Israel's attack is a lethal step towards war in Middle East

[bemildred]

Warp factor seven Scotty, all phasers on stun.

No one asks what these "training bases" are. Do Palestinian suicide
bombers really need to practice suicide bombing? Does turning a switch
need that much training? Surely the death of a brother or a cousin by
the Israeli army is all the practice that is needed.

But no. Yesterday, we took another little lethal step along the road
to Middle East war, establishing facts on the ground, proving that
it's permissible to bomb the territory of Syria in the "war against
terror", which President Bush has himself declared now includes Gaza.

And the precedents are there if we need them. Back in 1983, when
President Reagan thought he was fighting a "war on terror" in the
Middle East, he ordered his air force to bomb the Syrian army in the
Lebanese Bekaa Valley, losing a pilot and allowing the Syrians to
capture his co-pilot, who was only returned after a prolonged and
politically embarrassing negotiation by Jesse Jackson. In an era when
America is ready to threaten the invasion of Syria and Iran - part of
that infamous "axis of evil" - this may seem small beer. But Syria
itself has seen what has happened to America's army in Iraq, and is
emboldened by its humiliation to avenge the attacks of Israel or
America, whatever the cost.

If America cannot control Iraq, why should Syria fear Israel?

Fisk

[kalian]

1. And rest assured...

that the US will back its little pitbull in the UN.
Join the army...and die for Israel!

[Character Assassin]

2. Um, because it got its ass handed to it on a platter each time?

No one asks what these "training bases" are.

Sure they do. Syria has a very long history of allowing Hezbollah and others to operate paramilitary style training camps within its borders. This is old news.

Do Palestinian suicide bombers really need to practice suicide bombing? Does turning a switch need that much training? Surely the death of a brother or a cousin by the Israeli army is all the practice that is needed.

It may have escaped your notice, but suicide bombings are not the only violent attacks on Israel and its citizens. There are frequent hit-and-run guerilla attacks wherein no one tries to blow themselves up.

But no. Yesterday, we took another little lethal step along the road
to Middle East war, establishing facts on the ground, proving that
it's permissible to bomb the territory of Syria in the "war against
terror", which President Bush has himself declared now includes Gaza.

We did? Were those American planes? American pilots?

And the precedents are there if we need them. Back in 1983, when
President Reagan thought he was fighting a "war on terror" in the
Middle East, he ordered his air force to bomb the Syrian army in the
Lebanese Bekaa Valley, losing a pilot and allowing the Syrians to
capture his co-pilot, who was only returned after a prolonged and
politically embarrassing negotiation by Jesse Jackson.

Different time, place and set of circumstances alltogether, not to mention that the attack was on Syrian forces in Lebanon, not in Syria. On December 4th, the Navy launched an air strike against Syrian rocket and radar positions, after they fired upon an American reconnaissance plane. Neither plane had a co-pilot. The pilot of one died, the other was captured.

In an era when America is ready to threaten the invasion of Syria and Iran - part of that infamous "axis of evil" - this may seem small beer. But Syria itself has seen what has happened to America's army in Iraq, and is emboldened by its humiliation to avenge the attacks of Israel or America, whatever the cost.

'Whatever the cost'? That seems unlikely, given their past track record. Like having their entire air force wiped out in short order by the Israelis in 1982.

If America cannot control Iraq, why should Syria fear Israel?

Because Israel plays to win, and has won each time Syria has attacked it.

[bemildred]

3. I don't believe Syria attacking Israel is the idea, here.

The simile is more Israel as the US (invader/attacker) and
Syria as Iraq (invaded/defender). I'm not much interested in
defending Mr. Fisk's position, but I do think it is important
to understand his argument correctly.

I think that idea that such a war would not serve Little Assad's
interests is a better criticism, one can't imagine Mr. Hussein is
too pleased with things at present.

[tinnypriv]

4. Actually it was an American plane

[Character Assassin]

5. It was a plane made in America.

Point of manufacture is irrelevant in this case.

[newyorican]

6. Irrelevant from your POV...

Fortunately, you do not embody the totality of US or world opinion.

[bemildred]

7. I doubt that Mr. Fisk, in using the word "we",

was referring to the USA. Mr. Fisk is a brit, and lives in
Lebanon, IIRC, so I doubt that he speaks habitually from the
American point of view. But in any case, I can assure you that
there are quite a few people out there, "terrorists" and their
supporters, who do not share your opinion as to the relevance
of the origin of those aircraft.

[tinnypriv]

8. Depends whether you're holding the lash or being whipped by it

Doesn't it? :shrug:

[LevChernyi]

11. it isn't point of manufacture

It's that we bought the thing.

