
Venezuela [350]"
What? New Zealand is among the former?!, but you prefer to side with China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, etc..?

Which of Israel-Lebanon conflagrations do you refer to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli... ?
Does Israel want anything of Lebanon, except for quiet on its northern border? To occupy it, to extract resources, to what? Or just to live peacefully alongside?

It's true Israel attempts to retaliate every aggression against the perpetrators to deter next ones. I think it's a reasonable policy.

The distinction between terrorism is not in the eyes of the beholder. If you deliberately target civilians or innocent bystanders - it's terror and for all I know those guilty in Western armies and Israeli too are accountable for such instances, assuming that probably many of these are covered up. But to fund, encourage, train, sponsor and perpetrate these in the first place - is a totally different story, isn't it?
And that's why I ask you, if Iran retaliates against uninvolved because it's simply unable to stand up to the US, would it be justified in your eyes? Or to use your allegory, if the biggest bloke on the block kicks the shit out of someone, can this someone beat someone else weaker because of frustration, or rape the sister of the biggest dude or what?

Returning to this thread's topic and heading (which still remains unanswered and a mystery): FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS > Another false flag with Iran?

Who was really behind the oil tanker attacks in the Persian Gulf? https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinio...
On balance it was probably Iran, but if it was a 'false flag' operation, that would be more frightening

The Gulf of Credibility. False Flag, Ludicrous Allegation. Iran Rescued the Crew of the Japanese Tanker https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-gul...
"I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions."

And as you love Wikipedia I note, Nik (or was it Ian?), I think throwing Israel into the mix of possible candidates (besides the US, or perhaps WITH the US) of either another false flag or else propaganda or spin is not without merit...It appears any serious investigative journalist would at least have to put Israel under the spotlight, along with the US, whilst also not dismissing all the relevant points you have raised about Iran's constant threats.

And I just do not agree with your statements that only the Muslim world is conducting terrorism (more and more people globally are realizing, especially in America's case, that terrorism takes many guises, especially since the recorded targetting of civilians by the West against some Muslim civilians has been successfully exposed by the likes of WikiLeaks):

Israel and state-sponsored terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...
Iran, Syria,[1] Lebanon,[2] Turkey,[3] Saudi Arabia,[4] and Yemen[5][non-primary source needed] have at some point accused Israel of being a state sponsor of terrorism.


And the section on likely false flags or state-sponsored terrorism by Israel against Iran in recent history has to be added into the mix...


Proxies Against Iran
See also: Iran–Israel proxy conflict
Israel and Iran are belligerent enemies. Though they have never been at war, both nations make efforts to undermine the other's influence in the region through various means: diplomatic, economic, and military. This includes the use of (often armed) proxies, which facilitate indirect conflict between the powers, and in the case of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, outright war. The Israeli government supports various armed groups in its conflict with Iranian government.[15]

MEK
Main article: People's Mujahedin of Iran
See also: Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists
Four Iranian nuclear scientists—Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan—were assassinated between 2010 and 2012. Another scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, was wounded in an attempted murder.[16][17] Two of the killings were carried out with magnetic bombs attached to the targets' cars; Darioush Rezaeinejad was shot dead, and Masoud Alimohammadi was killed in a motorcycle-bomb explosion.[18] US officials confirm that MEK was financed, trained, and armed by Israel in killing Iranian nuclear scientists.[19] According to The Atlantic, the incident initiated a debate among American commentators: Should Israel be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism?.[20] Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.[21][22][23]

Jundallah
See also: Jundallah (Iran) § United States and Israel
According to a 2012 report in Foreign Policy, Mossad agents disguised as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers recruited members of Jundallah—"a Pakistan-based Sunni terrorist organization ... responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children"—to carry out "false flag" operations against Iran, straining Israel's relations with the United States.[24][25]

PJAK
Further information: Iran–PJAK conflict § Israeli involvement
According to Eric Draitser, "thanks to WikiLeaks, it also now documented fact that Israel has long since attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK ... against Iran."[26]

James wrote: "And I just do not agree with your statements that only the Muslim world is conducting terrorism ..."

