Israel asked Jordan for permission to bomb Syrian WMD sites

If Israel was a person and behaved like this he would be on anti psychotic medication and locked up in a mental institution. Same for the US.

How many more countries have to be bombed? How many more people have to be killed? When will the world say ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

The US and Israel together are building a multilevel underground facility in Israel and they are calling it SITE 911, (In your face). In fact a lot of countries are building underground bunkers . They are getting ready for something very big, and when the shi* hits the fan guess who is not getting into the bunkers..



Ynetnews.com

The American magazine quoted Intelligence officials in two countries as saying Israel has been seeking Jordan's "permission" to bomb these sites, but the Jordanians have so far declined to grant such permission.

The official said, "You know the Israelis - sometimes they want to bomb right away. But they were told that from the Jordanian perspective, the time was not right."

Clinton said Monday "I'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice to say we are certainly planning to take action."

So it would be better to wait until Syria decides to use their chemical weapons before doing anything? I think that when it comes to national security, proactive is always better than reactive.

reply to post by micmerci


Israel uses WMD's too, white phosphorus anyone?

The Israelis have a lot of backbone wanting to attack a country who has not used these weapons, meanwile they are notorious for using illegal weapons such as cluster bombs and WP.

I don't condone the bombing of any country, but if I had to take a pick, Israel would be the first on my list.

An EMP over the Dimona reactor would be a start.

Originally posted by micmerci
So it would be better to wait until Syria decides to use their chemical weapons before doing anything? I think that when it comes to national security, proactive is always better than reactive.

National security? You must be joking. I got one word for you to think about.. IRAQ.

Of the few nations that did not sign and/or ratify the chemical weapons ban, both Israel (signed not ratified) and Syria (not signed) are among them.

IF Chemical weapons are used in Syria, the USA has promised that it would get involved.

The Assad regime has said it would not use chemical weapons, and if that is true, then perhaps the rebels will and make it look like the Assad regime did, so that the USA would get involved.

reply to post by whatsecret


Where do you think some of Syria's chemical weapons came from? One word ...Iraq

This is, im thinking, one of the whole worlds greatest fears.....the ease of which a false flag by anyone could detonate a serious shooting war has never been as likely....
Waay too many red- zones there for something NOT to happen....
Lots of varied motives, and oplenty of opportunity.......

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I think any sovereign nation has an equal right to protect themselves.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I think any sovereign nation has an equal right to protect themselves.

I agree, therefore you must also agree that Syria has the right to protect themselves from an Israeli preemptive strike based on Israeli and American intelligence sources? Using your logic, Syria now has the right to strike Israel due to this threat. I do not think Syria would be stupid enough to do this as they already have their hands full as it is. In fact, It was Israel who struck Syria a few years back and claimed it was a "nuclear facility" even though a fact finding mission eventually proved that this site WAS NOT what Israel claimed it to be.

We all know how pristine these country's intelligence agencies track records are.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I do agree that Syria has as much a right to protect themselves as any other country does if they feel they are being threatened.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I am with you on this one CE. However it is not just Syria, it is the whole Arab League that could potentially respond to this Israeli threat.

The Arab league has made many concessions thus far, how far will they be pushed before they have had enough?

Everything seems to be in motion to burn the Arab spring once more...

Bomb WMD sites? Doesn't sound like the brightest idea in the world, does it?

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Where do you think some of Syria's chemical weapons came from? One word ...Iraq

No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons

If Iraq moved it to Syria and we had satellite images of trucks heading to Syria why didn't we go after them in 2003?

reply to post by MDDoxs


I agree with your addition to my observastion, regrettably as much as I would like to see the current government of Israel "taken out" by any means necessary I fear what the outcome would be if the Arab league finally decided to do something. Israel has a highly advanced military and I believe that a conflict with their neighboring countries would cause the US to get involved, which would cause much death and destruction which is something I am tired of seeing.

In reality I wish everyone would just get along and make friends, but it does not look like certain players want peace and their constant actions and threatening rhetoric proves this to be true in my opinion.

My preferred way of regime change in Israel would be one where the citizens of Israel revolt, kind of like some of their Arab neighbors have recently done. If they claim to be a democracy, let the people speak.

