Israeli Strike inside Syria. [Archive]

Peach Jr.

6th October 2003, 07:19 AM

I read the news article. Frankly, I'm puzzled.

Why is this not an act of aggression? Just because the Israeli gov't says so? What kind of training facility would allow children to be present? Not youths - the BBC is normally better at distinguishing young children from teenagers/youths - but children? I would tend to believe the Syrian claim, that of it being a Palestinian refugee camp, over the Israelis at this point.

And yes, one person's terrorist is the next one's freedom fighter. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here...but there is an awful lot of blame to be shared in this whole sorry mess.

Tmy

6th October 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

And the evidence for these being bomber training camps is what exactly?

Of course as Israel has illegally occupied part of Syria, even if there were training camps they would presumably be freedom fighters not terrorists, right?

I woudlnt hold my breath waiting for Syria to admit that any place is a terrorist stronghold.

Do you think Israel picked soem random site to bomb just to put a scare into Syria? Do you think they have plans to invade an colonize Syria?

Jon_in_london

6th October 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

I woudlnt hold my breath waiting for Syria to admit that any place is a terrorist stronghold.

You seem to have already made your mind up on that one. Apart from some camcorder footage, which could be from anywhere, there isnt even an attempt to show that this was anything other than a refugee camp.

Originally posted by Tmy

Do you think Israel picked soem random site to bomb just to put a scare into Syria? Do you think they have plans to invade an colonize Syria?

Yes (but more to kill more filthy palestians), and maybe.

Jaggy Bunnet

6th October 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

I woudlnt hold my breath waiting for Syria to admit that any place is a terrorist stronghold.

Do you think Israel picked soem random site to bomb just to put a scare into Syria? Do you think they have plans to invade an colonize Syria?

And I would recommend you don't hold it waiting for Israel to admit that they have bombed a refugee camp either. Or to produce any evidence.

Given the Israeli record of colonising various parts of their neighbours, why do you think it unlikely they would colonise (more of) Syria?

Do you think Israel just happened to identify a terrorist training camp immediately after a suicide bombing?

Trollbane

6th October 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Peach Jr.
And yes, one person's terrorist is the next one's freedom fighter. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here...but there is an awful lot of blame to be shared in this whole sorry mess.

I just hate when people start comparing freedom fighters and terrorists.. As long as the main targets of the Hamas and co are school busses and cafes they are terrorists. I wonder how they even dare to call themselves champions and defenders of the Palestinian people, since obviously every single time the Israelis come in the guys withdraw and leave the civilians to take the heat, not exactly a good way of defending the population.

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 09:06 AM

The slippery slope of the illegal US invasion of Iraq is now apparent!

If we can do it, so can Israel. And that is why the US has condemned Syria - and not Israel. All one need to is cry "terrorist" and any action can be justified.

Sovereignty is the cornerstone of world peace. The UN should speak out against Israel. And the US needs to get on the bandwagon.

BillyTK

6th October 2003, 09:23 AM

World reaction to the strike on Syria (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166554.stm):
A spokesman for the UK Foreign Office said: "Israel is of course entitled to take steps to protect itself from terrorist attack, but these steps should be within international law."
I hear Syria has Olive Groves of Mass Distruction which could be launched against Israel in 45 minutes...

Tony

6th October 2003, 09:33 AM

Good. Hopefully it will turn into an all out war. The only way Isreal can win the Isreali/Palestinain conflict, is when their enemy is detroyed.

Agammamon

6th October 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I dont think I understand your point.

What I mean is that Israel didn't do anything that pretty much every other nation is the world hasn't done i.e. get attacked and retaliate. The other half of the post is meant that as far as calling something an act of war, well just about anything that anyone does to you (up to and including just ignoring you) can be used as justification to go to war. For my money it's a hawk phrase.

Segnosaur

6th October 2003, 09:39 AM

I'm combining several posters responses into one...

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Isnt launching an airstrike on another country an act of war?

Technically, I believe Israel and Syria were already technically at war following the 6days war, etc. (I don't think a peace treaty was ever signed.) In fact, I don't even think Syria recognizes the right of Israel to exist.

