Author Topic: First overt Israeli military action vs. Syrian territory 2 decades (Read 2480 times)

wulfie · « **Reply #15 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:45:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
I wonder if Syria's cooperation has anything to do with the 200,000 American soldiers they suddenly found living next door...

hmmmm...

Part of the cooperation probably does, but they also started to cooperate before those troops were there. In most Western Nations it would be nearly impossible to have people in senior leadership positions directly defy the will of the National leader. The same cannot be said for all Nations. While there have been bad guys that snuck into Iraq from Syria, odds are they didn't do so at the command of Syria's top leadership. It is very possible to have senior military leaders be in favor of anti-Israeli terrorism and supporting those terrorists in defiance of their superiors.

And it's not as simple as 'fire the military leaders' in a place like Syria. There's no gurantee that a military coup would not take place, etc. The Syrian leadership is in a tough spot.

The counter is they could be playing the West for fools, and that they do support anti-Israeli terrorism, and are using some military leaders as 'bad guys' to deflect direct blame away from themselves. But that type of trickery can usually be 'found out' foreign intelligence services.

Mike/wulfie

wulfie · « **Reply #16 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:48:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ViFF
This isn't the first time we strike inside another sovriegn country against palestinian terror bases. read up on black september in the early 70's.

The 'War in Europe' was one of the greatest sustained CT operations in the history of CT warfare. You guys kicked ass.

I love the thought of scumbags who previously were hiding in varied Nations all of a sudden thinking "I'm not safe *here*? They can't come across borders to get me!". Talk about righteous payback...

Mike/wulfie

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** October 05, 2003, 02:16:03 PM »

I think Israel has shown much restraint, at least up 'til now. How long would frequent bombings be tolerated if they were happening in the US? Be honest now. I think hunting season would have been declared long ago on all Muslims living in the US if we were in their shoes. Not saying it would be right, just that it would be.

wulfie · « **Reply #18 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:08:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I think Israel has shown much restraint, at least up 'til now. How long would frequent bombings be tolerated if they were happening in the US? Be honest now. I think hunting season would have been declared long ago on all Muslims living in the US if we were in their shoes. Not saying it would be right, just that it would be.

I'm not saying that I think what Israel did is 'wrong' or 'dumb'. I'm saying that certain Syrian senior leaders are sweating bullets right now.

The one certainty about the Israeli-Arab situation is that there will be no 'perfect' answers, responses, etc.

Mike/wulfie

AKIron · « **Reply #19 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:12:21 PM »

I think it's possible that Israel is now trying to force the issue. By starting an all out war in the region their problem may be solved. Living with the sort of fear they have for years now leads to desperation.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:24:57 PM »

WTG IDF/IAF!!!

Nashwan · « **Reply #21 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:43:27 PM »

Quote

How long would frequent bombings be tolerated if they were happening in the US? Be honest now.

A closer parallel is how long they'd be tolerated if they were happening in Iraq, or if Iraqis were launching attacks in the US whilst they were still occupied.

Quote

I think it's possible that Israel is now trying to force the issue.

An Israeli on one of the boards I read described the attack as "nonsense" meant to convince the Israeli public the government were doing something. I read it as an admission by the Israeli government there isn't much they can do anymore, no more targets to hit, closures to impose etc amongst the Palestinians.

I'll be interested on what the analysis is like in the Israeli press in the next few days.

Quote

By starting an all out war in the region their problem may be solved.

How, by occupying Syria as well?

Israel's problem is the West Bank and Gaza, which are too big to digest, but ideological reasons prevent them spitting out. Hitting Syria, or Egypt, or Lebanon or Jordan won't change that fundamental fact, and won't bring long term peace.

Syria and Iran certainly fund the terrorist groups, but they probably get most of their funding from Palestinian society, certainly for "domestic" operations. Yesterday's suicide bomber didn't come from Syria, she came from Jenin, and wore an explosive belt that cost a few dollars to make.