Did I state that? Where exactly? To the contrary, I mentioned that acts of terror can be conducted by anyone, it's the treatment thereof that differs drastically - in the West the terrorists are tried, convicted and put behind the bars (or executed where death penalties exist), while some other countries fund, train, encourage and glorify those. A big difference in my eyes. Just an example of handling a Jewish one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_an...
Don't know enough to comment on these, but as I can see the list of alleged instances is incomparably shorter than that of Iran and that I believe that Israeli intelligence does recruit agents in Iran and elsewhere -:)

Moreover, to clarify my own attitude - I believe the great majority of Muslims are cool just like any other religion or atheists like myself. I don't care about religion and perceive a person for what s/he is and not to what religion, race, language or whatever s/he belongs and have friendly relations with those belonging to Muslim, Christian and Jewish alike. I do dislike religion when it tries to superimpose their values over my secular way of life, but that's probably just our internal issue -:)

Nik, whether Hezbollah is "legitimate" is beside the point. It is an asymmetric struggle. Is war legitimate? If you say yes, then you cannot say only the way we fight it, because of our superiority, is the only legitimate way. If you drive around in tanks, use drones, or bombs, and kill people, what is the difference between that and the bomb the terrorist delivers? Of course under some definitions Hezbollah is a terrorist group, but how do you define terrorism? What do they do that the others don't do some of the time, other than use different means?

I am not interested in the morality of the situation. I am trying to understand why it is happening, because unless you address the why, you cannot come to grips with what happens next, or how it might be fixed. Labels are irrelevant, and morality is irrelevant because morality tends to depend on your values and point of view. It is difficult to find a definition of terrorism that would not lead to a number of Afghani families killed in a drone strike while trying to celebrate a wedding from accusing the US of using terror tactics.

As for the origin of Hezbollah, the interesting thing is the comment by Ehud Barak; it fits in with what I saw. As another interesting point, I mentioned Bolton wanted to change the government of Iran. Just after his speech, the clip alleged that the US was providing assistance to the MEK in Iran. No idea whether it is true. We shall have to wait and see.

As for supporting terrorist groups, al Qaeda was definitely financed by the Saudis, and of course it started through funding and supplies by the US to dislodge Russians out of Afghanistan. Now, at the time the US thought this was a great thing to deal to the pesky Commies, but in the first place it didn't stop there, and secondly they used exactly the same tactics against the Russians as you accuse Hezbollah of using. Is it only immoral when they are doing it against your interests?

So in answer to your question, no, I don't support Hezbollah, but I don't support the actions of the attacks against Iran either. I think both sides need to step back, but that ain't going to happen anytime soon. I happen to think Obama made a lot of progress with the nuclear deal, and I support that. I do not support Trump doing what he did.

Ian wrote: "Nik, whether Hezbollah is "legitimate" is beside the point. .... I am not interested in the morality of the situation. ..."

To me it's the main point, the distinction, the morality of the situation. If our armies acted under the same codes as terrorists groups there would be no distinction. I believe they don't and those who err get punished. The distinction is super important and I'd be out on the street if it were otherwise. What are you saying here: that there is no difference btw hezbollah and ISIS and regular US army on the other hand? Really? Don't you think it's important that we maintain this difference?
You just ignore answering my direct questions addressed to you and clarifying your position, deferring to more and more issues. Well, I guess it's self-explanatory.
I think the issue is well-presented for 44 and growing unique viewers to judge -:)

That's a useful clarification Nik re you not being religious as it's an example of the nuances not being reported. From what I can observe too many wrongly assume all Israelis, and all Jews worldwide, are religious and therefore are automatically coming from a somewhat antiquated religious perspective. Similarly wherever I've lived in the West, others automatically assume I'm Christian. Christianity, like Judaism, is slowly shrinking and likewise many in the West are more culturally Christian rather than practicing ones.

So is it fair to say if a religious war is being begun, it's more coming from the Muslim world? Or am I being naive as to the hard-line fundamentalist elements in Judiasm and Christianity?

For a while I lived in Belfast, Northern Ireland (and accidentally walked into an office of IRA boys that appeared to be planning troubles, but that's a whole other story!). Anyway, many call Northern Ireland a religious war also - Catholics vs Protestants - but I'm not so sure it really is.

James wrote: "So is it fair to say if a religious war is being begun, it's more coming from the Muslim world? Or am I being naive as to the hard-line fundamentalist elements in Judiasm and Christianity?..."