And if this place really was a terrorist training camp, shouldn't Syria's support of the terrorist groups attacking Israel also constitute an act of war?

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

And the evidence for these being bomber training camps is what exactly?

I can't speak specifically about this particular training camp, but Syria is known as a 'state sponsor' of terrorism. Although they may not get involved 'directly', they are very willing to allow terrorist groups to set up offices, etc. their territory.

Having a terrorist training camp within their borders is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/syria.html

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Of course as Israel has illegally occupied part of Syria, even if there were training camps they would presumably be freedom fighters not terrorists, right?

Who exactly has determined that the occupation of Syrian territory is 'illegal'? Typically, territory captured in a defensive war (as all of Israels wars have been) usually doesn't have to be given up automatically. And although the UN has passed resolutions urging Israel to give up the Golan heights, those same resolutions also call on Syria to recognize Israel's right to security, which they've refused to do.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Given the Israeli record of colonising various parts of their neighbours, why do you think it unlikely they would colonise (more of) Syria?

Actually, they don't really have much of a 'record' in doing that....

Other than the west bank/gaza, what do we have?
- Egypt - But Egyptian territory was returned when Egypt made peace (no colonizing there)
- Lebanon - No colonization there
- Jordan - Again, no colonization

Originally posted by DrChinese

The slippery slope of the illegal US invasion of Iraq is now apparent!

If we can do it, so can Israel.

Umm, no.

Attacks like that have been going on long before the invasion of Iraq, both in the middle east and elsewhere. The 'slippery slope' has nothing to do with it.

Any attempt to link this strike with the Iraqi invasion is a very weak and poor attempt to try to justify anti-war opinions.

Originally posted by DrChinese

And that is why the US has condemned Syria - and not Israel. All one need to is cry "terrorist" and any action can be justified.

Perhaps the US is one of the few countries to realize that Israel actually does have a problem with neighbouring countries supporting terrorism directed at Israel.

Tmy

6th October 2003, 09:44 AM

Are they even attacking "Syria". Sounds like they are after Pali terrorists hanging out on Syrian property. Its not like they dropped bombs in downtown Damascus.

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Perhaps the US is one of the few countries to realize that Israel actually does have a problem with neighbouring countries supporting terrorism directed at Israel.

Or perhaps Israel knows the US has been waving its sword in the direction of Syria, and therefore the US has little choice but to go along with Israel using identical rationale.

peptoabysmal

6th October 2003, 10:08 AM

From what I've read, the US is all but patting Israel on the back for this act. I think we should at least be saying to Israel "Whoa, hold on, what are you trying to do, kick off WWIII?"

Segnosaur

6th October 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

Or perhaps Israel knows the US has been waving its sword in the direction of Syria, and therefore the US has little choice but to go along with Israel using identical rationale.

Sorry, but Israel has had no problems attacking neighbours in the past in defense of its security, even when the world was against them doing so. (Bombing the Iraqi reactor, invasion of Lebanon.)

So now we have gone from "the attack on Iraq" to the US "Waving its sword at Syria". Interesting switch in phrasing. Of course, the US might already be "waving its sword" at Syria without the Iraqi invasion.

The fact that the US has been 'waving its sword' at Syria was more than likely irrelevant in their decision to attack.

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The fact that the US has been 'waving its sword' at Syria was more than likely irrelevant in their decision to attack.

The timing is amazing. We speak, Israel acts.

Jon_in_london

6th October 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
From what I've read, the US is all but patting Israel on the back for this act. I think we should at least be saying to Israel "Whoa, hold on, what are you trying to do, kick off WWIII?"

Amen.

Regardless of whether or not this was a terrorist training camp, active or otherwise, This is a very dangerous thing to be doing. You simply cant go around bombing someone elses country. Its an act of war IN ANYBODIES BOOK OF RULES and should be pretty strongly discouraged unless you are willing to start a war...........

