Israel attacks Syrian port

[jbg]

Interesting indeed, and probably a good indicator that the reactor story is probably a bunch of hooey.

Oh really? The Ay-rabs were going to say, "oh yes, we're ready to blow the world to Kingdom Come"?

[Argus]

That's fine Argus. Remember these words the next time some mullah starts howling for Israel's blood. You are no better than they are.

Your equating the legitimate bombing of a military installation with Islamic terrorists targeting of innocent civilians simply shows what a moral vacuum you are.

[Argus]

Interesting indeed, and probably a good indicator that the reactor story is probably a bunch of hooey.

Why? If Israel had bombed an empty outhouse in the desert there would have been violent protests from the Arab world.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

Off the top of my head I can think of a few Arab nations that are probably quietly pleased that Syria has been put on notice...Lebanon foremost....

[Rue]

What is apparent here is that to posters like Argus, Rue, M.Dancer and JBG, everything that Israel does is sanctioned by God and everything the Arabs do flies straight out of the mouth of hell. Even the US can tut-tut at Israel and still, it's all good.

I once again find the above level of debate Higgly continually must engage in repugnant. At no time have I ever suggested in anything I have written that Israeli actions were either pefect or sanctioned by God. More to the point I have never written any post where I make any negative generalizations about people simply because they are Arabs. I want Higgly to find but one post where I have suggested or stated anything Arab people do is wrong. When I engage in criticism I do not engage in negative gernalizations about anyone because they are Arabs and its precisely why time and time again I am disgusted with Higgly's attempts to always turn such dialogue into inferences that its about either Israeli people or Arab people. It is he not the above named people who have chosen once again to try turn this into a race issue by throwing in the race card and trying to suggest if one criticizes the syrian government this is a racial attack against Arabs as a people.

I ask people when they dialogue about Israeli policies not to malign the Israeli people. I have said the exact same thing to others including JBG that when we criticize political policies of particular Muslim countries or religious concepts associated with Islam we refrain from making negative generalizations about Muslims or Arabs as a people.

I say this as blunt as I can, the record of who writes what and how they blur the line between criticizing an alleged country's policies and its people is there for anyone to read. They can go back and read Higgly's past posts and mine, to Judge for themselves as to what we have said.

I say it again, the fact that I criticize the Syrian regime a a repulsive, terrorist empire, does not mean I have slurred Arabs as a people and my words take care not to blur the line.

It is absolute bullshit to play the Arab race card to suggest if one criticizes Syria as being a rogue state this is anti Arab.

Now when Higgly wants to criticize Israel as a rogue state and not blur the line and make deliberately negative statements that go to describing the motives/characteristics of all Israelis and Jews, I will be glad to hold off my wrath with him.

Some of us don't have a conceptual problem keeping politics and criticisms of nation and people seperate. Others do and obviously some want to use it when-ever they can to try gain some sort of moral ground in debate.

[Rue]

Let's get this topic back on track.

Vladimir Putin has staked his reputation on selling allegedly state of the art are defence systems to Syria and Iran and yet we know Israeli fighter jets, specifically F-15's and F-16's penetrated Syrian air space without being detected.

So naturally there is speculation that the Israelis tested an airborne network attack system, perhaps one similiar to or the latest version of say the US's Suter system (which is a product of BAE Systems).

There's also been speculation the Israelis and Americans have used such technology in unmanned aircraft already and in the cas eof the US in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres.

Supposedly this technology allows the pilot to see what the enemy's sensors see and some say hack into their systems to manipulate the sensors to manipulate them into the wrong positions so they can not see the aircraft.

The name of the game is to locate the sensory emitter then send them false data.

What we do know is these systems sold by Mr. Putin consist of Tor-M1 launchers with 8 missile capacity adn the Pachora 2A system. Iran spent $750 million for 29 Tor-M1 launchers to guard their nuclear sites.

The above system is also supposed to be merged with yet another toy from Russia with love, the S 300/SA-10 which Iran has yet to buy.

So was the bombing of an alleged nuclear site in Syria just a cover story. Could it really be Israel just sent a message to Iran?

That seems more probable. It seems more probable by deliberately making a mockery of the Syrian air defence system, the same state of the art Russian system Iran bought for both Syria and itself, Israel has sent a message to both the Russians and Iranians not to fuck with them.

If Iran was getting cocky that it could safely protect its nuclear missiles they hav now been given a message from Israel they can not.

