BF2S Forums Should Syria Bomb Israel's Nuclear Facilities?

Commie Killer wrote:

Pug wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Why is this guy allowed in this section anymore?

Aww, It's entertaining though...

Oh it is, I actually look forward to his topics.




In truth its amazing though, this guy has the power to get both liberals and conservatives to agree on something....hes stupid.

Ironic that his stay here is debated when you are the one calling him names because you don't like his view. Since you're so sure about your take on the matter, his post should be easy to tackle. No need to be mean.

btw up to lowing's post nobody managed to address the question. Everyone somehow misunderstood (although it is perfectly clear) and went on to say that Syria couldn't, which frankly has nothing to do with whether they should or not.

Careful people, your bias is showing...

The middle east needs Israel, without them, what will distract people from the rampant unemployment, runaway inflation, and corrupt governments?

Commie Killer wrote:

Lisik wrote:

Should Syria Bomb Israel's Nuclear Facilities?

Why do you hate Syria so much? What Syria did to you that you want it to be destroyed?

He hates America and Israel, least thats all he has professed his hate for so far.

You missed it, badly.

He was implying that if Syria attacked Israel, it would get demolished.

S.Lythberg wrote:

The middle east needs Israel, without them, what will distract people from the rampant unemployment, runaway inflation, and corrupt governments?

I think our governments need the wars with the Middle East as well.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-27 20:06:09)

A guy with 'ammunition' in his name creates an anti-violence thread (sort of).

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Syria can go for it in my opinion... the only thing stopping them is the Israeli air force and their AA systems... and americas backing of course.

"My big brother can beat up your big brother" kind of thing?

Last edited by imortal (2008-04-27 22:11:51)

Vax wrote:

The fact is, they Are a tiny country surrounded by nations that seemingly  range from openly hostile to eternally questioning their right to exist

Just ONE nuke detonated in Tel Aviv, would nearly wipe them "off the pages of history"  so I guess they take that kind of talk seriously, and react accordingly.

Are you still considered paranoid if everyone really is out to get you?

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

Ironic that his stay here is debated when you are the one calling him names because you don't like his view. Since you're so sure about your take on the matter, his post should be easy to tackle. No need to be mean.

btw up to lowing's post nobody managed to address the question. Everyone somehow misunderstood (although it is perfectly clear) and went on to say that Syria couldn't, which frankly has nothing to do with whether they should or not.

Careful people, your bias is showing...

Since you put it that way...

If Syria felt it were in their national interests to bomb Israel's nuke facilities, then sure...they should do it.

But it wouldn't be in their national interests, as it would start a battle they could not possibly win (as shown repeatedly since 1947).

I'm not the one who put it that way, that's what the OP was saying. And of course it wouldn't be in their national interests! They'd be obliterated! The OP is making an effort to show the unfairness in treatment of the two countries. The double standards by which the international community works.

Vax wrote:

Fair enough. 

I can see where a guy who calls people "americunts" gets people riled though.

As for the bias, it seems to me more like maybe acceptance of reality   


What the OP was obviously getting at was basically, "it's not fair" ..

Isarael has the nukes, and they are bristling with other military capability ( including the intel and wherewithal to go stomp clandestine Syrian nuke weapon projects) 

Not to mention US support 

-

LIFE aint Fair...Israel is a nation and it exists, whatever the history it is too late to change that.

The fact is, they Are a tiny country surrounded by nations that seemingly  range from openly hostile to eternally questioning their right to exist

Just ONE nuke detonated in Tel Aviv, would nearly wipe them "off the pages of history"  so I guess they take that kind of talk seriously, and react accordingly.

You're right about everything man, except that acceptance of reality is not the same as openly siding with Israel.

What is alarming is that people choose to defend Israel whole heartedly and no matter what, while the nature of this entire confrontation only allows one to partially take sides, seeing as there are fatal flaws with both sides.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Which would mean the square root of fuck all in a fight like the one being debated here, as the US wouldn't get involved in combat ops.

You think? The US invaded Iraq at Israel's behest, and in the first gulf war spent a bit of time attacking the Iraqi scud sites to protect Israel.
Do you really think Iraqi 'WMD' could have reached America, or would Israel have been the target?
Clinton has already threatened to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel is attacked.
Bush is already threatening pre-emptive military action against Iran over threats to Israel, doubtless the situation with Syria is the same.