Landis

6th October 2003, 12:14 PM

Israel's action will only contribute to undermining the more moderate voices amongst the Arab nations. The frustrations of a billion muslims will only be pushed further towards their limits.

Syria is currently ruled by a wimp who is too timid to take any direct military action. (i.e. he never did anything but complain about the US killing Syrian soldiers on Syrian soil a few months back.) Unfortunately, not everyone in Syria is so timid. The hardliners will be busy stepping up covert action to undermine US/Israeli influence in the area. I would imagine anything that was off the table before this incident (smuggling medium range missiles into Lebanon, perhaps?) might now be a priority.

Is the US ready at this point in time to increase our military presence in the region to support any attacks on Israel?? Are the American people ready for a draft which will send even more of our young men into harm's way??

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Umm, no.

Attacks like that have been going on long before the invasion of Iraq, both in the middle east and elsewhere. The 'slippery slope' has nothing to do with it.

Any attempt to link this strike with the Iraqi invasion is a very weak and poor attempt to try to justify anti-war opinions.

Perhaps you might care to pass along that thought to Mike Moran, author of The pre-emptive dilemma (http://www.msnbc.com/news/976504.asp) who says today (10/6):

"THE U.S. DECISION not to condemn the Israeli raid into Syria cannot have surprised many. With U.S. foreign policy now firmly committed to pre-emptive war and U.S. troops still busy with just such a conflict in Iraq, Washington could hardly “tisk, tisk” over an Israeli decision to hit out at a charter member of the State Department’s list of “state sponsors of terrorism.” President Bush’s staunch support for Israel’s current security policies left little question about where he would stand.

"But what if Israel had launched a series of air raids that destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, as it did in 1981 against Iraq? In a scenario regarded as even more explosive, what if India’s air force cited “pre-emptive reasoning” to try to wipe out Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in a lightning attack?

"Both scenarios — an Israeli raid on Iran and an Indian strike at Pakistan — are considered to be within the realm of possibility. So much so, a military official says, that U.S. war colleges are “gaming them” in an effort to be prepared for the possible consequences."

In other words, the US military is itself trying to analyze the inevitable consequences of our new foriegn policy on other countries.

Solitaire

6th October 2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Landis
Is the US ready at this point in time to increase our military presence in the region to support any attacks on Israel?? Are the American people ready for a draft which will send even more of our young men into harm's way??
Yes. When Bush gets re-appointed by the majority of the supremes,
we will go after number two on the list - Iran. Is this not obvious?

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Yes. When Bush gets re-appointed by the majority of the supremes,
we will go after number two on the list - Iran. Is this not obvious?

I was thinking N. Korea for his second term, Iran for his third term (after the amendment of course).

Ralph

6th October 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese
The slippery slope of the illegal US invasion of Iraq is now apparent!

If we can do it, so can Israel. And that is why the US has condemned Syria - and not Israel. All one need to is cry "terrorist" and any action can be justified.

Sovereignty is the cornerstone of world peace. The UN should speak out against Israel. And the US needs to get on the bandwagon.

The UN should speak out against countries that harbor terrorists.

And the rest of the world needs to get on the bandwagon.

rikzilla

6th October 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally not posted by DrChinese
The slippery slope of the illegal US invasion of Iraq is now apparent!

If only ze Fuhrer had finished ze job ve vood haff no more problems from ze Jooooz!!! Blah, blah, blah,blah, blah....I hate ze Amerikanners too!!...blah..ze..blah....

...another predictable post from Dr. Chicom. :rolleyes:

Israel has done a great thing by roasting these terrorists in Syria. Obviously the only moslem extremist willing to let Israel live in peace is a dead one. With the US on one border, and Israel on another the Syrians had better start closing down terrorist camps for real.

So, which country is next on the WOT invade and conquer list? Syria, or Iran? My money's on Syria....unless they wise up real quick.

-z

Segnosaur

6th October 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese

The timing is amazing. We speak, Israel acts.

Oh, the fact that Israel has recently been attacked by suicide bombers may have a little more to do with the 'timing'.