Such activity is vitally important not to just state of the art US air defence technology development which Israel tests and perfects, but it is part of the dangerous game of brinksmanship that goes on in the Middle East and is unfortunately necessary.

[August1991]

It could be Israel was simply testing a flight path to Iran. The flight path of the Israeli aircraft followed coincidentally, the shortest and straightest line over the Mediterranean Sea to Iran.

The dropping of munitions on an empty building seems a deliberately intended move to draw attention from the obvious.

That's an interesting theory.

BTW, a nuclear reactor would have to be near a source of water (river, lake). Was that the case here?

Initial reports said that the attack occurred about 150 km north of Al Raqqa, near the Turkish border. Al Raqqa is on the Euphrates river, not far from a large (Soviet built) dam creating a reservoir. (Incidentally, I've been to Al Raqqa and remember it as a quiet, pretty little oasis.)

Edited October 16, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

I ask people when they dialogue about Israeli policies not to malign the Israeli people. I have said the exact same thing to others including JBG that when we criticize political policies of particular Muslim countries or religious concepts associated with Islam we refrain from making negative generalizations about Muslims or Arabs as a people.

Let me be clear about one thing; I do not malign the Muslim people. However, the people bear at least some responsibility for not stopping the madness conducted in their name by mullahs, imams, dictators, etc. Most of them are not savages. But they do share the blame, in my opinion.

[Higgly]

Israel had plenty of trouble with Arab states prior to the nuclear issue.

And Arab states had plenty of trouble with Israel.

[Higgly]

Why is it that Syria is in the midst of a nuclear program when its economy is at a basket case level of per capita GDP of $1464 (link), compared to Israel's of per capita GDP (2006)$26,800 (link). You'd think the people matter in there somewhere.

That is my major problem with the Arab and Muslim world. The "governments" are so busy ripping into Israel, and into other Muslim sects, and the people are subject to grinding poverty. A little less concentration on death and more on progress would help.

But ironically, "leftists" are supposed to be for "peace", while the Bushies are supposed to be for "war". And the "lefties" are supposed to be for the poor and working people. I guess that Islamic nations get a free pass, and this leftist prediliction only applies to Western governments under control of right-leaning parties.

What are you? The Syrian opposition leader? So now it's the Syrian people you're thinking about? You don't think Israel could be a better state but for all the money they spend on weapons prgrams? What do you think the nuclear program alone costs them?

[Higgly]

Now when Higgly wants to criticize Israel as a rogue state and not blur the line and make deliberately negative statements that go to describing the motives/characteristics of all Israelis and Jews, I will be glad to hold off my wrath with him.

Some of us don't have a conceptual problem keeping politics and criticisms of nation and people seperate. Others do and obviously some want to use it when-ever they can to try gain some sort of moral ground in debate.

Rue, drive to any Synagogue in Toronto. What do you find in front? Now drive to any Mosque. Do you find the same thing?

[Higgly]

Let me be clear about one thing; I do not malign the Muslim people. However, the people bear at least some responsibility for not stopping the madness conducted in their name by mullahs, imams, dictators, etc. Most of them are not savages. But they do share the blame, in my opinion.

I agree. In fact, I think everybody is at fault. Hence my signature. "It's not us OR them. It's us AND them!"

[Higgly]

It could be Israel was simply testing a flight path to Iran. The flight path of the Israeli aircraft followed coincidentally, the shortest and straightest line over the Mediterranean Sea to Iran.

The dropping of munitions on an empty building seems a deliberately intended move to draw attention from the obvious.

So it's OK to attack a foreign sovereign nation just to test their weapons systems or a flight path? Welcome to the planet Uranus, everybody!

Rue, you need help.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Higgly

[M.Dancer]

So it's OK to attack a foreign sovereign nation just to test their weapons systems or a flight path? Welcome to the planet Uranus, everybody!

Rue, you need help.

Only if it is designed to avoid full scale carnage. You know the expression, "Beat the dog in front of the Lion"?

That being said, I doubt that was the case.......

[jbg]

And Arab states had plenty of trouble with Israel.

Sure, after an illegal blockade as in 1967, after their illegal seizure of the Suez in 1956, their invasion on Independence Day, May 15, 1948 and the unprovoked 1973 invasion.

[jbg]

What are you? The Syrian opposition leader? So now it's the Syrian people you're thinking about? You don't think Israel could be a better state but for all the money they spend on weapons prgrams? What do you think the nuclear program alone costs them?

