Syria, Israel and the Middle East

Both Obama and McCain agree: the use of poison gas in Syria is a “red line” that cannot be crossed.

reuters.com/article/2013/05/ … 9Z20130505

And it looks like Israel has stepped in to firm up support for Assad and kick the rebels in the nuts.

[quote=“MikeN”]
And it looks like Israel has stepped in to firm up support for Assad and kick the rebels in the nuts.[/quote]

Sigh, ignorance. The air strike HELPED the rebels.

The Assad government and Israel are bitter enemies.

Before talking about something…you should do just a teensy wee bit of research. Google is an amazing thing.

There are even claims that the air strikes were COORDINATED with the rebels.

But, I assume, you think Israel is bad, Assad is bad, so throw them into the same pot together.

Now now, there’s no need to get so worked up over it. Israel, after all, would say they aren’t helping the rebels at all. (And I tend to believe it… Israel is only helping itself with the airstrikes.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/06/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE94506Z20130506

The better question is what happens next. With most of the world unsure which side it should be on, Israel has set the ball in motion for foreign intervention into the crisis. Keep in mind the West is sympathetic to rebels, but suspicious of hardline Islamists, meaning they don’t quite know what to make of the anti-govenrment forces – especially if they’re using chemical weapons. It’s all much more complicated because Syria is pals with Iran, and both aren’t on very good terms with Israel.

Full disclosure: I don’t know anywhere near as much about the Middle East as I do about East Asia.

Another red herring line bites the dust.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
The better question is what happens next. With most of the world unsure which side it should be on, It’s all much more complicated because Syria is pals with Iran, and both aren’t on very good terms with Israel.
Full disclosure: I don’t know anywhere near as much about the Middle East as I do about East Asia.[/quote]

That’s pretty much my situation, I keep at date with the news but don’t know the background… I’ll Google it, but if someone has some cliff notes or condensed point of view…

I did enjoy the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister on CNN last night, claiming Israel, the Rebels AND Al Queda are in it together.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Now now, there’s no need to get so worked up over it. Israel, after all, would say they aren’t helping the rebels at all. (And I tend to believe it… Israel is only helping itself with the airstrikes.)
[/quote]

I didn’t say Israel intended to help anyone but Israel (why should they?).

I’m just SO tired of people who jump on Israel, are SO EXTREMELY passionate about the Israeli situation…yet are so ignorant that they lack even BASIC wikipedia kind of knowledge on the situation. Be critical, fine, but don’t be dumb about it.

Ignorant outspokenness is what I was worked up about.

[quote=“Confuzius”]
Sigh, ignorance. The air strike HELPED the rebels.

The Assad government and Israel are bitter enemies.[/quote]
Let’s not be so naive as to assume that the rebels, if successful, will be buddies with Israel. We’ve seen time and time again that dictators in the ME are quickly replaced by religious nutters.

Israel might be helping the rebels, but it doesn’t matter. Such help almost always backfires (US with Iraq, al qaeda, as recent examples).

Well now the UN is trying to distance itself from the comments because they’re not confirmed yet, and this is a BIG accusation to make without solid proof. So it seems someone used chemical weapons: was it the government or the rebels? That could take a long time to determine.

Israel has publicly stated it would do what is necessary to ensure no weapons transfer to Hizbollah. Syria is the main conduit for these weapons from Iran.

A regime change in Syria, could prove a disaster for Iran and it’s proxy Hizbollah.

The Saudis must be loving the Israelis as the moment. :unamused:

Long enough no doubt for the choir to change hymnals and the congregation to forget about all that “red line” talk.

And just wait until the S300 anti aircraft missile batteries from Russia arrive in Syria. Then no-one is going to be able to enforce a no-fly zone. The Israelis are the only ones with any cajones and I hope they take those missiles out before they can set them up.

It’s disgraceful that no-one is doing anything to help the rebels. According to Reuters, the death toll stands at 80 000. Politicians the world over should be ashamed, especially the Chinese and Russians - how cold can you be?

The violence is horrific, but Western governments are really wary of the rebels because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not really a viable concept when it comes to international relations, and the rebels haven’t given the West a reason to trust them. An alleged video of a rebel leader cutting open someone’s chest and eating his heart has really not helped their case.