Despite what you may think, there are other things going on in the middle east and the world in general than the events in Iraq. And a terrorist training camp (if it is indeed one of those) is a valid target.

Originally posted by DrChinese

Perhaps you might care to pass along that thought to Mike Moran, author of The pre-emptive dilemma (http://www.msnbc.com/news/976504.asp) who says today (10/6):

He's a correspondant who has written what is in effect, an opinion piece.

Sorry, no real 'proof' here.

Ironically, he himself points out examples of such actions before the Iraq conflict (thus showing that the war in Iraq didn't necessarily have to happen for countries to preemptively strike). He also spent some time talking about Syrian involvement with terrorism, which many people refuse to acknowledge.

Chaos

6th October 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

...snip...

So, which country is next on the WOT invade and conquer list? Syria, or Iran? My money's on Syria....unless they wise up real quick.

-z

If it is terrorism supporters they are after, they had better add Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to their list, and quick. It is pretty certain that some areas on the border to Afghanistan harbor Al Quaida and Taliban; and it is known that parts of the Saudi nobility support terrorism with their money - and 15 out of 19 terrorists of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia.

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

1. Oh, the fact that Israel has recently been attacked by suicide bombers may have a little more to do with the 'timing'.

2. Despite what you may think, there are other things going on in the middle east and the world in general than the events in Iraq. And a terrorist training camp (if it is indeed one of those) is a valid target.

1. No, since there were suicide bombings last year too. What has changed is that the US has had a major change in foreign policy, and has now implemented it.

2. "if it is indeed one..." Yes, now that is point isn't it? Israel is quite aware that the facts may be thin, but that won't be a problem with GWB - who is also a specialist in spinning facts!

Peach Jr.

6th October 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Trollbane

I just hate when people start comparing freedom fighters and terrorists.. As long as the main targets of the Hamas and co are school busses and cafes they are terrorists. I wonder how they even dare to call themselves champions and defenders of the Palestinian people, since obviously every single time the Israelis come in the guys withdraw and leave the civilians to take the heat, not exactly a good way of defending the population.
Hamas has never claimed to speak for the majority of the Palestinian people. They are a more militant wing of the PLO, who have grown impatient with the official softened stance on taking Israel "back" - living together rather than winner take all, if you will.

What would you call the Israeli Army when they attack private homes and shoot women and children at border crossings? As you conveniently ignored in my quoted post, I said there are NO GOOD GUYS in this whole mess.

Segnosaur

6th October 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese

1. No, since there were suicide bombings last year too. What has changed is that the US has had a major change in foreign policy, and has now implemented it.

Many things have changed. The intifada has gone on 1 year longer than it had last year, attempts were made to implement the "road map for peace", Iran has made noises about acquiring nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia was attacked by al Quaeda. All of those have occured in the past year or so.

Israel invaded Lebannon many years back long before the invasion of Iraq. Are you going to acknowlege that? Israel bombed Iraq's reactor long before the US invasion of Iraq. Are you going to acknowledge that? There is no proof that either Israel or any other country is going to engage in any strategic military action that they would not consider otherwise simply because the US launched a preemptive strike in Iraq.

Originally posted by DrChinese

2. "if it is indeed one..." Yes, now that is point isn't it? Israel is quite aware that the facts may be thin, but that won't be a problem with GWB - who is also a specialist in spinning facts!

Yes, I'm well aware of your belief that middle eastern despotic dictators are trustable sources.

Cleon

6th October 2003, 03:06 PM

crackmonkey

6th October 2003, 04:04 PM

Israel has been on the brink of hitting Syria for some time now. The US persuaded Israel not to go after Syrian positions in Lebanon (and Syria illegally occupies much of Lebanon) after numerous rocket attacks by Hezbollah. Syria got the idea and tightened the leash on Hezbollah. Israeli planes buzzed SYrian territory before as well.
I think this attack occurred because:
1. Bashar al-Assad is new and untested. Israel wants to be sure he knows how vulnerable he truly is, in the hopes of keeping a lid on Syrian mischief via Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLP, or Islamic Jihad.
2. Israel knows that Syria is on our s**t list, so Bush wouldn't protest too much if they got a black eye.
3. With the Peace Process at low ebb, Sharon wanted to send a message that Syrian-based terror would be dealt with harshly.

