Syria

I was justing watching the news (sorry no link) and it was said that Syria was seen, from the air, removing land mines from their boarder with leb. Do you think this conflict will escalate into another war involing Israel and Syria?

If it's true, then we might see another Syria-Israel war, though I would seriously doubt it. They wouldn't risk another war.

Syria because the military power Israel has, and Israel because it would avenge the whole Muslim world. And this could spell disaster. :skull:

I don't think so. His most courageous and honourable imperial highness and friend of the people, president-for-life (and doctor) Assad, will be most distressed if his palace is violated. And be violated I mean bombed.

But with rising domestic pressure… who knows? Du-da-da-dun…

They already are / have, who do you think arms/ed Hezbollah?!

But in terms of Syria actively declaring war on Israel, no way.

Syria is going to game this for maximum advantage. I don't see how them becoming any more involved helps them. If anything, I imagine they'll do what they can to avoid getting entangled.

Nah I don't see them getting any more involved , unless Israel attacks and even Olmert ain't gonna be that stupid unless he has learnt nothing the past month .
Syria has got what it wanted .
Israel handed it to them on a plate .
Silly buggers eh :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

They already are / have, who do you think arms/ed Hezbollah?!

But in terms of Syria actively declaring war on Israel, no way.

---

I agree with JAG. ~:eek:

Syria would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so- I dont think Assad is that crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I agree with JAG. ~:eek:

Syria would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so- I dont think Assad is that crazy.

---

I'm going to have to agree with the general population here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I agree with JAG. ~:eek:

Syria would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so- I dont think Assad is that crazy.

---

What makes you think he's crazy at all?

I think Syria won't get involved unless they get attacked first in which case Syria is gonna be opening up a serious can of whooping onto their attackers.

If it happens like the 6 day war, then I would seriously doubt that.
Of course, they would open the rage of the Muslims.....

Yeah, I don't think you can enumerate a great many Baathist victories in the field, so I'm thinking Syria's "can of whoop" is probably more of a shot glass of sissy slap. And I'm not sure who's giving and who's receiving.

Nah Syria isn't going to do much against Israel unless Assad wants to lose his power. And leaders in power don't like to lose power.

Unlike the past, Syria has few allies capable of fighting Israel - Jordan and Egypt are not going to get involved with Syria over Israel and Turkey isn't a friend of Syria.

I'm thinking Syria's "can of whoop" is probably more of a shot glass of sissy slap.
Unfortunately Syrias "can of whoop" contains bigger and more advanced missiles than hezballah is currently using , plus they have chemical/biological warheads for those missiles .
Why do you think Israel is being very careful to not bomb the wrong side of the border .
And while assad has big problems with two main domestic terrorist groups , the biggest and most dangerous one is an offshoot of the wonderful group that Hamas is an offshoot of .
So before some people start saying silly things like ...They need an ass-kicking--if not by us, then definately by the Israelis.....it might just be an idea to engage the brain first .
Yep Assad is a tosspot , but who comes after ?
You already had yay get rid of Arafat .....oh bugger its Hamas , yay get rid of Saddam .......oh bugger its the Iranian Islamic revolutionary council .
So forget all the kick ass BS.
Think ...... it ain't that hard to do (or is it:inquisitive: ) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Unfortunately Syrias "can of whoop" contains bigger and more advanced missiles than hezballah is currently using , plus they have chemical/biological warheads for those missiles .

---

As does Israel, which are more advanced that Syria's.

As does Israel, which are more advanced that Syria's.
Yeah great , lets just nuke the place .
Nothing likea nice bit of Mutually Assured Destruction is there , especialy as they are MAD anyway :skull:

Iran has a strategic interest to very slowly escalate the conflict. When the spotlight starts to dim from Lebanon, Iran introduces new complexities in order to keep the world distracted from its nukes. Iran is buying time with this distraction by slow escalation: First it was only Haifa with the Katush(sic) rockets, then Iran provided a few rockets that hit Hadera further south, then Iran introduced guerilla "lone wolf" fighters.

Syria also has a strategic interest in this. Syria wants Iran to have the bomb because it will make them stronger through their alliance. Assad wants the Golan Heights back. Both want the destruction of Israel. Thus, Syria may act as another source of slow escalation in order to keep international pressure away from Iran.