Say Israel manufactured the extended fuel tanks it is equipped with (this is true). That doesn't mean that when an American plane equipped with these tanks strikes somewhere it outside it's standard range of operations that it is an Israeli plane. We paid for it, not only paid for it but paid for the R&D costs as well. This was actually a blackly comedic episode in congress. Quite the showdown over selling the Saudi's these extended fuel tanks or not, with the usual players all caterwauling and moaning that we were going to sell them these fuel tanks with the Israeli arms industry laughing it's ass off in the background.

If these were Mirage's paid for by the US, these would still be US planes. As a matter of fact, we paid the Israeli's off mightily to quit building the Levi (Quite the story in and of itself, if you want to see the one place you can throw money down the toilet faster than the American arms industry, watch the Israeli arms industry).

[durutti]

9. Response

You write, "It may have escaped your notice, but suicide bombings are not the only violent attacks on Israel and its citizens. There are frequent hit-and-run guerilla attacks wherein no one tries to blow themselves up."

Most of these raids are 100 percent legal, since they target soldiers, not civilians.

There's no question that Syria assists numerous Palestinian terrorist groups. But Israel engages in activity that's been described by Kofi Annan as "state terrorism", and sponsors terrorists like the SLA.

Hezbollah was the wrong group to single out. While I have political and ideological disagreements with Hezbollah, they aren't a terrorist group -- they don't target civilians as a policy.

Then you ask, "We did? Were those American planes? American pilots?" No. Fisk is trying to make that case that America's threatening of Syria effectively gave the green light for Israel to attack Syria.

You then write that "Israel plays to win, and has won each time Syria has attacked it." But Syria has never attacked Israel.

Israel did not exist in 1948. Therefore, Syria did not attack Israel. Syria was merely acting to secure the areas allocated for the Palestinian state.

Israel attacked Syria in 1967.

Syria did not attack Israel in 1973. It attacked Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories. Israel continued attacking Syria even after a ceasefire had been declared.

[Character Assassin]

10. Response to response

It may have escaped your notice, but suicide bombings are not the only violent attacks on Israel and its citizens. There are frequent hit-and-run guerilla attacks wherein no one tries to blow themselves up.

Most of these raids are 100 percent legal, since they target soldiers, not civilians.

100% 'legal'? On what basis? And can you support the contention that 'most' target soldiers, not civilians?

There's no question that Syria assists numerous Palestinian terrorist groups. But Israel engages in activity that's been described by Kofi Annan as "state terrorism", and sponsors terrorists like the SLA.

I place no value in opinions or statements of Kofi Annan.

Hezbollah was the wrong group to single out. While I have political and ideological disagreements with Hezbollah, they aren't a terrorist group -- they don't target civilians as a policy.

If you think Hezbollah is not a terrorist group, we really have nothing further to discuss.

Then you ask, "We did? Were those American planes? American pilots?" No. Fisk is trying to make that case that America's threatening of Syria effectively gave the green light for Israel to attack Syria.

They would have done so in any case. I see no evidence that they get their marching orders, so to speak, from Washington D.C.

You then write that "Israel plays to win, and has won each time Syria has attacked it." But Syria has never attacked Israel.

That is a matter of opinion and definition. Suffice it to say "when conflict between Israel and Syria ensued" if it makes you feel any better.

Israel did not exist in 1948. Therefore, Syria did not attack Israel. Syria was merely acting to secure the areas allocated for the Palestinian state.

A distinction without a difference.

Israel attacked Syria in 1967.

When one strikes out at a man pointing a gun to one's head, the terminology becomes irrelevant.

Syria did not attack Israel in 1973. It attacked Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories.

A distinction without a difference.

Israel continued attacking Syria even after a ceasefire had been declared.

Irrelevant.

[Equinox]

12. Character Assassin, I don't think your post remotely refuted Durrutti's...

....post.

You should have explained yourself better but I suppose you couldn't.

[Character Assassin]

13. The problem is that you believe I care about what you think.

Character Assassin, I don't think your post remotely refuted Durrutti's post

You are entitled to whatever opinion you'd like.

You should have explained yourself better but I suppose you couldn't.

See above. You may suppose anything you'd like.

[Equinox]

15. False! I don't believe anything about you!

:evilgrin:

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

17. I see Cali living hasn't cooled your jets

Hope the ladies are treating you well.

I see your POV.

My contention is, how do we make these calls/distinctions...ie: that someone is really pointing a gun at your head...ie: Iraq.

This leads to my favour of a strong UN...why does it not lead you to a similar conclusion?(yes, assumption, but I don't think I'm far off my Libertarian old school DU friend).

Bill

[Character Assassin]

18. Because the UN has proved itself incompetent time and time again

We could start with Rwanda, but what would be the point?

