Beginning of the End

[Keit]

Today I had an opportunity to learn about a very specific type of person, or to be exact, scientist, that probably will be (or maybe IS) proud to be a part of some project that will result in a death of thousands, if not millions.
A psychopath? Probably. He also reminded me of another charming fellow (Pianka) who advised to unleash Ebola virus. http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1018

I am talking about Ido Kanter.
http://www.ph.biu.ac.il/fac.php?name=kanter

Today he wrote an article on Ynet site about an urgent need to "revaluate a known equation of warfare." It's in Hebrew and there is no translation, but I'll try to bring several major points.
(original:http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3299324,00.html)

He said that in our current situation (Israel situation) we have to revaluate the "known equation" of military response. The known equation is: if the country is being attacked with conventional weapons, the response should be using conventional weapons, but if the attack is using unconventional weapons (nuclear, chemical) so the response should or might be using the same means. But according to his sick point of view, Israel should revaluate this approach and understand that maybe now it's too late for conventional responses, in fact - conventional response won't do any good anymore. Nuke is the new best friend of Israel. And Israel military and government should understand that while we face danger from Iran, this is probably the best option, and they should prepare the ground for national acceptance of "Nuke them first".

And then, as his article continues, he offer some cold and ohh so smart calculations (remember, he do optimizing problems for living...yack) that even if the world is still not ready for such change in approach, it's really not so hard to accept. As he says, sometimes there is much more damage from thousand heavy conventional missiles, then from one little nuclear bomb. It's just a meter of perspective and problem formulation.

Yes, this person is probably psychopath or mad. The problem is, according to replies to this article, he is not alone. There are sick people that only wait for such glorious opportunity to go down in flames. Or go up, maybe? It's a meter of perspective, isn't it?

 

[Keit]

Here another preparation for the new war:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/758166.html

Olmert to Knesset defense panel: We'd use more force in war with Syria

By Amos Harel and Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondent

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday that Israel would use more force in any war with Syria than it did in the recent conflict in Lebanon.

"If we have go to war with Syria, we will do away the limitations on the use of force we placed upon ourselves in Lebanon," Olmert said during his first appearance before the panel since the end of the 34-day conflict with Hezbollah.

He said he would be happy to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, but said he doubted that the conditions existed to hold negotiations with Syria.

The terrorists carrying out attacks on Israel, Olmert said, were coming through Damascus. He added that Israel sent Syria a message that its current behavior "did not indicate a partner for negotiations."

Olmert also said that his plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, the heart of his election platform in March, was no longer relevant in the wake of the Lebanon war.

"What I saw as right several months ago has changed now," he said. "The order of priorities of the government has changed since the war in Lebanon."

The Kensset committee is examining the events of the war, starting with the pullout of the Israel Defense Forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000.

The committee will discuss the decisions of the Knesset and different governments since 2000 vis-a-vis the defense budget, the lessons of the pullout and policies regarding Hezbollah's arming since the IDF left southern Lebanon.

The committee will also discuss the timing of the ground offensive and the decision by Chief of Staff Dan Halutz to appoint his deputy, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, as his representative at the Northern Command midway through the conflict.

Among the others expected to be invited to answer questions are Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Halutz, the heads of the Mossad, Shin Bet and Military Intelligence, Kaplinsky, GOC Northern Command Udi Adam, and other relevant figures.

Meanwhile, each subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee will probe areas pertaining to its mandate. The following is a breakdown of what each of the subcommittees will investigate:

Intelligence:

This subcommittee is headed by MK Tzachi Hanegbi, who also chairs the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. It will investigate aspects of intelligence relevant to Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and intelligence assessments regarding Israel's ability to deal with the missile threat.

Also, it will probe the roles of Iran and Syria in funding and arming Hezbollah since 2000, including effective plans for preventing the transfer of arms during the fighting. Different subjects the subcommittee will examine include the following: the intelligence overview presented to the government prior to the decision to embark on war; data on Hezbollah's fortifications; the whereabouts of Hezbollah's leadership and their targetting; the use of special forces in preparing for war and during the fighting and the intelligence relating to the abducted soldiers.

State of Alert and Routine Security:

This subcommittee will concentrate on the status of the supply depots before and during the war. It will also examine the "Joint Arms" exercise of June 2006, which was supposed to prepare for a scenario similar to the July 12 raid, and the lessons learned or ignored.