Once Iran has the bomb, the region will be drastically changed. Then Syria may acquire a bomb from Iran. That would afford them both invulnerability from Western pressure once and for all since they would be holding Israel Hostage. It would be the identical situation as we have in Korea right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As does Israel, which are more advanced that Syria's.
Yeah great , lets just nuke the place .
Nothing likea nice bit of Mutually Assured Destruction is there , especialy as they are MAD anyway :skull:

---

I was actually talking about chemical and biological weapons, not nuclear missiles. My point was, that Syria would never used these weapons against Israel unless they wanted a massive retalation which would kill millions of citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I was actually talking about chemical and biological weapons, not nuclear missiles. My point was, that Syria would never used these weapons against Israel unless they wanted a massive retalation which would kill millions of citizens.

---

Which would probably get Israel on the wrong end of a major Jihad if they actually did so. Many countries there want to get rid of Israel, they've been bullying the rest of the middle east for too long. If, for whatever reason, the muslim countries work together (even briefly) they're pretty much doomed. They have the better soldiers and technology, but they lack the numbers, and most countries probably have some nasty stuff lying around too.

Israel needs to watch itself, and that's what they're doing. Singling out there enemies and engaging them one at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Many countries there want to get rid of Israel, they've been bullying the rest of the middle east for too long.

---

If you mean getting attacked multiple times by multiple countries is bullying, sure I agree they are being bullied.

Why is there this belief that 'Muslim rage' and the 'anger on the Arab street' is a force more deadly than all the rest of the world combined, and all efforts must be made to appease it?

I mean really, the following cause this 'rage'

-Cartoons
-Beauty pagents
-Israel defending itself
-Israel not defending itself
-People suggesting publicly that they are loose cannons (this one really gets them angry)
-Pork products
-Western televison
-Christianity
-Judiasm
-Buddhism
-Hindusim
-Secularism (yes, you boys are screwed too)
-Historical perspectives on Mohammed
-A whole lot else...

At the end of the day, what DOESN'T make them angry? Your and my khafir existence seems to make the Arab street angry, as Bin Laden has stated many times, in his mind, this is all about rebuilding and extending the caliphate.

Are you just going to convert to keep them happy when it comes to that?

As for Syria itself, it's impossible for them to become involved, they already are. Where do you think Hezbollah is getting their weapons from? Where do you think Al-Queda in Iraq is getting their weapons from, for that matter? Good grief folks, Syria is up to their I-teeth in all of this.

So we are pretty much back were we started. 1000 people died for nothing just to return to the status quo? Hezzbollah is still there. Its times like these Im glad we have yhen UN:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Why is there this belief that 'Muslim rage' and the 'anger on the Arab street' is a force more deadly than all the rest of the world combined.

---

They have camels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertgregoor

They have camels.

---

~:doh: Pwned by camels AGAIN! Maybe we should start training some longbowmen... archers are usually the way I beat camel spam...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Why is there this belief that 'Muslim rage' and the 'anger on the Arab street' is a force more deadly than all the rest of the world combined, and all efforts must be made to appease it?

---

I said no such thing...

But... Israel's surrounding countries don't like it and if they would unite they could do a whole lot of damage before someone comes to the rescue, especially considering the guerilla tactics usually employed in the Middle East. It only takes one person with a decent bomb to do a hell of a lot of damage these days, and there are a lot of people willing to blow themselves up to hurt Israel. Imagine a government (or even a rogue official) giving one of these nuts a biological or chemical weapon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So we are pretty much back were we started. 1000 people died for nothing just to return to the status quo? Hezzbollah is still there. Its times like these Im glad we have yhen UN:2thumbsup:

---

Why do you think the UN acted, strike? No Israeli attack= no new UN Resolution.

Here is what I want to know: Why don't we just racially profile? It's not like we don't know who is going to blow us up. All of this "no water bottles" junk is a waste of time. Muslims are blowing up our planes. Does this mean that all Muslims are evil? NO. But the ones that are doing this are freaking Muslim. So take a closer look at the Middle eastern folks just to be sure. And the moderate muslims might just get fed up with the extremists if their rights were infringed upon. I know that if the government started bugging me, if I knew something I would be pointing fingers left and right. Why is this so taboo? It isn't a reduction of rights, its just plain obvious police work. This politically correct crap has just got to go. GAH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Here is what I want to know: Why don't we just racially profile? It's not like we don't know who is going to blow us up. All of this "no water bottles" junk is a waste of time. Muslims are blowing up our planes. Does this mean that all Muslims are evil? NO. But the ones that are doing this are freaking Muslim. So take a closer look at the Middle eastern folks just to be sure. And the moderate muslims might just get fed up with the extremists if their rights were infringed upon. I know that if the government started bugging me, if I knew something I would be pointing fingers left and right. Why is this so taboo? It isn't a reduction of rights, its just plain obvious police work. This politically correct crap has just got to go. GAH!

