Syria - Gives us the Golans or we take it back!

www.ynetnews.com...


Syria will not wait for much longer before they try to take back the golan heights...

Well it all looks like its rolling towards a great major scrap inside the Middle east....


Well after that little spat in lebanon, im not suprised syria wants to try its luck...

That would be a mistake on Syria's part. They'll get smacked back down if not by Israel, by the United States. They can't win that, even with Iran's help.

Oh I agree, because Israel will fight tooth and nail to keep hold of the one patch of land that stops it being bombed and rocketed on a daily basis.

You can no more trust syria than you can trust iran...

So we will just have to wait and see what builds from this one...

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Oh I agree, because Israel will fight tooth and nail to keep hold of the one patch of land that stops it being bombed and rocketed on a daily basis.

You can no more trust syria than you can trust iran...

So we will just have to wait and see what builds from this one...

I agree. I think Israel has the same fight to the death no matter what it takes mentality as everybody in the middle east, they just happen to be an allie with us. They will no doubt do whatever it takes to defeat Syria. And Syria really can't stand up to us so, big mistake. I understand their position on the land but resorting to military action will lead to them losing more than they would possibly gain if some miracle occured and they defeated us and Israel. It's a lose lose situation for them basically.

Look at the sources... ynetnews... a strong zionist source of news... very biased... please post others links... And yes, by UN laws, Israël is making an illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, because it's illegal to expand the borders by war.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Vitchilo]

I think they should give it back to them as a goodwill measure and try to pull them away from Iran...then if they make one step into Israel proper or fire a rocket into Israel, then level Damascus.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by djohnsto77]

77, if they get the golans back, then Iran could hide a whole army on those hills, and sit and shell till they got sick with israel having to fight uphill..

But yeah, I agree, give them back.


Just one rocket lands, nuke damascus. Two rockets, Tehran as well.

three rockets land, nuke (insert muslim country here). i mean since we are just lobbing nukes like they are toys, lets hit every where.

i dont condone cowardly rocket attacks into isreal, but u dont shoot someone with a gun who stabs you with a spoon.

Originally posted by elitegamer23
three rockets land, nuke (insert muslim country here). i mean since we are just lobbing nukes like they are toys, lets hit every where.

i dont condone cowardly rocket attacks into isreal, but u dont shoot someone with a gun who stabs you with a spoon.

No. You have to put them in their place at some point. You have to make a statement that your not going to be pushed around. I agree with Israel nuking Syria and Iran if they start a fight.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Look at the sources... ynetnews... a strong zionist source of news... very biased... please post others links... And yes, by UN laws, Israël is making an illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, because it's illegal to expand the borders by war.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Vitchilo]

Why does there have to be other links? Is it so crazy to assume Syria wants that land? I don't believe so. Is it so crazy to assume they'd attack Israel if they don't get it? I don't believe so. So what you are trying to prove, I don't exactly know.

you dont nuke someone to put them in their place for a simple rocket attack.

do we need to start a world war over a rocket attack?

Originally posted by elitegamer23
you dont nuke someone to put them in their place for a simple rocket attack.

do we need to start a world war over a rocket attack?

World War III has already started.

And if somebody is posing a nuclear threat to you, you don't wait around for it to happen. Pre-emptive strikes aren't as bad as they are made out to be. SOMEBODY had to make the pre-emptive strike otherwise there wouldn't be war. Since war is here to stay, and somebody has to make that first strike, why not do it yourself instead of waiting for the first death and destruction be on your side? Especially in Israel's case with it being such a small country.

Originally posted by DickBinBush

World War III has already started.

And if somebody is posing a nuclear threat to you, you don't wait around for it to happen.

ww3 has started already???
weird cnn and foxnews are not saying anything about it, i just checktd the tv.

and about syria and iran beign a nuclear threat. does that mean if the government of haiti claims they want to nuke america, that they are a nuclear threat to the usa and we can nuke them?

last time i checked iran and syria possess 0 nukes.

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by DickBinBush

World War III has already started.

And if somebody is posing a nuclear threat to you, you don't wait around for it to happen.

ww3 has started already???
weird cnn and foxnews are not saying anything about it, i just checktd the tv.

and about syria and iran beign a nuclear threat. does that mean if the government of haiti claims they want to nuke america, that they are a nuclear threat to the usa and we can nuke them?

last time i checked iran and syria possess 0 nukes.

Weird, CNN and FOXNews are controlled by the U.S. government. So I wonder why?

They are a nuclear threat. You know they possess no nukes how? What private intelligence source do you own?

Pre-emptive strikes aren't as bad as they are made out to be.

Only 3 millions deads...from the own CIA analysis...aren't as bad as they are made out to be? You're kidding?

And yeah right... nuclear threat. Like Iraq was? Seriously, Israël almost wipe out Iraq with nukes in the 80s, they didn't do it because USA give them all they wanted if they wouldn't do it. And with the crazy Netanyahu coming to power soon after Olmert, it'll be more dangerous than ever on the nuclear strike subject.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by DickBinBush


Weird, CNN and FOXNews are controlled by the U.S. government. So I wonder why?

They are a nuclear threat. You know they possess no nukes how? What private intelligence source do you own?

ok i just checked al jazeera and they arent saying anything about ww3 starting either. i dont think they are controlled by the us government.

how do you want me to prove iran and syria have 0 nukes. that seems impossible. how about you prove they have nukes.

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by DickBinBush


Weird, CNN and FOXNews are controlled by the U.S. government. So I wonder why?

They are a nuclear threat. You know they possess no nukes how? What private intelligence source do you own?

ok i just checked al jazeera and they arent saying anything about ww3 starting either. i dont think they are controlled by the us government.

how do you want me to prove iran and syria have 0 nukes. that seems impossible. how about you prove they have nukes.

I never claimed they did possess nukes. I implied they possessed the CAPABILITY and TECHNOLOGY to possess nukes. They also have the will and motivation to possess nukes. You can check all the news sources you want to figure out if world war 3 has started or not but it only takes common sense and view of the situations around the world to realize it's in its early stages.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Pre-emptive strikes aren't as bad as they are made out to be.

Only 3 millions deads...from the own CIA analysis...aren't as bad as they are made out to be? You're kidding?

And yeah right... nuclear threat. Like Iraq was?

Seriously, Israël almost wipe out Iraq with nukes in the 80s, they didn't do it because USA give them all they wanted if they wouldn't do it. And with the crazy Netanyahu coming to power soon after Olmert, it'll be more dangerous than ever on the nuclear strike subject.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Vitchilo]

Would you rather have 3 millions of their's dead or your's dead? If you pre-emptively strike their military facilities there isn't much they can do. I'm not saying hit the civilians. Hit their military facilities. Disable their military. That will actually save lives. If you don't hit their civilians and they cant hit your civilians..how is that bad?

Originally posted by DickBinBush

I never claimed they did possess nukes.

Originally posted by DickBinBush


They are a nuclear threat.

you are confusing me.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by elitegamer23]

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by DickBinBush

I never claimed they did possess nukes.

Originally posted by DickBinBush


They are a nuclear threat.

you are confusing me.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by elitegamer23]

It's simple. Follow closely ok? Don't hurt yourself. It is possible to be a nuclear threat without possessing nuclear weapons. If you are a THREAT, that can mean you are a THREAT to EVENTUALLY possess them. I never said they possessed them currently. But they have the technology to EVENTUALLY possess them. If you deny they have the technology then you are ignorant.