Sure, there can be hardliners among any confession, but I don't see a religious background in known tensions (not in US - Iran or N. Korea, not in US - China or US - Russia or Ukraine/Georgia - Russia, etc) and hope religious wars are in the past.
Ian in WWW group mentioned a few times that enmity between Shiites and Sunnis remind him Thirty Years' war, but I don't follow enough to have my own judgement..
What can brew however are internal religion based (or more generally different lifestyle) conflicts in certain countries, which population become heterogeneous as the result of immigration and refuges

Nik wrote: "Sure, there can be hardliners among any confession, but I don't see a religious background in known tensions (not in US - Iran or N. Korea, not in US - China or US - Russia or Ukraine/Georgia - Russia, etc) and hope religious wars are in the past...."

Yeah, hope so too.

Nik wrote: "Did I state that? Where exactly? To the contrary, I mentioned that acts of terror..."

Okay thanks for clarifying your earlier statements, Nik. I was responding to where you mentioned somewhere that the distinction or differentiation between terrorism is NOT in the eyes of the beholder. But yes, in the rest of that post (and further replies to Ian) you did admit that the West and Israel does target citizens too, but then implied it's not the same, so I was left with an ambiguous angle there (but maybe I misunderstood).

If we take a broader view of terrorism (I agree with Ian's broader definition of terrorizing citizens by any measure, even if firing drones where you know civilians will be killed in the process), then I would argue the military industrial complex in the West (whether it be the US, Britain and perhaps Israel too, especially considering MOSSAD's murky projects with the CIA) are at the very least funding, training, encouraging and glorifying "state sponsored terrorism" on a massive global scale (again, under that broad definition of terrorism). Keeping in mind this article on "Israeli state-sponsored terrorism" (not my term but Wikipedia's title that matches academia) I posted earlier would be very small fry false flags and isolated indidents compared to the US, Russia and even Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...

It's hard to digest, I know - but history, I firmly believe, will ultimately show terrorism was a popular strategy on both sides (what WikiLeaks has shown with citizens of foreign enemies being targetted is literally just the start of state-sponsored terrorism revelations to come). Yet in the West, heads have not generally rolled when we get caught red handed for such crimes against humanity. In fact, just the opposite: We torture or censor those whistleblowers like Assange and Manning who bring our humanitarian crimes against foreign civilians to light!

Coming back to Israel...I'm a critical supporter of Israel, but definitely believe it has a right to exist in peace and needs support as it could literally be wiped out at any moment. So I agree with many of the points you're making, believe it or not. And speaking of propaganda, there is also a lot of fake news and false flags done against Israel by these Middle Eastern nations as you know -- certain events have been blamed on Israel that ultimately were proven to NOT be Israeli creations at all. So sometimes it's a case of FALSE False Flags!! :)

It's all really complex, that's why I stay on the fence until more information is forthcoming and don't support military strikes based off of conjecture -- and that's why I didn't want us to go into Iraq (WMDs were never proven and flimsy at best). But I do feel certain these sort of awkward truths and conflicting pieces of evidence do need to be analyzed to figure out reality from fiction and move towards world peace. Otherwise we are in danger of just highlighting the evils of one side (e.g. "Iran has shouted death to America", "Iran support terrorism", etc etc) without considering the nuances.

After all, when we first started this false flag section in this group it was literally "underground knowledge" and rarely if ever covered in mainstream media or even known about by most journalists. So without most people, including journalists and newspaper editors, knowing about the underreported history of false flags ops, there were oversimplifications all over the show. Hence very few questioned WMDs in Iraq at the time, and going back further almost nobody in the media even questioned the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the Vietnam War. You're talking tens of millions of deaths from those two wars alone and massive amounts of terror waged against various helpless citizens.

Now with enough wartime conspiracy FACTS publicized that's changed and I'm pleasantly surprised (shocked, even) to see almost every news outlet is questioning whether something is being pinned on Iran here. That would have all been called tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense only a few years ago. Before the concept of false flag ops went mainstream, this style of newsreporting would not have occurred...

Coming back to Israel. I know you are very passionate about your nation and bringing to light crimes and threats of foreign enemies like Iran. But I do wonder if you ever think Israel goes too far at times? Are you sometimes disappointed in your government? Or do you have total confidence in it? And is it possible, being out of the loop of the deepest goings on of your nation's military and intelligence agencies (I assume?!), you may not realize just how dark MOSSAD has gotten in recent years? (just like how many Americans have been naive as to the untold destructive acts the CIA has done globally since WW2).