AKIron · « **Reply #22 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:50:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
How, by occupying Syria as well?

Occupying? No, by expanding their territory sufficiently to allow a buffer zone and by relocating the Palestinians to their newly gained territory in what was owned by Syria. Of course they'll have to prevent their own people from settling the buffer zone as well as relocate everyone currently living in the buffer zone.

culero · « **Reply #23 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:01:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
Sure does.

I think Israel better watch itself though.If she gets too overzealous, she could be on the receiving end of a Pan-Arab Smack down.

~snork~

Those "Pan-Arabs" have tried that crap before. They got their tulips handed to them.

More than once

culero

Nashwan · « **Reply #24 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:03:32 PM »

Quote

Occupying? No, by expanding their territory sufficiently to allow a buffer zone

Why a buffer zone with Syria? No attacks that I know of have come out of Syria in decades.

Quote

and by relocating the Palestinians to their newly gained territory in what was owned by Syria.

You're suggesting they ethnically cleanse 3 million Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, and another million or so from inside Israel itsellf?

In the real world, that isn't going to happen. Israel hasn't got the troops for it, the Israeli public wouldn't stand for it (herding women and children in to trucks wouldn't go down well).

Israel would lose it's American financial support (about $12 billion this year, and a very large percentage of their economy), and face trade sanctions from Europe.

Most people round the world will see ethnically cleansing 4 million people so that 200,000 settlers can have their land as a bit extreme.

Quote

Of course they'll have to prevent their own people from settling the buffer zone

Which is the problem, of course. Sooner or later they'd have to clear out a new buffer zone, settle it, then another buffer zone, etc.

Many Arabs already believe Zionists are intent on a state from the Med to the Euphrates. (note I am not sugesting Israel plans to expand it's borders to the Euphrates)

AKIron · « **Reply #25 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:06:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
You're suggesting they ethnically cleanse 3 million Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, and another million or so from inside Israel itsellf?

I said relocate. You're kinda grandstanding there with the ethnically cleanse statement aren't you? Tell me, are you a liberal?

Yeager · « **Reply #26 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:12:16 PM »

I wouldnt suggest it but I am wondering how much longer they can tolerate these idiots that blow themselves up.

Nashwan · « **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:19:05 PM »

Quote

I said relocate. You're kinda grandstanding there with the ethnically cleanse statement aren't you?

No, relocate implies, or at least doesn't rule out, consent.

Companies help workers relocate.

Here's Dictionary.com's definition of ethnic cleansing:

"The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide"

Seems to fit perfectly to me.

It was also applied to the Balkans, and the pattern you are suggesting seems to be exactly the same.

Quote

Tell me, are you a liberal?

No, I'm a Thatcherite conservative. (seriously)

Gunthr · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:20:29 PM »

Quote

An Israeli on one of the boards I read described the attack as "nonsense" meant to convince the Israeli public the government were doing something. I read it as an admission by the Israeli government there isn't much they can do anymore, no more targets to hit, closures to impose etc amongst the Palestinians.

I'll be interested on what the analysis is like in the Israeli press in the next few days.

One must ask, why would a heretofore competent Israeli airforce hit an abandoned training camp?

AKIron · « **Reply #29 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:30:06 PM »

I didn't say that you weren't technically right just that you are grandstanding. Relocating by force, if necessary, is still relocating. Call it want you want.

The Palestinians are at war with the Israelis. They know they have absolutely no chance at an overt war so they conduct it covertly. Anyone that denies this is either blind or a liar. Relocating them is far kinder than killing them.

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
No, relocate implies, or at least doesn't rule out, consent.

Companies help workers relocate.

Here's Dictionary.com's definition of ethnic cleansing:

"The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide"

Seems to fit perfectly to me.

It was also applied to the Balkans, and the pattern you are suggesting seems to be exactly the same.

No, I'm a Thatcherite conservative. (seriously)