Israel to Syria: we'll wipe you off map

There's a huge difference here. Iran has used that term as a national goal.

Israel has used it as a response to a possible chemical attack on Israel.

A chemical attack is so egregious that such rhetoric is justified if for no other reason than to give Syria pause.

When Israel declares that its national raison d'etre is to destroy Syria, there might be some moral equivalent, but not until.

[edit on 2008/4/26 by GradyPhilpott]

If another country was crazy enough to launch a chemical attack on the U.S., we would certainly retaliate. Why wouldn't Israel have the same prerogative?

reply to post by Sestias

---

Exactly. Israel is not in the wrong to issue a warning such as this, especially considering events in the this decade which have led Israel to fear further conflict with Syria. Since Syria has supported terrorist organizations in the past and currently do, Israel has every right to issue a statement such as this to illustrate the country's integrity and willingness to defend itself if Syria attacks with more force in the future.

Isreal is a terrorist state. That statement reflects this. Where is the proof that Syria has supplied any terrorist force? US intelligence? Well, we all know what that intelligence is like. That is a statement to draw a rection from Syria, here go the America and the Isrealies again, lets start another war, when they canne win the wars they are currently in! FFS, with these type of people in power, this world really is #ed!

Sometime, I just wish that someone would hit America with a major attack and get this #e sorted out once and for all.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by wow23]

You've got to be kidding. Why would Carter choose to go to Syria to discuss a peace deal with Hamas, if there were no connection. Why did Nancy Pelosi go the Syria to discuss a peace deal with Hamas. That Syria and Hamas are connected is so obvious that no one doubts it, no one denies its, because the evidence is everywhere.

Of course, if you believe that there is not proof, all the proof in the world will fall on deaf ears.

But, nonetheless, here are some links for your edification.

www.cfr.org...

www.pmw.org.il...

www.meib.org...

tinyurl.com...

www.washingtoninstitute.org...

tinyurl.com...

tinyurl.com...

reply to post by benevolent tyrant

---

Amadenajad said it in farsi. Israel said it in English or Hebrew? Perhaps it is the rhetoric that is lost in translation?

AAC

OK, I accept your point. However, what has Syria given to Hamas that is of grate threat to Isreal? If they have given them something, then Hamas really suck as an Army if they have not used it. I for one cannot see what evidence is there (even after reading your links, (my mind is open and will not be feed bs from the establishment) however what I do see is America supplying a terrorist state in Isreal with nucs and cluster bombs, planes and all sorts to set about the killing and total distruction of Palastine and its people.

That is a plane fact for the world to see, but it has chosen to ignore! Whilst Isreal (ands it suppler) continue to carry on with this type of operation, they will always be viewed as a terrorist state. Not to much unlike its friend, America. For lets be sure abiut it, Americas "war" on Iraq and Afganistan is nothing more that state sponsored acts of terrorism. I acknowledge it because my eyes and not blinded by the flag and the threat of being Anti-American. I am not anti american in any way shape or form, however I am anti terrorist and thats what Isreal and America amount to! Democracy my arse!

reply to post by wow23

---

You ask what Syria has given to Hamas or terrorist organizations? How about a base from which to strike Israel for starters? Hezbollah has launched raids into Israel that killed Israelis and kidnapped others from across the Syrian border. Also, in the summer of 2006 Hezbollah launched missiles supplied by Iran and received by Syria into Israel from across the Syrian border.

And for your information Israel is practically a protectorate state of the United States, so our government is obligated to side with Israel. Also, Israel has proven useful to the United States by supplying intelligence to the U.S. government to help our operations in the Middle East.

Also, last I checked, Israel's supplier (The United States of America) is not a terrorist state. Sure, the Bush administration has taken an extremely imperialistic approach in the Middle East, which I do no agree with, but what you must understand is that there is a constant threat to Israel, our ALLY, from terrorist organizations sponsored by Arab governments in that region of the world. And for you to so boldly proclaim that you are anti-terrorist yet you call the United States a terrorist state is a bit backwards.

Do you live in the United States? If so you should move to Syria and see how much more democratic the Middle East is.

reply to post by Cpt. Monty

---

First off, your operations in the middle east are illegal. Your war with Iraq is illegal! FACT! They went to war with a country that was no threat to them and a war which was not supported by any nation other than the UK! The un did not support this war because it was illegal. The United States is a terrorist state run by a terrorist (worse than Hitler)...

