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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

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


Really? I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Do you have a link to your source of information?

I felt it was important to get some facts out about the exact situation of the Golan Heights as there is obviously a lot of emotion about this topic but not enough hard facts. I garned this information off Wikipedia.

"Israel's measures are frequently termed "annexation" but the real status of the Golan is very far from legally clear - the word "annexation" or equivalent concepts, like "extending sovereignty," are not used in the law itself."

"Israel captured the Heights from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War (and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War). In 1981, Israel applied its "laws, jurisdiction and administration" in the Golan Heights with the Golan Heights Law. Syria asserts that the Heights are part of the governorate of Al Qunaytirah, and the international community considers the area Syrian territory under Israeli occupation."

"Neither the UN nor any country has recognised the "annexation" and they officially consider the Heights to be Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. This view was expressed in the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 497 stating that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect."

"On the other hand, the Benjamin Netanyahu government's Basic Policy Guidelines stated "The government views the Golan Heights as essential to the security of the state and its water resources. Retaining Israel's sovereignty over the Golan will be the basis for an arrangement with Syria."

you can read more about it here:
en.wikipedia.org...

I personally can understand Israel's reasons for controlling the land, the Golan heights is a huge source of water of them and it would be strategically dangerous to have another country controlling the source, it could become a recipe for politcal blackmail...HOWEVER the land originally belonged to Syria and the fact of the matter is Israel has no legal say so in this matter. I personally believe that Syria has every right to take back the land although the United Nations should watch over this process because there are about 18,000 Jewish settlers in the region as well as 17,000 Druze settlers who have managed to live in reasonable harmony so far. Israel offered the Druze Israeli citizenship, perhaps Syria could offer a similar peaceful offering of goodwill towards the settlers. I think that this is a legal issue and not militarily a threat or precursor to an invasion of Syrian/Iranian forces. If there were military developments in the heights I'm pretty sure the IDF would make quick work of it. My reccommendation is for Israel to succeed ownership to Syria.




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

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


huh? come again? a nuclear landmine? what is that? I have never heard of such a thing
....doesnt mean it doesnt exist, but I doubt seriously anyone would do that.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
From NTI.org:


26 March 2000
London's Sunday Times reports that the Israeli government is considering planting small nuclear landmines near the Golan Heights which could be detonated to halt a Syrian tank invasion. The plan, reportedly called "David's Sling," involves deploying neutron bombs in the manner of landmines to thwart any tank advance after the mountain region is handed back to Syria as a result of peace talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv. The paper also alleges that a neutron artillery shell has already been tested and laser-guided rockets with neutron warheads are ready for use.
—"Israeli Plan for Golan Heights Nuclear Shield," Sunday Times (London), 26 March 2000.


As far as I know the Israelis have always denied this, however, the Israelis still dont admit to having nuclear weapons at all, so that's no surprise.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
thanks for the source xmotex
makes you wonder if they ever went ahead with it, six years is a lot of time for them to put such a shield in place.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dioxholster
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.


If all these so called rebels and terrorists over there are so powerful and could take down Israel so easily, why haven't they done it yet? They have Israel so outnumbered, what are they waiting for?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
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.


I agree that Syria AND Iran could maybe defeat Israel, but, the U.S. would most certainly join in the fighting, so, I say Syria loses no matter what.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
If the attack were limited to taking back the Golan and stopped there, I actually doubt the US would get involved. I think the US population is pretty skeptical about getting involved in more Mideast wars right now, no matter how much propaganda our leadership pumps out.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
If the attack were limited to taking back the Golan and stopped there, I actually doubt the US would get involved. I think the US population is pretty skeptical about getting involved in more Mideast wars right now, no matter how much propaganda our leadership pumps out.


Well, yeah, I don't think that would happen if it were just for the Golan, but I'm saying if there was an all out attack on Israel iself by Iran and Syria, we would most likely come to their aid. They are a very small country compared to Iran and Syria, it doesnt take much do to alot of damage.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by DickBinBush]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
If Iran and Syria attacked Isreal, wouldn't that be between Iran, Syria and Isreal? Besides, this isn't a case where one side is "bad" and the other "good". Both sides have acted in less than civil terms to the other side.

Seems to me that if they want to fight, treat them like kids - let them fight without interference. If it looks like Isreal is about to fall then stop the conflict(Through the UN first, then by sending troops to Isreal to defend, to allow a UN solution). However, if either side feels such hatred for the other one, I say let them work out the agression.

That is how we handle young boys that want to fight each other isn't it? Try and stand between them and the conflict esculates, let them fight and both sides (usually) realize that fighting = pain, and pain = sucks, and the suckiness of the pain > the hatred of the others.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake

If Iran and Syria attacked Isreal, wouldn't that be between Iran, Syria and Isreal? Besides, this isn't a case where one side is "bad" and the other "good". Both sides have acted in less than civil terms to the other side.

Seems to me that if they want to fight, treat them like kids - let them fight without interference. If it looks like Isreal is about to fall then stop the conflict(Through the UN first, then by sending troops to Isreal to defend, to allow a UN solution). However, if either side feels such hatred for the other one, I say let them work out the agression.