Order of Battle and Defense Doctrine: This subcommittee will probe the doctrine used by the ground, naval and air forces, the role that the war on terror occupied in this doctrine (with a special focus on Hezbollah) and an analysis of the deliberations over procuring counters to ballistic threats.

IDF Manpower:

This subcommittee will discuss the rate and extent of reservist mobilization during the war, the gap in training of standing army units and reservists, as well as the logistical failures that emerged during the fighting.

External Relations and Public Relations:

This subcommittee will deal with Israel's public relations campaign abroad during the war, the extent to which it was effective during the war in countering Hezbollah's propaganda and the diplomatic backlash of civilian casualties at Kafr Qana.

Chief of Staff convenes commanders amid fears of 'whitewash'

Halutz was also to meet Monday with brigade and battalion commanders who participated in the war, as officers of various ranks have severely criticized the army's internal probe into the failures of the war in recent days, with some going so far as to describe the probe as a "whitewash."

The mood among many of the brigade and battalion commanders is very tense, and they are expected to raise serious criticisms of the conduct of the war. Halutz has held several similar meetings over the past two weeks, mostly with reserve officers. On Tuesday, he will meet with dozens of reserve major generals and brigadier generals.

The internal IDF probe, which is being headed by Deputy Chief of Staff Moshe Kaplinsky, involves approximately 50 teams comprising hundreds of officers.

Career army officers with the rank of major general are in charge of 10 teams dealing with central issues such as the use of reservists and the logistical difficulties experienced by units involved in the fighting. Some of the teams began their work last week.

But senior officers told Haaretz on Sunday that they believe the internal probe will prove to be unreliable.

"For some years now, the IDF - especially the ground forces - has not excelled in self-examination," said one. "Whitewashing is a disease, and it is expected to get worse now that so much lies in the balance and so many officers have something to lose if the full extent of the failure becomes apparent."

Even in the case of units that experienced very serious problems during the fighting, the common practice in internal IDF probes is for all units to examine themselves. Thus, for example, Division 91 will conduct its own investigation into the abduction of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser during a Hezbollah raid on July 12 - the event that sparked the outbreak of war. Similarly, Division 162 will investigate the fighting on the central front during the last two days of the war, between Wadi Salouki and the village of Ghanduriye.

Under these circumstances, say the critics, it is difficult to expect any substantive findings, other than detailed comments regarding the lower ranks.

"When Chief of Staff Dan Halutz says in public that we won on points, he is already setting the tone of the internal probe for the rest of the army," said one critic. "The officers under him get the hint."

Officers were also critical of the fact that the army included few retired senior officers with experience in previous wars in the probe.

Meanwhile, criticisms by reserve officers gathered steam Sunday with the publication of a document detailing failures in the war that was prepared by reserve officers who served in command headquarters during the fighting. Topping the list were intelligence shortcomings.

According to the document, which was exposed by Channel 2 television Sunday night, intelligence on Hezbollah's positions and order of battle was adequate, but this information never reached units in the field. As a result, many units were surprised by Hezbollah's defensive preparations, particularly in rural areas with thick underbrush.

Another intelligence problem was outdated aerial photographs, particularly of villages where construction had been rampant in recent years.

 

[Ben]

H

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday that Israel would use more force in any war with Syria than it did in the recent conflict in Lebanon.

"If we have go to war with Syria, we will do away the limitations on the use of force we placed upon ourselves in Lebanon," Olmert said during his first appearance before the panel since the end of the 34-day conflict with Hezbollah.

He said he would be happy to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, but said he doubted that the conditions existed to hold negotiations with Syria.

The terrorists carrying out attacks on Israel, Olmert said, were coming through Damascus. He added that Israel sent Syria a message that its current behavior "did not indicate a partner for negotiations."

Olmert also said that his plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, the heart of his election platform in March, was no longer relevant in the wake of the Lebanon war.

"What I saw as right several months ago has changed now," he said. "The order of priorities of the government has changed since the war in Lebanon."

Considering the hypothesis put forward in this week's SotT podcast - that the recent Israeli military activity in Lebanon served as an experiment revealing the extent of the apathy and programming of the masses - it is to be entirely expected that there will be less restraint and diplomacy on the part of the Israeli forces when the next period of major conflict ensues. Less restraint simply means more widespread massacres of civilians, since they could hardly be more blatant than those during the 34-day conflict of July/August.