What's it like to be Israel's bitch FEOS? The whole Pentagon jumping to fingers snapping in the ME?

Put your fucking tinfoil hat away, Dilbert. If Iraq was invaded at anyone's behest, it was Chalabi, not Israel.

Go ahead and try to make the thread about Iraq or Iran...it won't work. Syria is a bit player in the ME, other than funneling foreign fighters into Iraq.

The concern over Iraqi WMD was both the threat of it reaching the US via proliferation to terrorists and the threat to the region (Saddam is the only one in the region to have actually used WMD against anyone).

As for Clinton...don't know if you realize this, but she hasn't even won the nomination, much less the Presidency, so her opinion on Iran, while interesting, has fuck all to do with a thread about Syria.

What's it like to be a bitter and nasty to people who disagree with you in a video game forum, Dilbert? The Pentagon jumps to fingers snapping about a mile away (1600 Penn Ave), not in the ME.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-28 03:08:40)

CameronPoe wrote:

Syria bombing Israeli nuclear facilities would quite possibly be the tactically strategically dumbest act to occur since Operation Barbarossa.

Fixed.

Put your fucking tinfoil hat away, Dilbert.

I like it, its comfy.

If Iraq was invaded at anyone's behest, it was Chalabi, not Israel.

Chalabi who? Some irrelevant nobody instructed the US President to start a war?

The concern over Iraqi WMD was both the threat of it reaching the US via proliferation to terrorists and the threat to the region

The region - ie Israel. No-one was botherer when Saddam was using them on Iran or his own people.

As for Clinton...don't know if you realize this, but she hasn't even won the nomination, much less the Presidency, so her opinion on Iran, while interesting, has fuck all to do with a thread about Syria.

Yes I have noticed, however she could (start praying to your God) be your Commander in Chief quite soon and will have the power to strike whoever she likes.
Her leanings in the area of ME policy are therefore relevant. I won't even start on the rantings of John McCain.

What's it like to be a bitter and nasty to people who disagree with you in a video game forum, Dilbert? The Pentagon jumps to fingers snapping about a mile away (1600 Penn Ave), not in the ME.

Ariel Sharon - "every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

She said something about Iran attacking Israel (presumably with atomic weapons). That's completely different than Syria attacking Israel's nuke facilities with conventional weapons. Context ftw.

The context is fine, we have a senior US politician saying they would engage militarily on behalf of Israel.

So one Israeli (albeit a high-profile one) makes a statement like that, and you construe it as indisputable fact

Gee he's only the Prime Minister How can he know anything?

Sec. of State John Foster Dulles   "I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country"

Senator Fullbright "The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate."

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-28 03:39:23)

The context is fine, we have a senior US politician saying they would engage militarily on behalf of an 'ally' that has been attacked.

Explain again how Israel is a US ally?
I don't see Israelis fighting and dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are however spying on the US, feeding you bogus intel etc.

Is Dulles still around? When did he make that comment?
What about Fullbright?

Who cares, they were senior in the US admin.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-28 04:13:03)

Lisik wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US in the first gulf war spent a bit of time attacking the Iraqi scud sites to protect Israel.


What's it like to be Israel's bitch FEOS?

Weird... when USA spent a bit time attacking nazis to protect Europe it called ALLIES, and when USA spent a bit time protecting Israel it called BITCH... maybe it just you a DICK Dilbert_X? What you say?

Don't try and equate the 'suffering' of Israel with the suffering of the Jews in WW2, it's insulting to all the people who died in the extermination camps. Israel as a nation gets a hard time from the International community because it took land by force from a people that had every right to be there. The Jews were persecuted in WW2 on purely racial grounds...there's a big difference.

One can argue that the Jews have a right to live there too but in my opinion a Russian/Ukranian/American/English/Polish/Irish Jew does not have the right to live in a place they were not born or raised while someone whose family had lived their for generations has to go and eke out an existence in a refugee camp.

And before you flame me I believe in a two state solution where both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist, I just think it needs to be a bit fairer than it is at the moment.