When all is said and done, this was more show than substance. If they wanted to, the IDF could have obliterated Damascus. As it was, they bombed an empty warehouse.

DrChinese

6th October 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
When all is said and done, this was more show than substance. If they wanted to, the IDF could have obliterated Damascus. As it was, they bombed an empty warehouse.

I love it...

Blame the victim, then thank the perp for not doing even more harm.

crackmonkey

6th October 2003, 06:23 PM

What a curious interpretation of my post.

Jessica Blue

6th October 2003, 06:30 PM

The slippery slope of the illegal US invasion of Iraq is now apparent!

It sure looks like it. This will probably increase attacks on US forces in Iraq, since an American connection will inevitably be made.

Whatever happened to the predicted *ripple effect*, where peace and harmony would prevail in Iraq and spill over to a create a stable Middle East? All indications point to something else. I heard someone recently describe the Bush administration as victims of their own marketing campaign...they went all out to sell the war to the American public and the wider world, believed what they wanted to believe and in the end bought their own ******** hook line and sinker.

TillEulenspiegel

6th October 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

No, you're confusing Fatah and Hamas. Hamas is not a wing of the PLO. Hamas is a separate, Islamicist movement.

Fatah and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are a militant wing of the PLO. While Al-Aqsa has sometimes worked with Hamas, the relationship has always been very tense. Infact, up until the Intifada broke out, they were at war.

Excuse me , can you post that in the few relevent threads on this board . Many people don't fathom the difference between State sponsered Terrorism and a collection of nuts who have no control except for bigger nuts. ( seems to work for all sides in this conflict , dosn't it?)

TillEulenspiegel

6th October 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

It sure looks like it. This will probably increase attacks on US forces in Iraq, since an American connection will inevitably be made.

Whatever happened to the predicted *ripple effect*, where peace and harmony would prevail in Iraq and spill over to a create a stable Middle East? All indications point to something else. I heard someone recently describe the Bush administration as victims of their own marketing campaign...they went all out to sell the war to the American public and the wider world, believed what they wanted to believe and in the end bought their own ******** hook line and sinker.

Umm The only ripple effect will be exibited on the price of oil to the American oil concerns and the stock proces of corperations like Bechtel and Halaberton.....Funny tho most of the people who serve at the Presidents whim seem to have sprung from the boardrooms of those very corporations................

Peach Jr.

6th October 2003, 06:53 PM

Trollbane

7th October 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Peach Jr.

Hamas has never claimed to speak for the majority of the Palestinian people. They are a more militant wing of the PLO, who have grown impatient with the official softened stance on taking Israel "back" - living together rather than winner take all, if you will.

What would you call the Israeli Army when they attack private homes and shoot women and children at border crossings? As you conveniently ignored in my quoted post, I said there are NO GOOD GUYS in this whole mess.

I was just venting a bit to the freedom fighter-terrorist comparison. In my book a freedom fighter is one willing to give his life in defence of his countrymen, not one willing to give his life destroying other countries and killing "infidels".

Israelis are making mistakes too, but I really have no idea how should they combat this problem. The only option for peace I can see at the moment is the Palestianian authorities starting to fight the terrorist organizations, but that aint gonna happen as long as Arafat is in power..

Jaggy Bunnet

7th October 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Actually, they don't really have much of a 'record' in doing that....

Other than the west bank/gaza, what do we have?
- Egypt - But Egyptian territory was returned when Egypt made peace (no colonizing there)
- Lebanon - No colonization there
- Jordan - Again, no colonization

So if we ignore the bits of other countries that they have occupied, they have no record of occupying bits of other countries? Strange argument!