 

[Joe]

Considering the hypothesis put forward in this week's SotT podcast - that the recent Israeli military activity in Lebanon served as an experiment revealing the extent of the apathy and programming of the masses - it is to be entirely expected that there will be less restraint and diplomacy on the part of the Israeli forces when the next period of major conflict ensues. Less restraint simply means more widespread massacres of civilians, since they could hardly be more blatant than those during the 34-day conflict of July/August.

Exactly, and can anyone tell me who in the international community really did anyting of an significance in response to the 1,300 murdered Lebanese civilians? Who, other than a few in the alt media, showed any REAL disgust or rejection at those deaths?

Israel has received its data and the message that it contained. The message was that very few care about dead Arab men women or children, and no one with power to do so cared enough to actually make a SINCERE attempt to intercede. Most have been ponerized to one extent or another.

As such, the green light has been given to Israel and the US. "Bomb away to your sick, black, psychopathic hearts are content", is what they have understood, if indeed the bloodlust of a 'souped up' power-mad bunch of psychopaths can ever be satiated while the innocent still live.

No one yet understands how really bad it is going to be, especially for those of us who have resisted the ponerization process and can still empathise with the suffering of another human being.

Prepare yourselves for the worst over the next 6 months to 1 year, but remember, the one thing you must not do, is turn your face away. Perhaps the only 'defence' we can offer to the millions that will die, to the children, is to retain our ability to feel and call the actions of the psychopaths, to the last child and if only in our own consciousnesses, for what they are - pure unadulterated inhumanity and evil. Everything that we are not.

Joe

 

[Amelopsis]

...
if indeed the bloodlust of a 'souped up' power-mad bunch of psychopaths can ever be satiated while the innocent still live.
...
Perhaps the only 'defence' we can offer to the millions that will die, to the children, is to retain our ability to feel and call the actions of the psychopaths, to the last child and if only in our own consciousnesses, for what they are - pure unadulterated inhumanity and evil. Everything that we are not.

Joe

Thanks Joe. I've felt this for a long time myself and come to the same conclusion: That if nothing else, it's crucial not to let our own empathy be added to the death toll.

 

[Youngfox]

The known equation is: if the country is being attacked with conventional weapons, the response should be using conventional weapons, but if the attack is using unconventional weapons (nuclear, chemical) so the response should or might be using the same means.

White phosphorous shells, cluster bombs and vacuum bombs were liberally employed by Israel in the massacre. I think this "tit for tat" sort of "equal footing" presented in this depiction of what really happened is more disingenuous spin from a government that loves to cultivate a twisted notion of themselves as perpetual victims.

Lets not forget the liberal polluting of the region with American supplied D.U. munitions.
The Lebanese neither had nor used any of these abominable tools of mass destruction.

New and unknown deadly weapons used by Israeli forces

By now there are countless reports, from hospitals, witnesses, armament experts and journalists that strongly suggest that in the present offensive of Israeli forces against Lebanon and Gaza 'new weapons' are being used. New and strange symptoms are reported amongst the wounded and the dead.

Bodies with dead tissues and no apparent wounds; 'shrunken' corpses; civilians with heavy damage to lower limbs that require amputation, which is nevertheless followed by unstoppable necrosis and death; descriptions of extensive internal wounds with no trace of shrapnel, corpses blackened but not burnt, and others heavily wounded that did not bleed.

It would seem that Israel used the occasion to test out many of the monstrous new weapons that the Americans have also been testing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[name]

the olmert gang clearly adheres to sharon's dictum: "when force does not bring results, apply more force".

that said, despite all his criminality, sharon at least seemed to know what he was doing and why. these people (olmert + gang) have no connection to reality, even their own best interest, recognizable to me. they are clear cases for use of straightjackets and confinement in rubber cells.

 

[Laura]

that said, despite all his criminality, sharon at least seemed to know what he was doing and why. these people (olmert + gang) have no connection to reality, even their own best interest, recognizable to me. they are clear cases for use of straightjackets and confinement in rubber cells.

Except that, if you read "Controversy of Zion," you see that Olmert and gang are just simply following the script... from their point of view, everything they are doing is sane. Psychopaths with a plan to take over the entire world and eliminate MOST of normal humans, leaving only a remnant as slaves.

Check it out: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/index.html

 

[name]

>> Except that, if you read "Controversy of Zion ... from their point of view,
>> everything they are doing is sane ...

