Syiran-Israeli tensions may rise over dead Israeli

[Ropey]

So you consider this a pro-Israeli statement?

Pro or Con.

When the Shia or Sunni start losing their fight with each other, they will attack Israel a la Saddam Hussein, et all (Arab/Shia).

Israel´s behavior - the foreign policy of the crude hammer - is the main cause of that hatred.

And so I consider your statement of the hatred of Israel, an anti-Israel statement since the responses to Israel's creation have been happening since its first creation.

So long ago.

While Israel's been around for this rebuild for a few short years while the Shia/Sunni fight has been going on for over a thousand years.

When there was no Israel.

But now it's Israel that is creating all this hate?

/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations

 

[Bleipriester]

Pro or Con.

When the Shia or Sunni start losing their fight with each other, they will attack Israel a la Saddam Hussein, et all (Arab/Shia).

Israel´s behavior - the foreign policy of the crude hammer - is the main autral statecause of that hatred.

And so I consider your statement of the hatred of Israel, an anti-Israel statement since the responses to Israel's creation have been happening since its first creation.

So long ago.

You are wrong then. It is a neutral statement. A government acting like an extremist group is laughable, giving highly developed weapons to such a government is an act of felonious irresponsibly.

 

[Ropey]

Israel´s behavior - the foreign policy of the crude hammer - is the main autral statecause of that hatred.

And so I consider your statement of the hatred of Israel, an anti-Israel statement since the responses to Israel's creation have been happening since its first creation.

So long ago.

You are wrong then. It is a neutral statement. A government acting like an extremist group is laughable, giving highly developed weapons to such a government is an act of felonious irresponsibly.

No, you used the term hatred to conflate a political movement with warring acts. That's not very neutral when one side is only virtual but their acts are physical.

imo

 

[Ropey]

The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse

The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse - Middle East - World - The Independent

What most of the crucibles of conflict in the Middle East have in common is that Sunni Muslims are on one side of the disagreement and Shia Muslims on the other. Oman is unusual because its Sunni and Shia residents are outnumbered by a third sect, the Ibadis, who constitute more than half the population. In many countries, the Sunni and the Shia are today head-to-head.

The rift between the two great Islamic denominations runs like a tectonic fault-line along what is known as the Shia Crescent, starting in Lebanon in the north and curving through Syria and Iraq to the Gulf and to Iran and further east.

Israel's current recreation has been around since 1948.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

 

[Bleipriester]

And so I consider your statement of the hatred of Israel, an anti-Israel statement since the responses to Israel's creation have been happening since its first creation.

So long ago.

You are wrong then. It is a neutral statement. A government acting like an extremist group is laughable, giving highly developed weapons to such a government is an act of felonious irresponsibly.

No, you used the term hatred to conflate a political movement with warring acts. That's not very neutral when one side is only virtual but their acts are physical.

imo

This virtual side is considered the 7th strong army of the world by the IDF.
Head of Israeli Army: Hezbollah Seventh Military Power in the World

Neither credible nor honest. Seeking for reasons to launch another war on Lebanon like in 2006 when Israel launched a war on Lebanon and Palestine two days after it got the acceptance as state it allegedly demanded as condition for talks about a two state solution?

And you cannot blame the virtual side for having not the adequate equipment to face the IDF on its level in my opinion.

 

[Ropey]

You are wrong then. It is a neutral statement. A government acting like an extremist group is laughable, giving highly developed weapons to such a government is an act of felonious irresponsibly.

No, you used the term hatred to conflate a political movement with warring acts. That's not very neutral when one side is only virtual but their acts are physical.

imo

This virtual side is considered the 7th strong army of the world by the IDF.
Head of Israeli Army: Hezbollah Seventh Military Power in the World

Neither credible nor honest. Seeking for reasons to launch another war on Lebanon like in 2006 when Israel launched a war on Lebanon and Palestine two days after it got the acceptance as state it allegedly demanded as condition for talks about a two state solution?