In what way are the settlements in the occupied territories anything other than colonisation?

max

7th October 2003, 04:05 AM

jaggy muslim
what are you on about. isreal have not taken bits of other countries. If you refer to the Golan heights I have stood on that land and it is of neither use nor ornament. It is six miles of rough moorland, which couldn't be built on if one tried. It is just a buffer to stop Syrians shooting down into Isreal where there are kibutz and many families.
If palistinians would stop blowing up innocent children, mothers, fathers, grandads maybe the road to peace could be built. Isrealis do not blow themselves up in arab restuarants or at all for that matter. Isreal is only the size of Wales, it's tiny as opposed to the third of the world the islams hold. They want the whole world for Islam and Allah, that is what they preach here. They will not rest till the whole worlds population is islam.
Isreal is a democracy, Islam doesn't like that, they want to rule by religion, that is why they kill brides within their family when they are marrying someone they disapprove of. They want to inflict their laws on non muslims. They still stone people to death etc etc . Backward or what? we should leave them alone to evolve because as far as I can see they are at least 2000 years behind the west

Jaggy Bunnet

7th October 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by max
jaggy muslim
what are you on about. isreal have not taken bits of other countries. If you refer to the Golan heights I have stood on that land and it is of neither use nor ornament. It is six miles of rough moorland, which couldn't be built on if one tried. It is just a buffer to stop Syrians shooting down into Isreal where there are kibutz and many families.
If palistinians would stop blowing up innocent children, mothers, fathers, grandads maybe the road to peace could be built. Isrealis do not blow themselves up in arab restuarants or at all for that matter. Isreal is only the size of Wales, it's tiny as opposed to the third of the world the islams hold. They want the whole world for Islam and Allah, that is what they preach here. They will not rest till the whole worlds population is islam.
Isreal is a democracy, Islam doesn't like that, they want to rule by religion, that is why they kill brides within their family when they are marrying someone they disapprove of. They want to inflict their laws on non muslims. They still stone people to death etc etc . Backward or what? we should leave them alone to evolve because as far as I can see they are at least 2000 years behind the west

West Bank? Gaza?

It doesn't matter whether the land is prime residential estate or useful contaminated landfill sites, it does not justify annexing it. It is also irrelevant how small a country is - it in no way excuses its actions.

Of course it may be asking too much of a racist such as yourself to understand that.

There is plenty blame to go round in the Middle East - for example electing a war criminal as leader could be seen as provocative. In addition to condemning suicide bomb attacks, what about helicopter rocket ship attacks in residential areas? The effect is very much the same - explosive device set off in an area containing innocent men, women and children resulting in their death.

max

7th October 2003, 06:42 AM

the hamas/suicide bombers purposely live amongst women and children thinking they are protected like the cowards they are. Tough, Israelis won't fall for that one and are you not racist defending scum like suicide bombers as opposed to an Israeli?
Where lie your morals and principles then? Where the hell do you think the so called palistinians got the Westbank, Gaza Strip from? islams stem from mecca far far further east. As I said they will eventually conquer the world. I'm glad I'll be dead by then.
And yes size does matter arabs spread across the continents like a bloody nasty rash, if land isn't so important to you , it certainly seems important to the islam -land-stealers-of -all-time.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th October 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by max
the hamas/suicide bombers purposely live amongst women and children thinking they are protected like the cowards they are. Tough, Israelis won't fall for that one and are you not racist defending scum like suicide bombers as opposed to an Israeli?

Nope - mainly because I have never defended the suicide bombers at any point. Try reading instead of ranting. You are the one who thinks killing women and children is acceptable, not me.

Where lie your morals and principles then? Where the hell do you think the so called palistinians got the Westbank, Gaza Strip from? islams stem from mecca far far further east. As I said they will eventually conquer the world. I'm glad I'll be dead by then.

At least we can agree on the last bit.

And yes size does matter arabs spread across the continents like a bloody nasty rash, if land isn't so important to you , it certainly seems important to the islam -land-stealers-of -all-time.

More racist nonsense.