Sorry OP if I got too far off topic.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Israel has a highly advanced military and I believe that a conflict with their neighboring countries would cause the US to get involved, which would cause much death and destruction which is something I am tired of seeing.

Quite true! and if the US got involved you can bet Russia would take an opposite position. Just a descent into chaos....

I do not know the solution to this conflict and to be honest, i think we are beyond a simple regime change in Israel. The hate is to engrained in everyone in this region of the world. I do not mean to sound pessimistic, but has been mentioned in other threads, this conflict has raged for long a time, and peace will be brought about in equally long amount of time.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Sorry OP if I got too far off topic.

I don't think you're off topic at all.

I agree with your addition to my observastion, regrettably as much as I would like to see the current government of Israel "taken out" by any means necessary I fear what the outcome would be if the Arab league finally decided to do something.

The best way in my opinion is to stop sending Israel any money and stop backing them up unconditionally. Because the situation at this time is that we pretend that Israel is under attack all the time so we support them in anything they wish to do to anybody. And that is a real threat to out national security because preemptive killing only makes enemies.

Israel has a highly advanced military and I believe that a conflict with their neighboring countries would cause the US to get involved, which would cause much death and destruction which is something I am tired of seeing.

It's time for Israel take care of their own problems, It has nothing to do with us.

My preferred way of regime change in Israel would be one where the citizens of Israel revolt, kind of like some of their Arab neighbors have recently done. If they claim to be a democracy, let the people speak.

Most Israelis are against the aggression of their government just like most Americans were against the Iraq invasion, but who cares what the people want.. All they got to do is scare the crap out of the people and promise to keep us safe by killing other innocent people somewhere else. Better them than us right? unless you're them.

reply to post by whatsecret


There are satellite images of 17 Russian trucks moving Iraqs chemical weapons into Syria. Along with Iraqi generals eye witness testimony that airplanes interiors were stripped to move chemical weapons to Syria. Russia threatened to help Iraq if anything was said so Bush took one for our boys. Clinton,Pelosi,Reid and many other Democrats knew there were WMD's in Iraq to boot.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by whatsecret

 

There are satellite images of 17 Russian trucks moving Iraqs chemical weapons into Syria. Along with Iraqi generals eye witness testimony that airplanes interiors were stripped to move chemical weapons to Syria. Russia threatened to help Iraq if anything was said so Bush took one for our boys. Clinton,Pelosi,Reid and many other Democrats knew there were WMD's in Iraq to boot.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Russia threatened to help Iraq but Iraq decided to give WMD's to Syria and refuse any help from Russia and get their country completely destroyed. Why would they do something like that?

reply to post by whatsecret

Iraq wasn't GIVING Syria anything. They were transporting their own WMD's out of the country to appear on the world stage as the innocent martyr. They were successful at that it seems as are Syria and Iran, presently.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Iraq wasn't GIVING Syria anything. They were transporting their own WMD's out of the country to appear on the world stage as the innocent martyr. They were successful at that it seems as are Syria and Iran, presently.

Or maybe Iraq got rid of the weapons in 1995 and the satellite images of trucks going into Syria are not real just like most of Iraq brainwashing was not real at the time?

Why would Syria take the WMD's and risk getting invaded?

Why didn't Hussein reveal that the WMD's are in Syria and accept Russia's help?

Why didn't Iraq use the WMD's in response to the invasion?

What did Hussein had to loose at that time if he used the WMD"s?

Do you see how unrealistic your theory is?

The point I'm trying to make is that Syria had chemical weapons for a long time but never used it to this day. And if they use it now it will guaranty invasion and no country on earth would take Syria's side.


The CIA operation that should have prevented the Iraq war

According to Tawfiq, Saddam Hussein gave the order to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes in 1995, after his brother-in-law and arms chief Hussein Kamel defected and briefed the UN inspectors. "I was Saddam's scientist," Tawfiq declared, with an ironic smile. "In 1991 if you exposed something you were killed. In 1995 if you hid something you were killed!" Sawsan dutifully gathered this information and returned to the United States to pass it on to her handlers. But the CIA was unimpressed. "Saad told me there was nothing left," she told AFP. "That everything had been either destroyed or dismantled by the UN and the regime has abandoned its nuclear programme. And he begged me to explain all that back in the States.

ETA: I just read your response again and it seems that you're saying Syria stored their weapons in Iraq?