Secondly, I do not live in the united states (thanks God), but I do come from a country that was opressed for many years and gripped by war. I know what a terrorist state is for I have seen it first hand. Isreal is a terrorist state, and nothing you or anybody else say will show otherwise. What they did to those young children yesterday is #ing sick. And if you and your nation support that, then yous are #ing sick. Nice to see your tax dollars at work, killing children. HUH?

reply to post by wow23

---

First off, the War Iraq Is not MY operation, and it is not MY war. My government made the decision, not me, so get that straight and don't point fingers at me please. I'm sure you are in fact aware of the crimes against humanity that Saddam Hussein had committed and been continuing to commit up until the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces...correct? Such as using biological and chemical weapons against the Kurds who lived in norther Iraq. That sounds closer to a Hitler type dictator than the current United States government does. And to say that this war was only supported by the UK and US is a very uneducated statement. FACT: the United States created a coalition of forces and invaded after it had enough support to deem it alright to invade. As the operations in Iraq have progressed over the years, more countries have sent forces into Iraq to help the United States and its allies to try and create peace within the borders of Iraq. The United States and United Kingdom are not there alone, and whoever told you that is poorly informed.

By the way, what country were your from that was oppressed? And what country do you live in now? If you don't mind me asking of course.

Your governments decsions reflect on you as a nation. Your people put them there to make these decision on your behalf. Secondly, I know what crimes saddam made against those poeple and don't need to be told that. But lets not forget who placed him there, America! Lets not forget whosupplied him and his forces with the traning needed, America. America could not give a # about Iraqi's or any other middle eastern country, it is in Iraq for its oil and it oil alone. Yes other countries have now sent troops to Iraq, but again it is to clean up Americas mess. As always! And, lets be honest, Iraqi's have been treated like crop by America since this war has started. The pictures tell the whole story. Also, Iraq was not at war until your country decided to bring it into war. So please do not sit on your high horse and preach peace in Iraq when your country broke a peace to steal a nations oil. Iraq was better off than it is now pre war. They had clean running water, builidng sttod and had power, hospital where running well and people where eating. Now under America its whole structure has fallen. Electirc is at a low, Hospital are not fit to treat animals, peoples homes are being bombed to a shell, children are being murdered by their thousands. give yourself an educational leason and maybe you will open your eyes and see what your government (and people, as you have placed them in power) is doing to the world.

Maybe you're too young to remember, but Saddam and Iraq were under strict UN sactions for nearly ten years before the US invaded the country to depose a dangerous tyrant.

Iraq had been out of compliance with the UN sanctions since nearly the very beginning. That fact alone justified an invasion of the country, even without the existence of WMDs.

By the way, if we are stealing Iraq's oil, why is our gasoline costing us roughly $4.00 a gallon with predictions of $10.00 a gallon being seriously discussed?

reply to post by wow23

---

Our government decisions reflect on our entire nation? I suppose you're right...I mean George Bush won the 2000 election by a landslide victory and....wait...that can't be right....oh ya I remember now! He lost the popular vote! Haha, funny how our decisions were not reflected on the government. With that being said, politicians nowadays make decisions based on party lines and personal gain more often than what the constituents and citizens say, so you are quite mistaken my foreign friend.

As far as America (you realize you are politically incorrect, and America encompasses Mexico and Canada, as well as the United States) placing Saddam Hussein in power, I was unaware of that fact and would like you to cite a source for that information, even though I would not be surprised if the CIA did back the coup that placed in power (We did it in Iran and Afghanistan before, why not Iraq).

You say that other countries have sent military aid to Iraq to clean up the mess that the United States created?? Are you aware that the United States is the only nation that has sent more than 10,000 troops to Iraq? The United States has more than 150,000 soldiers operating in Iraq right now. I have no idea how you can say other countries sent military assistance to Iraq to "clean up America's mess" when many of those countries sending troops are allied to the United States through NATO, and thus obligated to assist us seeing as to how we have given them aid in the past and continue to do so.

Even if the United States is in Iraq for oil, we are at least trying to create a Democratic government that can stand on its own in the Middle East, which could make it possible to create trade with a new Iraq, and yes, oil trade possibly. The way I see it, that's not such a bad thing since two good things would come from executing a violent dictator who ranked among men like Stalin as far as atrocities go., those two things being, a democratic nation in the Middle East and increased trade with Iraq.