And then get universally condemned as usual.

But do not worry. The Israelis will take them out, and while the rest of the world publicly condemns them, privately they will be saying thanks god for them.

Between them the U.S. and Israel have killed more people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza the last twenty years than all the petty Arab dictators in the Middle East combined so no one takes their crocodile tears for the people of Syria seriously. Those crocodile tears can only mean one thing: it’s feeding time again and lots of innocent people are going to die along with some uppity Arab thugs.

Source? Or is this just bleeding heart BS?

NO, it’s wishful thinking.

Even if that’s true, I counter with a big “So?” More soldiers died fighting in World War II than civilians were killed by the NAZIs in the Holocaust… so the Allies must have been the bad guys because those soldiers wouldn’t have died if they hadn’t gone to war, right?

War and civil strife are totally different ball games. Whether or not we like it (I for one do not), war is meant to kill people and get people killed, so high body counts are normal and expected. On the other hand, governments are not meant to kill their people, so any deaths at a dictator’s hands are inexcusable.

Does this mean that waging war should always be acceptable? Not necessarily, but I’m not going to use an apples-to-oranges approach to argue it.

Even if that’s true, I counter with a big “So?” More soldiers died fighting in World War II than civilians were killed by the NAZIs in the Holocaust… so the Allies must have been the bad guys because those soldiers wouldn’t have died if they hadn’t gone to war, right?

War and civil strife are totally different ball games. Whether or not we like it (I for one do not), war is meant to kill people and get people killed, so high body counts are normal and expected. On the other hand, governments are not meant to kill their people, so any deaths at a dictator’s hands are inexcusable.

Does this mean that waging war should always be acceptable? Not necessarily, but I’m not going to use an apples-to-oranges approach to argue it.[/quote]

Still wasnt true t begin with, just bleeding heart anti-israel bull shit by an ignoramus.

“Counterarguments” which consist of little more than crude ad hominems prove only that the side making them is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

American “humanitarianism”:

[quote]The War in Iraq: 10 years and counting

Analysis of deaths in a decade of violence

19 March 2013

The US/UK-led invasion of March 2003 has brought a decade of high and low intensity armed conflict to Iraq. But this conflict is not yet history. It remains entrenched and pervasive, with a clear beginning but no foreseeable end, and very much a part of the present in Iraq. In major regions of the country armed violence continues to exact a remorseless toll on human life, young and old, male and female, across society.

Since the beginning of 2003 the Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has been continuously tracking, analysing and maintaining a public record of civilian deaths on its website iraqbodycount.org.

The figures below provide a statistical overview of the conflict which outlines its human toll. Numbers are derived from over 31,500 deadly incidents analysed for information including time and location, perpetrators and weapons used, with demographic records for those victims (around 40% of the total) for whom such information could be obtained.

In Sum
1 Slight variation of this figure from the IBC database will be due to the continuous addition of data as the online database is updated, and the inclusion in this release of March 2013 incidents still being fully processed.
IBC has documented 112,017 - 122,438 civilian deaths from violence between 20 March 2003 and 14 March 2013.

A complete account of violent deaths that includes Iraqi and foreign combatants (including coalition forces), as well as previously unreported civilian deaths still being extracted by IBC from the Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks, would include:

39,900 (combatants killed of all nationalities)
11,500 civilians (likely to be added from the Iraq War Logs)
2 For details, see IBC’s 2012 annual report with updates on overall numbers and the Iraq War Logs.
3 70,000 people killed in Iraq since 2003, says Human Rights Ministry, AK News
[color=blue]yielding about 174,000 as the number of people documented killed in violence in Iraq since 2003[/color].[/quote]
– Iraq Body Count

So 174,000 killed in America’s War About Nothing in Iraq alone. Add in the numbers of civilians killed in wars launched by the U.S. and its ally, Israel, in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Gaza in the 21st century and no one else even comes close.

Even so, I’d be happy to go along with the self-serving myth that the U.S. and Israel are dropping bombs and launching missiles because they care if both countries would follow one simple rule: ask the people themselves of each country they purport to save if the majority of them want to be “saved” the way the U.S. “saved” Iraq. If the answer is ‘yes’ then who am I to object? Just watch out for those flying shoes though if the answer turns out to be no.