Israel strikes Syria

for the first time in a long time. As MOTO (master of the obvious) I would like to point out that Syria and Israel are now in a de facto state of war. Maybe they were already?

Meanwhile Tony Snow is talking to Peter King. CNN, snore. MSNBC, snore.

Ah, wait… Guess it is not such a big deal?

Well It ups the ante again doesn’t it?

Apart from that expect a lot of condemnation but nothing stronger. The Syrians know that tangling with the Israeli’s right now is not in their interests.

Apparently Syria and Israel never ceased to be in the state of war.

Anyway, nothing new will happen. Where is the difference to other recent events? Israel blows up this building, Israel blows up that building. Palestineans blow up this Café, Palestineans blow up that Café… It’s all the same anyway.

If there is outrage, then I ask myself why there was no outrage before, when Israel dropped bombs on houses of Hamas leaders in Palestinia, killing women and children.

Yes, it’s all quite the same when Israel destroys a terrorist training camp as when Islamic Jihad blows up a nightclub.

It is facinating (in a very morbid way) to watch this plan play out so consistently. Iran and Syria have been in the “sights” of the war hawks since the Iraqi occupation began. Both countries have been “branded” in the U.S. press; Iran for it “nuclear” capabilites, Syria for it’s “complicity” with the former Baath regime in Iraq. The American public is being primed for another “axis-of-evil” speech. Then the Information Ministry (i.e. CNN/FoxNews, NPR) will begin anew their “impending terrorist threat”/“oppressive regime” drumbeat (I wonder how well that will work again).

GW would require further “authorization” from the U.S. congress to carry out an aggression against another sovereign country like Syria or Iran and in the current political climate he is unlikely to get it. Nor is the U.S./U.K. team likely to convince the international community to authorize any action via the U.N… Therefore, Israel could be the “hammer” that will be used on Syria. The IDF need only to make a few more “provacative” actions (i.e. the assassination/expulsion of Arafat, more military strikes inside of Syria) to galvanize Syria and the surrounding countries to retaliate. Once that is accomplished anything that Israel does will be regarded in the press to be in the interest of it’s own national security. “Regime change” in Syria may fall under this umbrella.

I think flonks meant it was a neverending cycle, not that the actions were identical, in morality or method.

Oops, now I’m a master of the obvious.

Israel is in a bad position this time. Israel’s military is bogged-down in Iraq so they will have to go at it alone (except for the covert UK military actions).

Iran will squash Israel like a bug if they get a bit too frisky. Israel’s knowledge of this is obvious considering the empty threats against Iranian nuclear facilities. This may be news to some people but Israel has been making empty threats about Iranian nuclear facilities since 1996. if Israel could do something against Iran, it would have been done already.

The Shab-4 missiles will flatten Israel within a few days (and that is if Iran has not already developed more advanced weaponry).

Israel has killed twice as many innocent Palestinians as the suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli. The numbers do not lie, so it is Israel that is the true terrorist state (along wit the Palestinian terrorist groups).

As an interesting side note, the president of Israel is Iranian, which in istelf shows the superiority of Iranian culture in the region.

Israel got to be the bigger man in this, and take a few steps back…am I wrong? If so please explain

Thank you** Bryan Ekers** for telling us what you think** Flonks** thought. Now perhaps flonks will tell us what he thinks he thought.

I think you need some extra fiber in your diet.

I interpret Flonks’post the same way as Bryan Ekers. Fang removed the previous sentence which gives context and makes all the difference:

Why does Israel always get a pass? How about this one:

Israel, The PLO and Syria are all terrorists nations - one of them just chooses their targets better than the others (at least, according to us.)

Why is this not the official United States policy?

(…and before you answer, I hold the opinion that it is true. YMMV)

You’re joking, right? You are aware that Israel has as many as 200 nuclear weapons? If Iran were to start lobbing Shihab-4 missiles at Israel, Israel could wipe Iran off the map.

Iran’s air force was decimated when the Ayatollah Khomenei too power and killed most of the officers in the air force. Iran’s once-feared fleet of F-14’s is now down to 20 jets, of which only three or four are in flying condition. Iran’s air force consists of about 350 fighters, most of which are old, and all of which are in disrepair.

The same can be said for most of Iran’s forces. When the Shah was deposed, 60% of the army deserted. The wars with Iraq did more damage.

The Israeli airforce has 524 fighter jets, all of which are modern (F-16, F-15, Kfir).l In past engagements against Arabs, Israel’s air force has maintained a kill ratio of over 20-1. In a war, Iran’s pathetic air force would be destroyed in a matter of hours.

NO ONE in the Middle East is as strong as Israel. That little fact is the only reason Israel still survives.

Have to admit, that Iran vs. Israel thing had me wondering, too. It should be pretty obvious that the only nation in the Middle East capable of large-scale depopulation is Israel. Even if there was a massive and coordinated conventional attack (and there’s absolutely nothing in the past 50 years of ME history that suggests the Muslim nations are capable of such an effort), Israel’s nuclear trump card kinda ensures that they’re not going to go down easily. Having Tehran, Tripoli, Cario, Riyadh, Damascus (and maybe Mecca and Messina) reduced to big piles of glowing glass should serve as adequate deterrent.

Israel has shown time and time again that it can make mincemeat out of it’s enemies in the region.

Don’t they ever learn anything ? :dubious:

As far as Israel striking that terrorist camp, well good. Syria is probably the worlds biggest terrorist sponsor, and they will need to be dealt with sooner or later, preferrably sooner.

Sam, you forgot:


The President of Israel, Moshe Katsav, was born in Iran.

I should add though he emigrated to Israel aged six.


WTF? Cite?

I think they’re just wainting for the first molecules of uranium hexafluoride to flow into the gas centrifuges before taking action. Maybe you know more than I do about this though (but I’m not holding my breath about that).

Israel’s Arrow anti-missile defense is capable of shooting down the Shihab-4. The huge destabilizing effect of Iran possessing missiles that can reach southern Europe will probably earn them a bombing run in the near future. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a solid deterrent against a ballastic missile attack. One Iranian launch would pretty much guarantee that Tehran would only want for Windex thereafter.

And finally, cite please? This one is a real corker! Permit me to suggest that you are not gaining a lot of credibility by posting such nonsense, 2Thick. I have the suspicion that your name says it all.

Well, maybe not. Maybe what was once a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria but has not been for years. Maybe just what Israel chooses to call a terrorist training camp.

The thing that is a little scary is we have both the US and Israel saying that Syria harbors terrorists. Whether both countries are talking about the same terrorists is some thing I don’t know. I suspect however the terrorist are anti-Israeli terrorists. I sense that we may be approaching a new phase in the war on terrorism in which the US starts to apply its armed forces against people who threaten not the US but Israel. Earlier there was speculation that the invasion of Iraq would turn into an invasion of Syria–go to Baghdad and turn left. Assuming the US can solve its man power problem (30 of 33 maneuver brigades in the US Army are now deployed in the Middle East, deploying to the Middle East or disengaging from the Middle East) is it likely that we are looking at the prospect of a combined US-Israeli large scale action against Syria.

Given the present mood of the country, if that is militarily doable, is it politically doable?