---

The problem with that Eclectic is how do you profile someone by their relgious fundamentalism? Only check the baggage of Arabs? How will that prevent an Islamist fundamentalist from Indonesia, the country with the largest population of Muslims in the world, from bringing a bomb on a plane? What if it's a Shining Path terrorist from South America? Timothy McVeigh blew up several hundred people. He didn't even remotely look Middle Eastern to me. Do you see the problem? Terrorists can't be identified by what's on the outside. If our solution is to simply profile everyone of Middle Eastern descent, then what would stop Al Qaeda from using terrorists recruited from Indonesia or Sudan or somewhere else?

Then you have to consider our complete inability to distinguish between people effectively. Right after 911, who were the people most likely to be profiled as a threat and receive extra searching? Muslims? No. How? You can't tell a Muslim by appearance. The people most likely to get pulled aside in airports in the USA right after 911 were Sikhs and Hindus in traditional dress. That's right. We thought they looked like terrorists; so they were profiled as such. Meanwhile, an actual Islamist fundamentalist terrorist in a business suit with a passport naming him as Moshe Steinberg could have waltzed right past our security.

Unless and until we have the ability to read people's minds, we aren't going to be able to detemine who is or isn't a fundamentalist terrorist, or any other kind of terrorist. We certainly can't determine it based on race or national origin or the color of their tennis shoes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The problem with that Eclectic is how do you profile someone by their relgious fundamentalism? Only check the baggage of Arabs? How will that prevent an Islamist fundamentalist from Indonesia, the country with the largest population of Muslims in the world, from bringing a bomb on a plane? What if it's a Shining Path terrorist from South America? Timothy McVeigh blew up several hundred people. He didn't even remotely look Middle Eastern to me. Do you see the problem? Terrorists can't be identified by what's on the outside. If our solution is to simply profile everyone of Middle Eastern descent, then what would stop Al Qaeda from using terrorists recruited from Indonesia or Sudan or somewhere else?

Then you have to consider our complete inability to distinguish between people effectively. Right after 911, who were the people most likely to be profiled as a threat and receive extra searching? Muslims? No. How? You can't tell a Muslim by appearance. The people most likely to get pulled aside in airports in the USA right after 911 were Sikhs and Hindus in traditional dress. That's right. We thought they looked like terrorists; so they were profiled as such. Meanwhile, an actual Islamist fundamentalist terrorist in a business suit with a passport naming him as Moshe Steinberg could have waltzed right past our security.

Unless and until we have the ability to read people's minds, we aren't going to be able to detemine who is or isn't a fundamentalist terrorist, or any other kind of terrorist. We certainly can't determine it based on race or national origin or the color of their tennis shoes.

---

I expected as much from the likes of you. ~;) This doesn't surprise me at all.

Brown people who look Muslim. That's who we target. And if it means mexicans, Italians, Spaniards, Sikhs, Turkmen, Mongols, Native Americans, etc get a little extra attention, then so be it. I'm not talking about an anal probe here. Just extra attention. Why on earth are we pulling 50 yr old obese ladies to the side? HELLOOOOOO?

As for McVeigh and other domestic terrorists: I'm sorry but get real. That happens, but we don't have nearly the same problem with angry americans as we do with muslim jihadists.

I understand your whole perspective of "apparent" equality and civil rights, but the current policy is just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Brown people who look Muslim. That's who we target. And if it means mexicans, Italians, Spaniards, Sikhs, Turkmen, Mongols, Native Americans, etc get a little extra attention, then so be it. I'm not talking about an anal probe here. Just extra attention. Why on earth are we pulling 50 yr old obese ladies to the side? HELLOOOOOO?

---

So Pretty much anyone not white, Northern European. That's what I'm getting from you Eclectic. Come on man, that's just disgraceful.