I know. The C's (I think it was them) dropped that line about "It is their world". Well, that might be true, but there is no reason for things to stay that way. That is why 'prying open the book' is so important, because knowing and understanding their secrets defuses them, will dissipate their power.

i thought that after having read military literature for years i had something like a firm stomach, but, since 9/11, these people manage to make things worse every time i think they've reached the bottom of depravity. in the last 5 years i've become truly religious because of them: i kneel almost weekly before the white porcellain god.

i refuse to submit to their version of reality.

 

[Sigma6]

These articles are appearing like mad in Canadian papers two. Only today, I've sent letters-to-the-editor to two papers I read occasionally here that have published articles talking about the supposedly 'pragmatic' need to adjust to the supposed 'need' for nuclear first-strike.

Interesting that Bush signed the executive order authorizing it quite a while ago, actually. You can't get to the people writing the articles (or reading them and nodding) with reason or appeals to conscience. . . they seem to be way too far gone. . . They're couching themselves in a tone of superiority -- lines like: "Most people's knee-jerk reaction". . .

 

[Keit]

I was hoping that pathocratic Ynet editors will find this "nuclear equation" article important enough and will translate it. Well, luckily they did. So, take a look by your self.
This article trying to be a "dry and scientific" version of the same sick idea, as it expressed in yesterdays editorial on SOTT
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060904_MichaelCorenandthe22LimitedPain22ofNukingIran.php

Here the article:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3299440,00.html

According to the equation accepted by the world, it's legitimate to use conventional weapons in response to a conventional attack, and similarly, non-conventional (nuclear, chemical, or biological) weapons in response to a non-conventional attack.

Six decades after the first and only use of nuclear weapons so far (since then, Egypt and Iraq made limited use of chemical weapons) the time has come to check whether this equation is still relevant. In my view, Israel should regain its deterrent power by threatening a nuclear reaction in response to a conventional attack of similar magnitude.

Here's a scenario: Israel is attacked, by Syria for example, with conventional weapons of equal magnitude to tactical non-conventional weapon - for example, the firing of a thousand missiles, each weighing a ton, within a short period of time. The overall power of such assault is a kiloton (million kilos of explosives) and is of equal magnitude to a tactical nuclear bomb, which can be fired using a suitable cannon.

For the tiny Israel, with its high population density, the result of such assault in national terms could constitute a much graver disaster than what happened to Japan. This raises the question, which is theoretical but could become practical one of these days, of what is the appropriate response? A conventional attack with the power of a tactical nuclear attack, or perhaps a nuclear attack?

This question is relevant today more than it was in the past. There's no doubt the quantity of conventional arms that can be fired at all regions of the country by Hizbullah, Syria and Iran is of equal magnitude to the power of a tactical nuclear weapon. What's more, the quantity and quality of firing means will only be boosted in the near future, in light of the recent war's results.

Ahead of the public debate on the matter, we should know the following:

The mere discussion of the possibility of a nuclear response to a conventional attack of equal magnitude is the first means for breaking the current common conception that views nuclear arms as a "doomsday weapon" only. The mere raising of this question for public debate prepares the option of using it, and the expression of views both in favor and against it is an important tool available to decision-makers.

Raising this question for local public debate will soon filter into global public opinion, and there too voices will be heard that either reject or require a nuclear response to a conventional attack of equal magnitude. The legitimacy for a positive response to this question will grow by virtue of the discussion in Israel and abroad.

The mere public discussion of this question raises (from a likelyhood of near zero) the chances of using this option. This will certainly be taken into account by various elements, be it countries such as Syria and Iran or terror groups supported by them and operating from a country such as Lebanon.

The question of whether the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped by a conventional attack or only through the use of tactical nuclear weapons is also relevant for this proposed discussion. In light of the results of the recent war in Lebanon, it appears we do not possess a conventional response to Teheran's nuclear program.

The current discussion focuses on the question of the army's readiness and politicians' wisdom. Let's assume that in the near feature a consensus will emerge that flaws within the military were minimized and the political echelons of the highest caliber. Under such ideal conditions, does the State of Israel have a conventional response to a conventional attack of nuclear magnitude? In my view, the answer to this when examining a variety of scenarios is negative.

As this subject constitutes an existential problem for the State of Israel, it is my personal opinion that discussing this question and boosting the probability of resorting to a tactical nuclear response will lead us away from the policy of vagueness that was accepted without argument for almost five decades.

However, isn't the world in general, and Middle East in particular, facing a change to acceptable equations?

Professor Ido Kanter is a member of Bar Ilan University's physics department