That is how we handle young boys that want to fight each other isn't it? Try and stand between them and the conflict esculates, let them fight and both sides (usually) realize that fighting = pain, and pain = sucks, and the suckiness of the pain > the hatred of the others.


Your post couldn't have been further from the truth. The truth is, we WOULD intervene by attacking Syria and Iran. The U.N. WOULD NOT be brought in because they can't fix anything. And these three countries WOULD NOT realize that "pain = sucks" and stop. They would fight to the death.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by DickBinBush]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
- I wish it were true, but sadly, all these things will happen. Whether it is now or later is a debatable point, but Isreal will be the instigator of the US's final collapse.


- Leaving you completely open from an attack from Russia, or China or North Korea, or for that matter any other smallish group - maybe even a terrorist organisation? They would be completely justified in doing so you understand right? That is ofcourse completely secondary to the issue of how would the US fair in such a war. Sadly recent history seems to state the US would far pretty badly, and worse, would hemmorage even more money from your over burdened middle class trying despertally to keep a float an unsustainable environment built apon the back of the poor and maintained on the backs of poor countries. All the while the average American beleives what you seem to, which is that you are somehow above international laws and rules. That is not the reality and it is about to become a very painful distinction the general populations all over the world is about to learn.


- They were never there to "fix" anything. They were there with the assumption that civilized people wish to get along and live in peace with one another. In order to do that, conversation and communication are needed. The UN was built to provide that platform. However, the platform is useless when a vito'ing member acts like a only child with an inferiority complex.


- As I am sure you would if your home country is ever invaded - right? Fighting to the death for your country is, I thought, an ideal held in high esteam from America? You are wrong about the "pain = sucks" thing as well, but it is conditional. In order to get them to understand what democracy has to bring, you first must get them to want to be democratic, which by definition can not happen at the point of a gun. The US was shown to be a hypocrite before they even arrived and the fact they got any help is more a testiment to the good will so much of the West(in general, but America specifically) had built up over the previous few decades with humanitarian efforts that were great. However, with this admin, the reasons for any of their actions seem only to be hidden from their own civilians, which is why they will fight to the death.

Think of this, in GW1 the Iraqi's dropped their weapons and ran head first to the first American soldiers they could find. They did this because America had a reputation for being tough but fair and humane. The combatants were more willing to trust in the American concept of right and wrong, rather than trying to fight for life and death. That has changed to the point where just about anyone would rather fight to the death than trust America's concept or right and wrong. Regardless on anything else - that alone makes this a much more dagerous place today than then.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   


- I wish it were true, but sadly, all these things will happen. Whether it is now or later is a debatable point, but Isreal will be the instigator of the US's final collapse.


The U.S.'s final collapse? Tell me, who will bring on this collapse?



- Leaving you completely open from an attack from Russia, or China or North Korea, or for that matter any other smallish group - maybe even a terrorist organisation? They would be completely justified in doing so you understand right? That is ofcourse completely secondary to the issue of how would the US fair in such a war. Sadly recent history seems to state the US would far pretty badly


You've got to be kidding me. Russia? North Korea?!?! First of all, Russia has decayed so much since the Cold War. It's like they are depressed about losing and they can't seem to find their way back. Size of a country doesn't matter if you can't defend all of it.

North Korea..that's a joke. Their "ICMB'S", if you want to call them that, splashed after what? 45 seconds of flight?
Nice missiles.

China is really the only match for us militarily in the world. Their not even a super power yet. I'm not saying they don't have the potential, but they're not yet. You look at how bad it would be for the U.S. economy..but how about China? You don't think a good deal of their economy comes from us? They'd be spending just as much militarily as us as well. Their military is built for defending their country and maybe invading Taiwan. Our military is a global military. Their Navy and Air Force stand no chance.



- They were never there to "fix" anything. They were there with the assumption that civilized people wish to get along and live in peace with one another. In order to do that, conversation and communication are needed. The UN was built to provide that platform. However, the platform is useless when a vito'ing member acts like a only child with an inferiority complex.


Hahaha, live in peace, that's a good one. Listen dude, world peace will never happen. So if your view of the U.N. is to have people "live in peace", then we go right back to my basic point..they're useless.

And about your "when a vito'ing member acts like a only child" remark..I'm pretty sure you're referring to the United States. I ask you to review China and Russia's veto'ing as well. Don't focus on one area and avoid ALL the facts. China and Russia threatened to veto sanctions on North Korea for performing the missile tests DESPITE them being a threat to Japan and South Korea. So before you start directing your remarks towards one country as if they are the only one to do it, look at the rest of the veto'ing members as well.



- As I am sure you would if your home country is ever invaded - right? Fighting to the death for your country is, I thought, an ideal held in high esteam from America? You are wrong about the "pain = sucks" thing as well, but it is conditional.


Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here but if my country was invaded, I would fight to the death. My point about those three countries is for whatever reason in that part of the world, death is embraced, so they would surely fight to the death.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join