It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Everyone, lets keep the conversation civil and reasonable.


At this point, I am inclined to agree with DJ77. The Golan Heights are integral to israeli defense plans, but, in all honesty, they don't have much to loose at this point. Eventually all out war is going to flare up over there, and the yehudis should be able to take care of themselves. IF something like this can prevent the war, or mark some sort of turning point, it'd be worth it.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush

It is possible to be a nuclear threat without possessing nuclear weapons. If you deny they have the technology then you are ignorant.


you should actually read your post before you call anyone ignorant, tyvm.

with your thinking china should nuke japan and south korea, because they MIGHT have nukes someday, maybe 10 years down the road. does that sound foolish?
well some people believe first strike is the best bet.

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



peace

[edit on 17-9-2006 by elitegamer23]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

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?


I don't care. Them and us are humans anyway. They should make a deal with them, disarming Israël from their nukes, in exchange for UN and US looking at their nuclear facilities.

Death are not just numbers in a book of history. They have families, friends, lives, loves, works and passions.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
In this case Israel should stand its ground.
As for Syria being unhappy with Israel occupying the Golan Heights well thats there tough luck actions have consequences mind you many world leaders still dont grasp this concept today. International law is a joke Im not going to go into reasons why because I woud have go off topic.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I had a listen to the radio last night, and there was an ex israeli army commando officer talking about the golan heights on this talk radio channel - What he had to say was interesting to say the least.

He said syria lacks satellites to look into israel, and is behind in aerial surveillance technology, and what they have israel can jam.

Basicly they want the Golans back so they can see into israel, and use it as a launch for an attack - With iran acting as back up.

Heres where it got interesting. Iran is stirring up Iraq to force out the Americans and UK / Allies, and install a shiite theocracy - when this is done, they will form one country under an islamic flag, and then their armies can go from Tehran to Syria unhindered by any land masses and obstructions.


Its an interesting point, but yes i realise it may be propaganda or half truths, but it makes sense of alot of things happening today in the world



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23


Originally posted by DickBinBush

It is possible to be a nuclear threat without possessing nuclear weapons. If you deny they have the technology then you are ignorant.


you should actually read your post before you call anyone ignorant, tyvm.

with your thinking china should nuke japan and south korea, because they MIGHT have nukes someday, maybe 10 years down the road. does that sound foolish?
well some people believe first strike is the best bet.

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



peace

[edit on 17-9-2006 by elitegamer23]


No, that's where you are wrong. Japan and South Korea don't have mad men or religious fanatics running their countries. They aren't determined to wipe other countries off the map. North Korea and Iran are. So really, you're comparing apples and oranges here. That's not even a relevant comparison or statement.

I don't believe i've said anything ignorant. You're trying to debate this issue and doing nothing but running your mouth. You're not stating anything to back up your claims.

We don't know for sure if Iran possess nukes, would you say that's correct or incorrect? I'm going to assume they are probably the only ones who know for sure. Now, having said that, do you believe they have the CAPABILITY to possess nukes? I'd say they definately do with allies such as China, Russia, and North Korea. Now, tell me, what exactly is ignorant about that statement?

Pre-emptive strikes are better if you are the one doing it. You take out as much as you can in one quick strike and hurt them militarily before they can hurt you. It's common sense.

You're trying to argue something that isn't there. Open your eyes and read what I'm telling you. It's true. We don't know if they physically have the nuclear weapons, but they do possess the capability. Their a reckless regime that would use these weapons on Israel, which makes them a nuclear threat. This is what i've been saying. I'm sure most people would agree with that, but for some reason you have a tough time understanding it.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by DickBinBush]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?


I don't care. Them and us are humans anyway. They should make a deal with them, disarming Israël from their nukes, in exchange for UN and US looking at their nuclear facilities.

Death are not just numbers in a book of history. They have families, friends, lives, loves, works and passions.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Vitchilo]


Yeah, well, having said that, I'd rather 3 million of them die than 3 million of ours die. That's like saying do you want your brother dead or your distant cousin dead. I'm sure most people would choose to protect their brother. If it takes killing 3 million of theirs to save 3 million of ours, I'm all for it. War isn't pretty. War means death. It's unfortunate but it's the truth.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I agree with dickbinbush.

If its a choice, i'd let three million of theirs die to save 10,000 of ours... so 3 mil to save 3 mil??? sure as eggs are eggs i would...

I want my grand children to grow up in the freedom i did - not some fanatical women hating intolerant theocracy thank you very much.

I shudder at the thought of this world being run under a muslim rule.... Hitler would seem like a peachy fella compared to that lot... Afghanistan a prime example...

Women alone should be alarmed at the growing threat of fanatical islam to Europe, the USA and the israelis...



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush

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.


How brillant! So that attitude continuously gets us back to the same starting point: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a more extented conflict with muslim neighboring countries... Seems like Israel only knows guns and tanks when it comes to make statements, or is it? (sighs)


Now I have a question for you, Einstein: how many bloodsheds and invasions will it take for Israel to make their "statement" to neighboring muslim countries and regions? 'Cause you know they've been doing that since 1947, and it does'nt look like Israel thinks the arabs countries "got the point" as of yet. Is it gonna take the complete invasion of Middle-East by the zionists, or what???