Definitely, "Israel could be a better state but for all the money they spend on weapons programs". But that would be the peace of the grave.

And if opposition leaders were permitted in Syria they might well raise that point in almost that exact form.

Edited October 20, 2007 by jbg

[M.Dancer]

Definitely, "Israel could be a better state but for all the money they spend on weapons programs". But that would be the peace of the grave.

And if opposition leaders were permitted in Syria they might well raise that point in almost that exact form.

the only direct threat to the syrian gov't are the syrian people....their arms spending in the regimes eyes is money well spent.

[sharkman]

Let's get this topic back on track.

Vladimir Putin has staked his reputation on selling allegedly state of the art are defence systems to Syria and Iran and yet we know Israeli fighter jets, specifically F-15's and F-16's penetrated Syrian air space without being detected.

So naturally there is speculation that the Israelis tested an airborne network attack system, perhaps one similiar to or the latest version of say the US's Suter system (which is a product of BAE Systems).

There's also been speculation the Israelis and Americans have used such technology in unmanned aircraft already and in the cas eof the US in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres.

Supposedly this technology allows the pilot to see what the enemy's sensors see and some say hack into their systems to manipulate the sensors to manipulate them into the wrong positions so they can not see the aircraft.

The name of the game is to locate the sensory emitter then send them false data.

What we do know is these systems sold by Mr. Putin consist of Tor-M1 launchers with 8 missile capacity adn the Pachora 2A system. Iran spent $750 million for 29 Tor-M1 launchers to guard their nuclear sites.

The above system is also supposed to be merged with yet another toy from Russia with love, the S 300/SA-10 which Iran has yet to buy.

So was the bombing of an alleged nuclear site in Syria just a cover story. Could it really be Israel just sent a message to Iran?

That seems more probable. It seems more probable by deliberately making a mockery of the Syrian air defence system, the same state of the art Russian system Iran bought for both Syria and itself, Israel has sent a message to both the Russians and Iranians not to fuck with them.

If Iran was getting cocky that it could safely protect its nuclear missiles they hav now been given a message from Israel they can not.

Such activity is vitally important not to just state of the art US air defence technology development which Israel tests and perfects, but it is part of the dangerous game of brinksmanship that goes on in the Middle East and is unfortunately necessary.

Wow, an interesting theory. It seems somewhat damaging though for Israel to tip its hand on their apparent superiority to these state of the art Russian systems. Why not just let Iran get comfortable thinking they can protect a nuclear reactor, go ahead and build one, then watch it get precision bombed. Although perhaps their possible overreaction to this would be a war starter. The middle east is a game of chess, except using real people.

[GostHacked]

Rue.

So attacking Syria sends a message to Iran? Like, what the Israelis did not have enough balls to test the sysem on Iran? Why Syria? Closer? Weaker? Quite test?

This can be considered an act of aggression by Israel to Syria. Syria has every right to respond in an extreme fashion. Like Israel did to Lebanon summer 2006. But if that happens Syria looks like the bad guy again. Eventhough they are not (well maybe I am not reading the right reports) attacking Israel.

Go ahead and attack a so called soverign nation. You want to be recognized? Maybe stopping and thinking would be in order.

[Rue]

Rue, drive to any Synagogue in Toronto. What do you find in front? Now drive to any Mosque. Do you find the same thing?

As usual you have no idea what you think you compare to make your justification for blurring the line between Jews and Israelis.

First of all not EVERY synagogue contrary to your generalization, have references to Israel in front of them.

Now let's try explain what you do not understand but think you do about Judaism. The link between Judaism as a religion and Israel as a nation is religious. In the Jewish religion, Jews are believed to have a responsibility to honour God's wishes and one of the ways to do this is through a nation. thus the link to Israel and no that does not give you the justfiication to blur the line between Jews and Israelis, Judaism and Zionism or anything else, if your generalizations are to be negative and try simplify Jewish thought and reduce it to your subjective negative belief that Jews can not be self-determined, but everyone else can.

Its far more complicated then that.

More the point your comparison makes absolutely no sense. If you understood anything about Sharia law and Islam, you would understand,a Mosque does not need to make a specific reference to Libya or Egypt or Morrocco or any other Muslim nation because in Islam, there is no distinction between state and religion and so no need to single out a specific name to the nation but there is a concept for the Muslim nation in Islam and there is a concept that Muslims be self-determined through nationhood no different then Jews in Judaism or say what the Christians did with the Vatican and countless Christian states.

So your suggesting they are different in that regard is nonsense.

