Israel on a bombing spree?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

What you're arguing there sounds a lot like the doctrine of preemptive war. That, in my view, could better be termed as a War Crime. Outright. 1 count for every man, woman and child that die as a result of the first strike without direct and unmistakable aggressive provocation.

May I conclude from your above observation that Bush and Obama are guilty of war crimes? Obama just announced his latest glory today. A strike on foreign soil without the country's approval killing a man without a trial.

Link

Xcouncil=wisdom

Bombing Gaza

Bombing Syria


Who's next?

Israel. Sooner is better.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Israel could simply declare it's nukes, declare just how big they really are and make MAD or the Samson Option public, well known and standard policy. That puts the ball 100% in the Arab's court. If they THEN would like to commit suicide by Israeli Nuclear Warhead? Hey...attack! It'll take 30-45 minutes for their greatest aspiration to come true. In reality, it would take an absolute madman to attack Israel and I think even Israel knows it.

Israel's enemies know about Israel's weapons whether they are declared or not. All of the rocket attacks have been undertaken anyway. Israel declaring them would do nothing helpful. MAD doesn't work with these enemies of Israel. It is more like a dance, a fatal dance which will end badly for everyone. The enemies of Israel will not be detoured or stopped. Israel will protect themselves.

CrikeyMagnet

redoubt

The Gaza bombing was in reply to a rocket attack on southern Israel.
The Syria bombing was to destroy Russian made, Iranian-supplied weapons en route to Hezbollah.
That taken into account... can't say I blame them.

That certainly is the story.

We aren't allowed to really question the events that precipitated these responses, though.

In this region, precipitation is a constant and it comes from all directions. There are no fair skies...

... no matter where you choose to pitch your tent.

Oh dear here we go again

Why do so many people think of this as a sport ?

Israel is trying to exist

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but a bit of perspective.

I've served in the IDF. I've seen, and been on the wrong end of indiscriminate bombings, it isn't pretty.

I did so in the belief that my kids might grow to see a better world.

If any of you think Israel, or indeed any country or, more importantly soldier goes willingly into battle, think again, it is a personal soul search, a personal battle first, at least for me it was.

Done knowing I may die, but for a greater good, and a a chance however small that it might make a difference to bring about a better life for my beautiful children.

I may not have made a difference, but I was prepared to die trying.

Think about that

Cody

reply to post by cody599


You lot that thinks peace can be delivered from a barrel of gun have not been paying attention to history, the right to exist shouldn't include eliminating my neighbors after complaints I've moved my fence line..

reply to post by all2human


You're still alive and able to whinge thanks to us aren't you

Cody

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Actually, No. Assad has no obligation to explain anything. An act of war is an act of war.

If, somewhere deeeeep down in intelligence files, it shows Bin Laden and his bunch of merry murderers were after something very specific that September day ...did or would the US have felt obligated to explain all that in detail before going to war in Afghanistan?

We shouldn't, wouldn't, and didn't ...if there was anything remotely like that involved to explain. Hard to say...since the act itself was all the cause the world figured we needed for the first active response to war. (not counting the second half which came later in Iraq).

My understanding of general international law and practice is that bombing targets within a sovereign nation is plenty to justify the start of open hostilities by both parties to the conflict ....the one bombing things started.

Assad would have to explain because instead of just doing it being quiet they would rat out Assad and release evidence they were hitiing weapons going to people who fire on them on a regular basis that normally counts as an act of war anyway. Assad would have to com up with some excuse on what those weapons were and why the Israelis were wrong.

all2human
reply to post by cody599

 

You lot that thinks peace can be delivered from a barrel of gun have not been paying attention to history, the right to exist shouldn't include eliminating my neighbors after complaints I've moved my fence line..

edit on 1-11-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

I was trying to put a list together of nations in history that didn't use the barrel of a gun to keep the peace. Hmmmm.... Still thinking.... England? No.....France? No..... Germany? No....... USA? No..... Turkey? No... Hmmm could you give us a couple of historic examples?

whywhynot
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

We know how the USA reacts to a powerful country placing missiles/rockets within striking distance of its borders. (Cuban missile crisis) Do you feel that Israel should react differently?

