32 replies to this topic

[the L]

he Syrian army on Monday thwarted a massive attack by a large number of terrorists who were trying to enter Syria through the Jordanian border, and also confiscated Israeli-made missiles and weapons from the armed rebels.

http://english.farsn...p?nn=9107131963

[and then]

the L, on 01 January 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

he Syrian army on Monday thwarted a massive attack by a large number of terrorists who were trying to enter Syria through the Jordanian border, and also confiscated Israeli-made missiles and weapons from the armed rebels.

http://english.farsn...p?nn=9107131963

IF the story is accurate - big if imo - then at least it was only Israeli weapons and not Israeli troops.  As soon as it becomes apparent that chemical weapons are being controlled by anyone but Assad - that will change and a whole new dimension will enter this war.

[the L]

and then, on 01 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

IF the story is accurate - big if imo - then at least it was only Israeli weapons and not Israeli troops.  As soon as it becomes apparent that chemical weapons are being controlled by anyone but Assad - that will change and a whole new dimension will enter this war.

True. Israel Generals think that Assad keeps well chemical weapon but they are affaraid if islam radicals get their hands on chemical weapon.

[The New Richard Nixon]

The site is very anti Israeli, looks like set up by the Republcan guard

[Yamato]

Al Qaeda has been on the US taxpayer's dole for decades; why wouldn't Israel pitch in too.   Allow the people of the region to run to their religion in response to all this foreign intervention, resource exploitation, and statist oppression, and the zIonists/neocons will win their blood-stained argument for another 60 years that it's a war of religions or a clash of civilization.   Mission accomplished.

[and then]

Yamato, on 01 January 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Al Qaeda has been on the US taxpayer's dole for decades; why wouldn't Israel pitch in too.   Allow the people of the region to run to their religion in response to all this foreign intervention, resource exploitation, and statist oppression, and the zIonists/neocons will win their blood-stained argument for another 60 years that it's a war of religions or a clash of civilization.   Mission accomplished.

I don't think the politics of chemical weapons matter Yam.  They are an equal opportunity scourge.  As evil as Assad is,  he at least seems rational.  Having those things fall into the hands of anyone else is just a risk that cannot be taken - regardless how big a mess intervention turns to be.  Time seems very short for a solution that doesn't necessitate an intervention.

[Yamato]

and then, on 02 January 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

I don't think the politics of chemical weapons matter Yam.  They are an equal opportunity scourge.  As evil as Assad is,  he at least seems rational.  Having those things fall into the hands of anyone else is just a risk that cannot be taken - regardless how big a mess intervention turns to be.  Time seems very short for a solution that doesn't necessitate an intervention.

I wasn't talking about chemicals.  I'd be afraid of Israel's nukes if I had to pick a WMD in the Middle East to worry about.  Intervening in Syria sounds like another one of many bad ideas.   Non-interventionism is best over time because we don't suffer from the blowback our interventionist policies inevitably create.   And I'm tired of bankrupt politicians going broke by building foreigners' nations.

I also don't know how evil Assad is.   What would our government do if our people were driving around in pickup trucks with HMGs and rocket launchers on the back shooting up government buildings? They use overwhelming force on us with their police, why would this be any different?   How much blood did Lincoln spill of his own countrymen?   Let's have some perspective, and not oversimplify things like we know better.

Edited by Yamato, 02 January 2013 - 05:02 AM.

[and then]

Yamato, on 02 January 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

I wasn't talking about chemicals.  I'd be afraid of Israel's nukes if I had to pick a WMD in the Middle East to worry about.  Intervening in Syria sounds like another one of many bad ideas.   Non-interventionism is best over time because we don't suffer from the blowback our interventionist policies inevitably create.   And I'm tired of bankrupt politicians going broke by building foreigners' nations.

I also don't know how evil Assad is.   What would our government do if our people were driving around in pickup trucks with HMGs and rocket launchers on the back shooting up government buildings? They use overwhelming force on us with their police, why would this be any different?   How much blood did Lincoln spill of his own countrymen?   Let's have some perspective, and not oversimplify things like we know better.

Thanks for the lecture but I think I'm on pretty sound footing on this one. No way the Syrian army isn't responsible for at least most of the atrocities attributed to them - and yeah - killing children is an atrocity no matter who does it.  As to who wins I could care less except for the eventual ownership of those chemical weapons.  And if they wind up in the wrong hands then your concerns over Israeli nukes will be justified in spades.  About the only scenario that realistically causes Israel to use one of those things is the situation where one of their cities is hit with a mass casualty event.  Drop a few missiles with Sarin on Tel Aviv and voila' - Damascus becomes a smoking hole.  And as a bonus - it doesn't really matter who launches the Sarin, Assad, the FSA or even some rogue officer.  The only choice in that situation is to stop the attacks in the quickest way possible or accept potentially tens of thousands dead.  By GAS.   This IS the nightmare scenario and it's becoming a more credible possibility by the day.

