Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And yet Israel continues to strike weapons deliveries to Hezbollah without any interference from Russia. Israeli radars and electronics are far more advanced than Russia's, and while the statistic for the S-400 are impressive on paper, it has never been tested against such a technologically advanced adversary as Israel. Russia has not challenged Israeli operations because they understand it would cost them their bases in Syria.Technologically Russia is far behind both the US and Israel, and while Russia is powerful in eastern Europe, in the ME Israel is far more powerful. If a conflict broke out the Russian bases could be gone in a half hour. Israel is concerned with Hezbollah and Iran, but Assad is of little to no concern. If Israel had wanted to get rid of Assad, he would have been gone back in 2012. Assad will not risk a war with Israel and neither will Iran, but Hezbollah will, so stopping these shipments is of vital importance to Israel.Of course the Russians have not said that, but if they had, stopping the shipments of advanced weapons to Hezbollah is of such vital importance to Israeli security that Israel would have to neutralize Russia's ability to prevent Israeli attacks on these shipments.Israel could be destroyed by Russian nukes and nearly all of Russia could be destroyed by Israeli nukes. That's why Russia doesn't want to engage Israeli militarily. Russia would lose its bases in Syria and if Russia attacked Israel it would lose Moscow and the rest of European Russia. Your mad fantasies about killing Jews have no basis in fact or logic.
It's more of a question is why would Israel want to engage the Russians militarily when they have said that they will not allow Israeli aircraft to invade Syrian air space.
Israel has no capability to neutralize Russia's ability to defend Syrian air space. You seem to forget that whether you like it or not, Russia has similar capability as the U.S. with respect to air power. Plus, Israel is attacking Syria to weaken Syria. Arm shipments are not the target. The air base Syria attacked hosts no Hezbollah. It's a smoke screen.
Israeli aircraft would be destroyed shortly after take-off. The U.S. would suffer terrible losses against the Russian theater air defense systems.
"Ever since it destroyed Syria’s anti-aircraft systems in 1982, Israel’s air force has enjoyed absolute aerial superiority (and therefore, almost complete freedom of action) on the northern front. But that effectively ended the moment Russia decided to beef up its aerial defenses around Tartus. Almost without effort, the Russians managed to restrict the strongest air force in the Middle East."
read more: Without effort, Russia restricted the strongest air force in the Middle East
The Israelis don't have anything as capable
The Israelis don't have anything as capable
As capable as what? The S-400?
My understanding of the S-400 is that it is ONE of the best SAM systems on the planet... It's fast deployment, it's maneuverability, it's speed, it's ability to 'blockade' areas where no aircraft could enter without some serious back up and firepower...
Yet, Israel seems to do pretty well with their SAM systems also.... Equal to S-400? I, nor anyone else, right now, knows!
Suffice to say, if EITHER decided to deploy their 'BEST' SAM system AND use it.... The world has a really big issue!!!!
It most certainly does!
Is it 'pro-active protection' to randomly go bomb, that is NOT, attacking IN ANY WAY that country?
Isn't that called 'act of war'?
Someone should take Netanyahu out.
Of course the Russians have not threatened to engage Israeli aircraft entering Syrian airspace and have not even threatened to engage Israeli aircraft that strike weapons shipments to Hezbollah. Why do you make up such lies?Israel has not entered Syrian air space since the Russians threatened to engage aircraft in future incursions. The S-400 will give our EA-18Gs a difficult time. The Israelis don't have anything as capable.
It most certainly does!
Is it 'pro-active protection' to randomly go bomb, that is NOT, attacking IN ANY WAY that country?
Isn't that called 'act of war'?
Randomly? No, that is not pro-active protection. Deliberately, with a specific military target would be though.
And yes, it would be an act of war. The defending party would have to weigh carefully whether or not involve the third party.
It most certainly does!
Is it 'pro-active protection' to randomly go bomb, that is NOT, attacking IN ANY WAY that country?
Isn't that called 'act of war'?
Randomly? No, that is not pro-active protection. Deliberately, with a specific military target would be though.
And yes, it would be an act of war. The defending party would have to weigh carefully whether or not involve the third party.
So, Israel attacking locations in Syria is an act of war?
It most certainly does!
Is it 'pro-active protection' to randomly go bomb, that is NOT, attacking IN ANY WAY that country?
Isn't that called 'act of war'?
Randomly? No, that is not pro-active protection. Deliberately, with a specific military target would be though.
And yes, it would be an act of war. The defending party would have to weigh carefully whether or not involve the third party.
So, Israel attacking locations in Syria is an act of war?
Sure. Why wouldn't it be? Non-culpable homicide is still homicide.
The question is whether it's a permissible act of war in self defence.
It most certainly does!
Is it 'pro-active protection' to randomly go bomb, that is NOT, attacking IN ANY WAY that country?
Isn't that called 'act of war'?
Randomly? No, that is not pro-active protection. Deliberately, with a specific military target would be though.
And yes, it would be an act of war. The defending party would have to weigh carefully whether or not involve the third party.
So, Israel attacking locations in Syria is an act of war?
Sure. Why wouldn't it be? Non-culpable homicide is still homicide.
The question is whether it's a permissible act of war in self defence.
If there is a question whether this can be considered "self defence" then it ISN'T "self defence"!
A country has a right to pro-actively protect itself, of course.Why? The Israelis have the right to protect themselves. The Palestinians are not going to move west beyond the Bank. Won't happen. They will die if they try. They always have before now and ever will in the future.
Didn't know Syria was attacking Israel?
When did that happen?
Interesting point of consideration. Does a nation have to be directly at war with another nation in order to protect itself? If a nation is using a third party to hide, transport, smuggle weapons intended for use against it, does it not have the right to defend?
Hmmmm
Is the nation 'protecting itself' under attack?
Would you not consider F16's flying into Syria, who is not attacking Israel, an act of war against Syria?
"If a nation is using a third party to hide, transport, smuggle weapons intended for use against it"
You have proof of this?
Can you clarify this?
Isn't this what the sea blockade against Gaza is doing against Hamas? Hamas attacks Israel! Syria doesn't!
Israel disagrees, the US disagrees.That's what Hitler said. Seriously. It's a bunch of bullshit. I feel threatened, so I'm going to invade.A country has a right to pro-actively protect itself, of course.Why? The Israelis have the right to protect themselves. The Palestinians are not going to move west beyond the Bank. Won't happen. They will die if they try. They always have before now and ever will in the future.
Didn't know Syria was attacking Israel?
When did that happen?
Interesting point of consideration. Does a nation have to be directly at war with another nation in order to protect itself? If a nation is using a third party to hide, transport, smuggle weapons intended for use against it, does it not have the right to defend?
Hmmmm
Is the nation 'protecting itself' under attack?
Would you not consider F16's flying into Syria, who is not attacking Israel, an act of war against Syria?
"If a nation is using a third party to hide, transport, smuggle weapons intended for use against it"
You have proof of this?
Can you clarify this?
Isn't this what the sea blockade against Gaza is doing against Hamas? Hamas attacks Israel! Syria doesn't!
If there is a question whether this can be considered "self defence" then it ISN'T "self defence"!
Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent.[1]Preventive war undertaken without the approval of the United Nations is illegal under the modern framework of international law,
Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent.[1]Preventive war undertaken without the approval of the United Nations is illegal under the modern framework of international law,
Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent.[1]Preventive war undertaken without the approval of the United Nations is illegal under the modern framework of international law,
Anticipatory attacks, whether preemptive or preventative, are offensive strategies for the purpose of defense.
Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent.[1]Preventive war undertaken without the approval of the United Nations is illegal under the modern framework of international law,