If so, then stop accusing Middle-eastern muslim countries of being violent, aggressive, dangerous and whatever, for it's Israel that's the true violent nuke-capable, and invasive nation in the Middle-East.



[edit on 18/9/06 by Echtelion]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Goes to show how stupid the middle east muslims are doesn't it then??

Get your arse handed to you on a plate time and time again, yet to try again the next decade along...

Israel has only ever fought defensive wars - Its the islamic countries that are forever threatening / actually attacking.

But I agree with one statment - Expand israel to cover the entire middle east, that way they get cheap labour for the fields and factories.

(maybe with a massive democratic empire in the middle east, the islamics might learn a bit of civility for once instead of just burning / killing at the drop of a hat)

[edit on 18-9-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
I never claimed they did possess nukes. I implied they possessed the CAPABILITY and TECHNOLOGY to possess nukes.


You realize that the rest of the world does too? There are websites with instructions on how to make a nuke. Basically, any country in the world with Internet access has the "CAPABILITY" and "TECHNOLOGY" to posses nukes.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by DickBinBush
I never claimed they did possess nukes. I implied they possessed the CAPABILITY and TECHNOLOGY to possess nukes.


You realize that the rest of the world does too? There are websites with instructions on how to make a nuke. Basically, any country in the world with Internet access has the "CAPABILITY" and "TECHNOLOGY" to posses nukes.


How great for the rest of the world. But does EVERYBODY possess the will, motivation, determination, economy, resources, and threats to wipe Israel "off the map"? No, I don't believe so. They're a threat to Israel's security. If Israel is this loose cannon and war mongering destructive country that you are implying that they are, don't you think they would have already nuked Iran by now?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Goes to show how stupid the middle east muslims are doesn't it then??

Get your arse handed to you on a plate time and time again, yet to try again the next decade along...

Israel has only ever fought defensive wars - Its the islamic countries that are forever threatening / actually attacking.

But I agree with one statment - Expand israel to cover the entire middle east, that way they get cheap labour for the fields and factories.

(maybe with a massive democratic empire in the middle east, the islamics might learn a bit of civility for once instead of just burning / killing at the drop of a hat)

[edit on 18-9-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]


Exactly. They never learn. Just keep making their threats and lobbing rockets and continue to get their head handed to them on a silver platter. Maybe that's what it's going to take is a complete invasion of the middle east and complete re-form of the government system there for there to be this "peace" that everybody supposedly wants.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
you people think its that easy making a nuke. you cant just know some scientific stuff , u got to have like facilities and machines and then u got to know how to maintain the damn thing. And these are just the easy parts. Plus the real fear is not syria, but egypt, there is some funky lab stuff happening in that country. Just about every egyptians will tell u that they do possess a nuclear bomb.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
do u guys really think that an existing israeli empire would help the situation. i mean com'on u seen'em in action israelis didn't stand a chance. imagine an all out war with israelis in every middle-eastern corner fighting tirelessly against rebels and terrorists and governments. the israelis can't handle anything of that sort actually they might get screwed big time for it.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23

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


Actually, yes you do if the attacker's intent is to do 'great bodily harm' even if it's with a spoon. Regarding the situation with Israel, your position is unworkable. You can't just draw a line and say something like "we'll only defend ourselves and our citizens if you do X", because they would continue to harass you just short of your limit indefinately. No, you need to stop them from doing anything to you and your citizens.

This is an analogy, but as a country, you never want find yourself in the position of being the guy who brings a knife (or spoon?) to a gunfight.




[edit on 9/18/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   


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


More like stabbing with a fork...and sure you do...after all, they damn sure won't be jobbing you with that fork again!

But nukes...not necessary. Israel could certainly have a good shot at sending Damascus back to the stone age if need be...though not without suffering a few hits of their own.

I'd have to check a bit more, but didn't they hold on to that area after being jointly invaded by a few angry neighbors????

Israel's certainly no angel...but I'm sure that (without other sources), this is far more obscure bark than bite....



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Syria has every right to take their occupied territory back - I doubt, however, they have the ability to, at least not without Iranian assistance.

There is also the reported story that the Israeli's have planted nuclear landmines in the Golan.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Syria enjoys the mass of hills that seperates them from Israel, as Israel enjoys it as well.

Syria has no intentions of taking back the land, it is useless land that cannot be used constructivly. Israel keeps it for security purposes and long ago it was decided between them they will not fight over it. That is why there has been so much peace, regardless of the media's imputs, there is much peace because of that no-mans land stretch of land, then there is with Lebanon, Palestine and even Egypt who are all right along the border with Israel.

Why would they endager the the balance of peace that exist there now?

I agree with one of the other posters, bad source and is being used as propaganda.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
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.


Agreed, the Syrian military is no match for Israel's field force.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join