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

20. No, I just mean the concept

To resolve international disputes.

Not the present body and its lack of any real powers or collective vision.

Again, who makes the call?

[bpilgrim]

21. so you agree with the neo-cons

interesting...

or is it the ummm 'conspiracy' against israel, not for her actions but OF COURSE because they all just got it in for her.

:crazy:

peace

[Violet_Crumble]

24. How to spot a neo-con...

They believe in US exceptionalism and that the US is different and culturally superior than all other societies on earth....

They believe if a democracy can't use force to change other societies into how the US wants them to be, then democracy is impotent....

They believe that democracies should never be limited in their use of force, even when it comes to nukes, and multilateral agreements are just a way of creating a fake balance of power and are attempts to hold the US back from asserting its cultural and military superiority on the rest of the world. This translates into 'the UN ain't nuthin' but shit' in dumbed-down language. Of course it's okay for the US to insist that other states abide by the same multilateral agreements it shoves down the crapper :)

Pre-emptive attacks are good. The US is seen as weak if it won't use force whenever even the slightest whiff of unrest arises....

I figure if anyone embraces those main aspects of the whole neo-con agenda, then when the neo-cons finally get shoved back into the dark, dank hole labelled 'nutjobs' they resided in prior to Bush arriving on the scene, those embracing their ideals are going to be the only people on earth pining for them...

Violet...


I figure if anyone embraces all of these

[Violet_Crumble]

23. We could start with Rwanda....

...but you'd probably end up with egg all over yr face, and I can understand you mightn't want to think there's much point in that ;)

Violet...

[Character Assassin]

26. Have at it, then.

but you'd probably end up with egg all over yr face, and I can understand you mightn't want to think there's much point in that ;)

By all means, step up on and bring some egg.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. When you speak of incompetence...

What things are you referring to specifically? And are you looking for the reasons why this 'incompetence' happened, and taking into account the actions (or lack of) of the US during the genocide? And when it comes to yr claims of UN incompetence, what would you suggest to make sure those sort of things don't occur again that haven't already been done?

Violet...

[Darranar]

14. "Legal" on the basis of international law...

if you want to call them terrorists when they are in fact resisting an occupation, fine.

[tinnypriv]

16. Er

dis·tinc·tion

n.

The act of distinguishing; differentiation.
The condition or fact of being dissimilar or distinct.

..

dif·fer·ence

n.

The quality or condition of being unlike or dissimilar.

..

Lame phrases with almost zero literal meaning are no substitute for argument.

[Character Assassin]

19. Um.....

The phrase 'a distinction without a difference' is quite old and frequently used in rhetoric, logic, etc....

Ignorance and obfuscation is no substitute for rational analysis and critical thinking.

[bpilgrim]

22. yeah...

everything the neo-CONS have come up with certainly seems very rational and logical... to them.

:hi:

peace

[tinnypriv]

25. No

It is a common phrase used in rhetoric.

It has no place in logic.

You're using it (to use your own word), for "obfuscation".

As is obvious. You either didn't comprehend durutti's points, had no answer to them, or do have the answers but chose not to type them.

You can pick which of those three options it is, but none of them are "rational analysis and critical thinking".

Stick around. You'll have fun in here.

[Character Assassin]

27. Actually, yes.

It is a common phrase used in rhetoric.

Glad we agree.

It has no place in logic.

It has a place in logic. While it is not a formal, established principle in logic, it is a variation on a fallacy that most certainly applies when one is using rhetoric based in logic.

You're using it (to use your own word), for "obfuscation".

Quite incorrect.

As is obvious. You either didn't comprehend durutti's points, had no answer to them, or do have the answers but chose not to type them.

You can pick which of those three options it is, but none of them are "rational analysis and critical thinking".

I see you are unquainted with logic. You are presenting a contrived set of choices, a false dichotomy.

Stick around. You'll have fun in here.

Yeah.

[tinnypriv]

29. Riiight

It has a place in logic. While it is not a formal, established principle in logic...

I think you'll find that is internal contradiction within two sentences. Congratulations.

I'm off to some serious topics. Cya.

[Character Assassin]

30. There are none so blind, it would seem....

Do let me know when you actually understand what the word means...

[Gimel]

28. "Legal" raids

Most drive-by shooting target innocent civilians. When all forms of shootings are considered, most shootings targeted civilians. 191 civilians and 145 military security forces were killed by shooting.

Most of these raids are 100 percent legal, since they target soldiers, not civilians.

The above statement is proven wrong. I've posted this URL a few times already. Clearly, the intifada has killed far more Israeli civilians than military. In fact, the ratio is more than 2:1.

http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/1.doc

[LevChernyi]

31. Hezbollah

nothing to do with the intifada.