We also know how the USA reacts when it receives murderous attacks on its citizens within its borders. (9/11) Should Israel react differently?

America didn't attack Cuba. America only attacked because it was attacked. Israel attacks then says it's because someone may attack them. Where is the proof Syria was going to give these weapons to Hezbollah?

whywhynot

all2human
reply to post by cody599

 

You lot that thinks peace can be delivered from a barrel of gun have not been paying attention to history, the right to exist shouldn't include eliminating my neighbors after complaints I've moved my fence line..

edit on 1-11-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

I was trying to put a list together of nations in history that didn't use the barrel of a gun to keep the peace. Hmmmm.... Still thinking.... England? No.....France? No..... Germany? No....... USA? No..... Turkey? No... Hmmm could you give us a couple of historic examples?

What are the key words here? In history. If you look around there seems to be quite a few nations that seem to get along without starting wars.

reply to post by MrSpad


The thing I am a little shaky on here ...Why would Assad feel the need to hide or be deceptive about what was hit, if he chose to do something about it? I know of no law or international standard that says he can't have any conventional munitions he desires. Up to and including an S-500 Air Defense Net, if Russia would sell him one ..and he could manage to keep it more than a few days to get powered up. Israel would send everything to get that, I'm sure.

Even if he chose to give some of his equipment to the neighboring nation of Lebanon? What law has been broken? Where is the justification for preemptive war? If Hezbollah takes delivery, I can see Israel being mad and maybe even making a UN protest ..although that's probably not the best place for Israel to complain about much these days. Sentiment just isn't running in their favor, however someone feels about that.

So..Israel hits a Syrian facility (a few times now), well inside the territorial borders, as a sovereign nation. Whether I personally think it's a good idea or not, really isn't important. It's still an open act of war and Syria still has every right to respond with equal force or force necessary to prevent follow-up attack.

I'd say Assad crosses the line if he waits a day or two and then snaps back. Tit for Tat gets real bloody over there and just never ends. However, one of these days....Israel is going to head north to administer a spanking, in time to see every air defense radar across both Lebanon and Syria light up at once and fire enough at them so even their tech can't counter it all. That'll be about the end of that flight of fighter/bombers. ...of course Israel could just stop bombing people and stand ready to obliterate someone who actually attacks them, rather than just thinking ..someday..they MAY attack them.

reply to post by whywhynot

A strike on foreign soil without the country's approval killing a man without a trial.

They didn't need approval. When Bush passed the Patriot Act they covered their bases on that one. When those people joined a terrorist organization they signed their death warrant.

reply to post by buster2010


History is what the poster said and I responded to. You got a country in mind in present day that has been attacked and then negotiated a peace without the threat of force?

reply to post by buster2010

When those people joined a terrorist organization they signed their death warrant.

I think that Israel would say the exact same thing.

buster2010
reply to post by whywhynot

 

A strike on foreign soil without the country's approval killing a man without a trial.

They didn't need approval. When Bush passed the Patriot Act they covered their bases on that one. When those people joined a terrorist organization they signed their death warrant.

It is a wonderful thing that a country can unilaterally pass a law and then attack any country in the world that it deems terrorists. So how is that different from Israel striking terrorist threats in Syria? How did we know that Hezbolla was going to get the missiles? OK, how do we know the the Al Qaida leader killed today by Obama was going to do more nasty things? It gets slippery doesn't it?

reply to post by whywhynot


If you believe the families of those killed from war live in peace think again my friend.

all2human
reply to post by whywhynot

 

If you believe the families of those killed from war live in peace think again.

edit on 1-11-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

No I don't believe that! You are changing the topic, I was responding to your post with a challenge to backup what you stated by suppling the names of a nation or two that have in history resolved disputes without the threatened use or actual use of force. I didn't say anything about it morally I just observe that at our present level of evolution this is the norm.

reply to post by whywhynot


And those countries you listed are peaceful?

reply to post by all2human


I'll let you off the hook my Canadian friend. Have a good night.