Chaos

7th October 2003, 07:32 AM

Max, can you please stop that? This is a forum for political discussion, not for preaching racism and religious hatred.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 08:07 AM

Sharon has to keep escalating or admit that he can't keep his promise - to end the violence. Destroying the PA hasn't worked, assassination hasn't worked, so now it has to strikes outside the country. (The bomber got through the security fence as well, apparently.) What evidence is there that Islamic Jihad bombers go to Syria for training? How much training do they need? They're not running around with AK's diving over barbed wire and attacking trenches. Islamic Jihad seems pretty bemused by the idea.

In my opinion Lebanon is the place to watch. An attack on Syria is not impossible, but more likely is a re-invasion of Southern Lebanon. It's part of the long-term project, scene of Sharon's great triumph in 1982 and can be dressed-up as action against Syria and, of course, Hizbullah. The Sharonists really hate Hizbullah because they can credibly claim to have chased out the Israelis - not a common Arab boast. And it wasn't Sharon who pulled out, it was Barak who didn't have the stomach for it.

Richard G

7th October 2003, 08:08 AM

Israel is on the road to war with Damascus. It has long been the hideout of all the terrorist leadership of the Middle-East. The U.S. knows this, and has so for a long time. Unlike his predescesors, G. Bush has not stupidly condemned Israel for defending itself from terrorist attacks, and has publicly scolded Syria for harboring, and aiding terrorism. And now there is a bullseye on the heart of the matter.

Israel has been EXTREMELY patient dealing these unreasonable, backwards people. Their patience and long suffering have nearly come to an end.

I think Damscus will be steamrolled by an Israeli jugernaut, without warning, and all the terrorist scum that has long taken refuge there will be wiped out. They may level the whole city.

Thats my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. I didn't even consult my tarot cards. :roll:

I'll welcome the day that I see it.

Ian Osborne

7th October 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Israel is on the road to war with Damascus. It has long been the hideout of all the terrorist leadership of the Middle-East. The U.S. knows this, and has so for a long time.

Just like they knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

I think Damscus will be steamrolled by an Israeli jugernaut, without warning, and all the terroirst scum that has long taken refuge there will be wiped out. They may level the whole city... I'll welcome the day that I see it.

And when it happens, expect several more 9/11s. And next time, I for one won't be holding a two-minute silence afterwards...

7th October 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

I think Damscus will be steamrolled by an Israeli jugernaut, without warning, and all the terrorist scum that has long taken refuge there will be wiped out. They may level the whole city. ... I'll welcome the day that I see it.

Once, years ago, there was a poster on soc.history.war.world-war-ii who expressed as his opinion that every single German should have been executed after WWII.

He was then asked whether he really meant that all 50 million Germans, including all women and children should have been killed.

He answered, yes.

He was then asked that wouldn't a massacre of that size be even worse crime that Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews.

He answered: no, because Germans were evil.

At that point I plonked him. For some reason your post brought him to my memory.

DrChinese

7th October 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Israel is on the road to war with Damascus. It has long been the hideout of all the terrorist leadership of the Middle-East. The U.S. knows this, and has so for a long time.

Just like it was "well known" that Afghanistan was the same hideout, Iraq the same, Sudan the same, etc.

Just like we know everything we know, ... except that it is really just guesses and supposition. Who cares about facts? We're right even when we're wrong...

Richard G

7th October 2003, 09:12 AM

I haven't seen any large terrorist attacks since we started chewing on their [terroist] asses. That must be related to the fact we have attacked the wrong targets. [sic] One of the last, and biggest cesspools of localy sponsored terrorism is from Syria, into Israel, where you DO see terrorist attacks still. Thats because we havent begun to chew their asses yet.

When Israel, or we, finally do attack it head on, unrestrained, then you'll see an end to these unfettered terroists blowing civilians up. There has to be a winner, and there has to be a loser. Syria is setting itself up to be the first big loser. Because these scum happen to hide in many different countrys who tolerate them, it is nescessary to cofront these many different outlaw nations that do so. Very distastefull to those who are moraly bankrupt, and weak of will and mind.

If one is not satisfied to see a resolution of the matter by force (because NOTHING else has worked), I can only assume the individual is ignorant of the reality of the situation, or they are a terrorist sympathizer.