In fact in the Jewish religion the nation of Israel does NOT define non Jews within the nation as inferiors as is the case with Sharia law within the Muslim states. There is no concept of dhimmitude in the Jewish religion.

The Jewish reference to its ties to an Israeli nation from which it then symbolizes its honour to God was never defined as was the case in Islam as a concept that excluded non Jews from the right to peacefully co-exist.

So not only is your comparison nonsensical in that it tries to suggest apples are oranges because they are both fruit, it fails to grasp the basic premises for the reason for the link between Jews and their spiritual expression through a nation and it gets us to the pith and substance of why when you criticize Israeli policies, you think you can rationalize that this allows you to criticize the Jewish religion and people who follow Judaism.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

Rue.

So attacking Syria sends a message to Iran? Like, what the Israelis did not have enough balls to test the sysem on Iran? Why Syria? Closer? Weaker? Quite test?

This can be considered an act of aggression by Israel to Syria. Syria has every right to respond in an extreme fashion. Like Israel did to Lebanon summer 2006. But if that happens Syria looks like the bad guy again. Eventhough they are not (well maybe I am not reading the right reports) attacking Israel.

Go ahead and attack a so called soverign nation. You want to be recognized? Maybe stopping and thinking would be in order.

Its the same air defence system. It has nothing to do with balls. The system in Iran is not fully functional, the one in Syria is. Its a matter of practicality. Also keep in mind my theory is just that. I am the first to admit I could be wrong and it was in fact a mission that wiped out a nuclear facility in the early stages of development.

Either way you call it an act of aggression? That's nice. Love the selectivity in who you define as aggressive. Syria is in a state of war with Israel remember? It's also kind of silly to classify it as an act of aggression when Syria spends all its time funding and housing hundreds of terror cells dedicated to wiping Israel out and assisting them plan and carry out operations against Israel.

Would you have us believe Syria is a passive, gentle, peaceful state sitting around minding its own business when it was suddenly violated? Give me a break puhleeze. Trying to portray Syria as a victim is a joke.

But then I suppose in your world, Syria is just an innocent, peace loving victim of bad bad bad Israeli aggressors who have nothing better to do then attack it for NO REASON AT ALL just because they are nasty.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Rue

[jbg]

Wow, an interesting theory. It seems somewhat damaging though for Israel to tip its hand on their apparent superiority to these state of the art Russian systems. Why not just let Iran get comfortable thinking they can protect a nuclear reactor, go ahead and build one, then watch it get precision bombed. Although perhaps their possible overreaction to this would be a war starter. The middle east is a game of chess, except using real people.

Iran may not wait so long before unleashing a tragedy.

[Sulaco]

Rue.

So attacking Syria sends a message to Iran? Like, what the Israelis did not have enough balls to test the sysem on Iran? Why Syria? Closer? Weaker? Quite test?

This can be considered an act of aggression by Israel to Syria. Syria has every right to respond in an extreme fashion. Like Israel did to Lebanon summer 2006. But if that happens Syria looks like the bad guy again. Eventhough they are not (well maybe I am not reading the right reports) attacking Israel.

Go ahead and attack a so called soverign nation. You want to be recognized? Maybe stopping and thinking would be in order.

The tragi-comic thing is that Syria does not look to you like "the bad guy" already. What twisted thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre

[Rue]

The tragi-comic thing is that Syria does not look to you like "the bad guy" already. What twisted thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre

Sulaco, I wonder, is this the only massacre or have there been others....I suspect there have been many more....why some people over look Syria's behaviour towards its own people I do not know...the mukbarrat and the use of the government to brutally repress its people remains ignored-I wonder sometimes why the press does not find any interest in such things.....the notion of Syria being a peaceful innocent country minding its own business makes me want to puke...but then I am an infidel and dream of a day when there are democracies in Syria and Lebanon and those two nations and Jordan and Israel form an economic common market.

Yah I know. I will go back on my medication now.

[Rue]

Sharkman I forgot to respond to you. I admit my theory may be out to lunch. In regards to whether it tips Israel's hand or not, sometimes one tips their hand deliberately to avoid having to go the next step. There is precedent for it, i.e., deliberately tipping your hand if its in fact intended to stop something else from happening that hasn't yet been decided. Could Israel be sending the clerical council in Iran a message to control its President? Far fetched? Maybe.Maybe not.

I mean who the f..ck really knows what's going on other then its always been a quagmire and tinder box of possibilities.