I'm not pretending to have any answers Nik, I'm not remotely anti-Israel either. Nor do I think Iran's regime are blameless or good guys (Iranian leaders are assholes and the average Iranian seems to be a victim in all this too). But my reason for questioning is some Jewish friends I have in my field (mind you they're all non-Israeli apart from one producer I know) have informed me there's a subtle difference between softcore Zionism (which almost all Jews worldwide support) and hardcore Zionism (which I take it is Far Right Israeli militantism?). What's your thoughts on that viewpoint? I mean, I see you seem to support pre-emptive strikes and support almost any military action suggested by Israel and/or the US against terrorist regimes? But considering we now know Israel does also do false flags to blame on enemies, don't you ever wonder if there is a danger that warmongers within Israel could be a big threat to world peace? And that maybe the international community needs to monitor Israeli gun-ho guys along with warmongers in the West AS WELL AS monitoring warmongers/terrorists in Muslim nations?

According to my limited understanding of this matter (until you or other Israelis enlightens me further), I would say off the top of my head I would support that softcore form of Zionism (or maybe softcore Israeli Nationalism is a better term than the word Zionism?). But I wonder if the hardcore version has risks? Granted being Prime Minister of Israel is a shitty job and unlike any other in that it's surrounded by soooo many anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli enemies intent on its destruction....BUT aren't there many even within Israel who fear Netanyahu is too much of a hardliner and is inflaming things? (I asked you that question earlier in the thread but you said didn't want to answer it...I assume you think I'm anti-Israeli: but I assure you I'm not and would value your feedback)

Iain wrote: "Pretty easy to do if the said prophet was illiterate and never wrote anything down, and recited from memory instead...."

Sounds like he was winging it, mate!

James wrote: "But yes, in the rest of that post (and further replies to Ian) you did admit that the West and Israel does target citizens too, but then implied it's not the same, so I was left with an ambiguous angle there (but maybe I misunderstood)...."

I meant exactly the opposite and it's important. Ian in my understanding claims there is no difference. I say the difference is radical. The West and Israel go after military targets. Yes, there are sometimes casualties among civilians, but that's certainly not a desired result and if individual soldiers step out of line they should expect to be court- martialed. Trump claims he aborted the strike because of expected disproportionate causalities - maybe this sound too lofty to some, but as far as I know lots of operations are aborted routinely because of the estimates of casualties or uninvolved coming into the line of fire.
Terrorists deliberately go after civilian targets and by large avoid confronting military. For them - civilian targets is the desired result.

James wrote: "Coming back to Israel. I know you are very passionate about your nation and bringing to light crimes and threats of foreign enemies like Iran. But I do wonder if you ever think Israel goes too far at times? Are you sometimes disappointed in your government? Or do you have total confidence in it?..."

Sure, Israeli society is all but politically monolith to a degree that after the last elections it was impossible to form a coalition and we are facing new elections. Far-right or hardliners are relatively a small percentage of the population, although the general public went right in the course of the decade. I think a lot of people around the world got disillusioned with the 'eternal peace' atmosphere of the beginning of the century and the world radicalized again.
Me? I voted left and against Netanyahu on all elections. Yet, gotta give him credit that he's probably the only world leader that manages to be in very close and friendly relations with both Trump and Putin to a degree that a preparation meeting btw Bolton and Patrushev b4 Trump-Putin Osaka summit took place under his auspices.
You'd be surprised - but he might be a softy -:) And maybe - Trump too. He deliberately chooses to appease Hamas rather than confront it to a degree that it erodes our deterrence. Before Obama's deal, going after unilateral destruction of Iranian nuclear program was hectically discussed in the cabinet and reported that Netanyahu and then defense minister were for it while all army and intelligence chiefs against it and it didn't take place in the end, but the issue might return to the agenda, as Iran declared it'd withdraw from more obligations on 07.07.

Back to Israel -:) We live in a tough neighborhood, James. If anything happens with Iran you'd be watching it from afar, maybe paying a little extra for gasoline, while I'd be hoping to survive in a bomb shelter. So far I believe (basing on a political spectrum) there will be a vast majority for any sensible deal whether with Palestinians, Iran or whoever and Israel means no harm to neither of its neighbors. Lasting peace with once bitter foes - Egypt and Jordan corroborate this.