You say Iraq was doing better before the war...........................duh? No offense, but that should not be surprising to anyone. Most countries don't do so well in the decade following an invasion, especially one that completely revamps the government and economic systems within that country.

And as GradyPhilpott stated, Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq did not comply to U.N. sanctions since before the 1990s, so obviously, he didn't mean well for the world if he wouldn't except fault for obvious atrocities and crimes against his own people that were recognized by the Security Council of the United Nations.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

Oooh dear. Not more of this. Saddam was dangerous to whom, exactly? Certainly not the US.

And as for stealing oil, that can still happen with gas prices staying high, as there are so many factors involved in the price of gas.

Iran stated they wanted to remove Israel's regime from time, not the whole country from the map. They clearly don't like the way Israel is pushing the Palestinians around, that's all. It seems rather fair.

Israel bombing a Syrian research establishment, for no reason, is an act of war. I don't remember Iran attacking anyone recently.

reply to post by wow23

---

Terrorist state? Israel? US? Interesting world view I must say. Clearly the poster is both misinformed and narrow minded. I suppose your wish fr a large scale attack on the US, which could kill tens of thousands of innocent people would make one wonder what kind of person would wish for such a thing?

This statement can only come from one who is totally oblivious to the events of the last 15-20 years.

I have enumerated many times what the problem was with Saddam and Iraq and why taking Saddam out was a necessary act.

You don't have to wallow in ignorance any longer.

Here's a speech by the president outlining the threats to the US, and the other nations in the region. Yes, there were inaccuracies in the intel, but remember that Saddam had expelled UN weapons inspectors who monitored the dismantling of WMDs, which he had a history of using, by the way.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Here are a number of links that analyze Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the effects of the first Gulf War, his use of WMDs against the Kurds, his missile attacks on Israel, his torching of the Kuwait oil fields, and his association with terrorists.

It's not an easy read. There's no bumper-sticker philosophy, but if you apply yourself to these links, you will find a historical perspective, the thought processes of a president and the administration trying to prosecute a war against terrorism that had begun many years before the WTC was finally brought down.

When the actions of the Bush administration are placed in the context of the invasion of Kuwait, the UN sanctions and their violation, Saddam's unstable behavior, his atrocities, and his expressed hatred of the US, it is easy to see why deposing him was necessary to adequately fight a war in the middle east.

Had Saddam not violated UN sanctions, the logic might have gone otherwise, but when Saddam had the chance to prove that he was clean, he chose smoke and mirrors.

www.usatoday.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.aina.org...

fpc.state.gov...

www.iht.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.kuwait-info.com...

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.defendamerica.mil...

www.heritage.org...

www.meib.org...


[edit on 2008/4/30 by GradyPhilpott]

All I have to say is let them all take each other out.

I will watch the fireworks.

No I do not wish for a large scale attack that would kill thousands of people anywhere in the world. No, I am far from misinformed and norrow minded. I see what is in front of me and not what is being told to me! The facts are plane for all to see.The narrow mind is the one that thinksAmerica went into Iraq to liberate it, or to give it a democracy (and lets behonest you know what American democracy is like). They could not give a damn about the Iraqi people. It is an oil mine for them and they will bleed it dry and then bugger off.

And to the poster who said to see what the president said in his speechs, lmao.

reply to post by wow23

---

American democracy, like many other political ideologies has its fair share of flaws, I'll grant you that. But, American democracy is also one of the most successful political ideologies that has ever existed, and the fact that it still exists today must mean something about it is appealing to people. Personally, I like the way American democracy works. Sure, sometimes the government does or says something unconstitutional, and then usually someone else in the government or protesters point out what the government is doing may be wrong and breaking the rules of the country itself. Sometimes the government listens, sometimes it doesn't. Nonetheless, American democracy has worked to keep the United States alive, at the top of its game, and able to help the world when needed. What I'm trying to say is this:

If something was extremely wrong with the American government you can bet that a rebellion would have taken place in the United States by now to create a new government. But since that has not happened, we can assume that people living in the United States are not upset with the government to such an extent to lose complete faith in it.

So, the facts and the historical context is of no interest to you.

That is the quintessence of narrow mindedness.

You may opine until the cows come home, but without some documentation of your allegations and in the absence of your consideration of the events that led to the war in Iraq as they unfolded, you are not to be taken seriously, insofar as you refuse to take the facts seriously.

There's a word for that behavior on a bulletin board.