[Yamato]

and then, on 02 January 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Thanks for the lecture but I think I'm on pretty sound footing on this one. No way the Syrian army isn't responsible for at least most of the atrocities attributed to them - and yeah - killing children is an atrocity no matter who does it.  As to who wins I could care less except for the eventual ownership of those chemical weapons.  And if they wind up in the wrong hands then your concerns over Israeli nukes will be justified in spades.  About the only scenario that realistically causes Israel to use one of those things is the situation where one of their cities is hit with a mass casualty event.  Drop a few missiles with Sarin on Tel Aviv and voila' - Damascus becomes a smoking hole.  And as a bonus - it doesn't really matter who launches the Sarin, Assad, the FSA or even some rogue officer.  The only choice in that situation is to stop the attacks in the quickest way possible or accept potentially tens of thousands dead.  By GAS.   This IS the nightmare scenario and it's becoming a more credible possibility by the day.

Who wins means everything to the Syrian people.  I hope that whoever is the best for Syria's future wins, and as an outsider, I, like every other outsider, don't have a clue what that is, and it's none of my business if I did.

Israel's been killing children for years as I've been trying to tell you, and I accept your admission that Israel committed atrocities.

[and then]

Yamato, on 02 January 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Who wins means everything to the Syrian people.  I hope that whoever is the best for Syria's future wins, and as an outsider, I, like every other outsider, don't have a clue what that is, and it's none of my business if I did.

Israel's been killing children for years as I've been trying to tell you, and I accept your admission that Israel committed atrocities.

*sigh*  just as you like, Yam....   But some day you are going to see that it's not all one sided - whether you admit it or not is another issue.  And I suspect you will feel it's an intimate part of your business who wins in Syria if your friends or family were killed in a public venue here by an attack with Sarin or VX.  Thinking it's not possible is just denial, nothing more.

[Yamato]

and then, on 02 January 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

*sigh*  just as you like, Yam....   But some day you are going to see that it's not all one sided - whether you admit it or not is another issue.  And I suspect you will feel it's an intimate part of your business who wins in Syria if your friends or family were killed in a public venue here by an attack with Sarin or VX.  Thinking it's not possible is just denial, nothing more.

I'm not sure how you're replying to me with this.  How is admitting that killing children is an atrocity no matter who does it "one sided"?   That is the opposite of one-sided, it's all-sided.

The war is over a year long now, with tens of thousands of lives lost.   If I'm going to respond emotionally at this point it's easier to mourn what's already happened than fear what hasn't.   Using chemicals at this point would be more an act of desperation than the beginning of our concern.   Anything's possible, I never said otherwise, and we're really not qualified to know the probability of our conjecture.

[The New Richard Nixon]

He's only here because the word Israel is mentioned

[and then]

The New Richard Nixon, on 03 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

He's only here because the word Israel is mentioned

Tough old world, eh, Dick?

[B Jenkins]

Yamato, on 02 January 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Who wins means everything to the Syrian people.  I hope that whoever is the best for Syria's future wins, and as an outsider, I, like every other outsider, don't have a clue what that is, and it's none of my business if I did.

Israel's been killing children for years as I've been trying to tell you, and I accept your admission that Israel committed atrocities.

Here is the figures
1,477 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis and 129 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians since September 29, 2000.

“The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.”

- Catherine Cook

Source: <a href="http://rememberthesechildren.org/about.html" target="_blank">Remember These Children, a coalition of groups calling for an end to the killing of children and a fair resolution of the conflict. (View the complete list of the victims, which was last updated on October 2, 2012.)

It appears that Remember These Children has not yet documented a number of the Palestinian children killed during Israel's Dec 27, 2008 - Jan 18, 2009 assault on Gaza. They report only 269 of the Palestinian children killed during that time (and an additional 9 who later died from wounds inflicted during that time period). B'Tselem has documented that Israel killed 318 Palestinian children in Gaza during this time. We do not doubt the validity of this higher number as they are extremely careful in their documentation.

http://ifamericanskn...s/children.html

[and then]

Ambush Bug, on 09 January 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Here is the figures
1,477 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis and 129 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians since September 29, 2000.

“The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.”

- Catherine Cook

Source: <a href="http://rememberthesechildren.org/about.html" target="_blank">Remember These Children, a coalition of groups calling for an end to the killing of children and a fair resolution of the conflict. (View the complete list of the victims, which was last updated on October 2, 2012.)

It appears that Remember These Children has not yet documented a number of the Palestinian children killed during Israel's Dec 27, 2008 - Jan 18, 2009 assault on Gaza. They report only 269 of the Palestinian children killed during that time (and an additional 9 who later died from wounds inflicted during that time period). B'Tselem has documented that Israel killed 318 Palestinian children in Gaza during this time. We do not doubt the validity of this higher number as they are extremely careful in their documentation.

http://ifamericanskn...s/children.html

A fair resolution seems to be the sticking point for now.  Has been these 60 years.  Both sides want all the land but only one side seems willing (by their actions) to actually give any up for peace.