All terrorist scum must die. All terrorist sympathizers are sick in the head, and should be locked up.

7th October 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

If one is not satisfied to see a resolution of the matter by force (because NOTHING else has worked), I can only assume the individual is ignorant of the reality of the situation, or they are a terrorist sympathizer.

You are aware of the fact that there lives almost two million people in Damascus, aren't you?

When you say that Damascus should be levelled, you are arguing for killing at least several hundreds of thousands of innocents along with the several hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of terrorists.

If you really think that it would be a good thing to do, then I can only pity you and hope that you never, ever, reach a high-ranking political position.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th October 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
If one is not satisfied to see a resolution of the matter by force (because NOTHING else has worked), I can only assume the individual is ignorant of the reality of the situation, or they are a terrorist sympathizer.

You know, I think it is a fair bet that somewhere in the occupied territories there is someone making the exact same argument with just one word changed - Zionist for terrorist - to convince people to strap explosives to themselves and walk into a restaurant. You must be very proud to have so much in common with them.

Richard G

7th October 2003, 10:12 AM

You know, I think it is a fair bet that somewhere in the occupied territories there is someone making the exact same argument with just one word changed - Zionist for terrorist - to convince people to strap explosives to themselves and walk into a restaurant. You must be very proud to have so much in common with them.

You are one of the woefully deluded, ignorant, and sick folk who equate the mass murder of terrorism with the sovreign right of a nation to defend itself from those heinous attacks.

You are also from a nation whos countrymen have not suffered from terrorism. So your vested interest could only be academic. Mine is the safety, and security of my family.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
it was Barak who didn't have the stomach for it.

Interesting. When somebody does the job right he is recorded in History as a mass murderer and Nazi , when he hesitates, he doesn't have the stomach for it.

Patience Capel Dodger. After the next episode against them Jews will return more efficient.

DrChinese

7th October 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

You are one of the woefully deluded, ignorant, and sick folk who equate the mass murder of terrorism with the sovreign right of a nation to defend itself from those heinous attacks.

You are also from a nation whos countrymen have not suffered from terrorism. So your vested interest could only be academic. Mine is the safety, and security of my family.

Dick,

So sovereignty just works one way, eh? Oh, and terrorism in Ohio (I must have missed that) elevates your viewpoints over others.

I recommend you return to the hospital to get the rest of the chemo treatments. For the cancer that is eating at you...

-DrC

Mr Manifesto

7th October 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

You are one of the woefully deluded, ignorant, and sick folk who equate the mass murder of terrorism with the sovreign right of a nation to defend itself from those heinous attacks.

You are also from a nation whos countrymen have not suffered from terrorism. So your vested interest could only be academic. Mine is the safety, and security of my family.

Yet another paranoid, deranged redneck drop-kick. :yawn:

Ian Osborne

7th October 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
You are one of the woefully deluded, ignorant, and sick folk who equate the mass murder of terrorism with the sovreign right of a nation to defend itself from those heinous attacks.

You don't consider levelling a city of almost two million people to be mass murder? Or don't they count if they're not American?

You are also from a nation whos countrymen have not suffered from terrorism. So your vested interest could only be academic. Mine is the safety, and security of my family.

You don't think the UK has suffered from terrorism? Then you're as ill-informed as you are jingoistic. Oh, and as much of the IRA's funding has come from the Irish-American community, by your logic, would the British be justified in bombing Boston?

Jaggy Bunnet

8th October 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

You are one of the woefully deluded, ignorant, and sick folk who equate the mass murder of terrorism with the sovreign right of a nation to defend itself from those heinous attacks.

You are also from a nation whos countrymen have not suffered from terrorism. So your vested interest could only be academic. Mine is the safety, and security of my family.

Why I am unsurprised that in addition to being a racist, you are ignorant?

I judge the act, not the perpetrator. If a nation indulges in acts of terrorism, I condemn it, you excuse it.

Want to compare terrorist deaths per head of population between the UK and the US over the last thirty years?