And you cannot blame the virtual side for having not the adequate equipment to face the IDF on its level in my opinion.

I'm not blaming anyone.

Those pushing Israel seem to forget that Israel got nukes.

So you consider this a pro-Israeli statement?

So, back to this again. Yes, because there is an Israel and it's not virtual.

The term virtual state is commonly used to refer to two different types of states in physical systems. It may refer to a very short-lived, unobservable quantum state or a real, but unstable, state. Early definitions of the term (for example, see [1]) appear to distinguish the virtual state from the "virtual quantum."

I go with either definition but it's the highlighted one that's clear.

As states go, it's not got much of go when the the place really lets go.

 

[Bleipriester]

So you consider this a pro-Israeli statement?

So, back to this again. Yes, because there is an Israel and it's not virtual.

Its meant to be a pro-Israeli statement but it isn´t.

 

[Ropey]

Those pushing Israel seem to forget that Israel got nukes.

So you consider this a pro-Israeli statement?

So, back to this again. Yes, because there is an Israel and it's not virtual.

Its meant to be a pro-Israeli statement but it isn´t.

It's a statement of fact.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bleipriester]

Those pushing Israel seem to forget that Israel got nukes.

So, back to this again. Yes, because there is an Israel and it's not virtual.

Its meant to be a pro-Israeli statement but it isn´t.

It's a statement of fact.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not why it isn´t a pro-Israeli statement.

 

[Ropey]

Those pushing Israel seem to forget that Israel got nukes.

Its meant to be a pro-Israeli statement but it isn´t.

It's a statement of fact.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not why it isn´t a pro-Israeli statement.

It's fact, not pro or con.

The responses by the Arabs don't take into account the unstable position of their Palestinian brethren.

 

[Bleipriester]

It's a statement of fact.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not why it isn´t a pro-Israeli statement.

It's fact, not pro or con.

Its not about that fact.

 

[Ropey]

This is not why it isn´t a pro-Israeli statement.

It's fact, not pro or con.

Its not about that fact.

That's the fact he was speaking about.

 

[Bleipriester]

It's fact, not pro or con.

Its not about that fact.

That's the fact he was speaking about.

Not really. He´s assuming Israel would use nuclear weapons in case of being attacked in very low scale.

 

[Ropey]

Its not about that fact.

That's the fact he was speaking about.

Not really. He´s assuming Israel would use nuclear weapons in case of being attacked in very low scale.

At really low scale, there's no reason to attack and no support of such a supposition in what he says, since Israel isn't worried about very low scale attacks as it will continue to respond to them when the wars aren't happening.

But if this leads to a full scale war (this part is supposition) which is what some Shia want to see happen (that part is fact) then it's going to move in that other direction.

 

[Bleipriester]

That's the fact he was speaking about.

Not really. He´s assuming Israel would use nuclear weapons in case of being attacked in very low scale.

At really low scale, there's no reason to attack and no support of such a supposition in what he says, since Israel isn't worried about very low scale attacks as it will continue to respond to them when the wars aren't happening.

But if this leads to a full scale war (this part is supposition) which is what some Shia want to see happen (that part is fact) then it's going to move in that other direction.

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

 

[Ropey]

Not really. He´s assuming Israel would use nuclear weapons in case of being attacked in very low scale.

At really low scale, there's no reason to attack and no support of such a supposition in what he says, since Israel isn't worried about very low scale attacks as it will continue to respond to them when the wars aren't happening.

But if this leads to a full scale war (this part is supposition) which is what some Shia want to see happen (that part is fact) then it's going to move in that other direction.

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

Yeah, right.

As long as Israel protects itself from the aforementioned and if they do, then it's hatred against who they protect themselves from? Keep in mind that they have no problem with trajectories and reverse tracking via sat, radar and a few other methods.

What Mehdi says to Mohammad is overheard by Moishe.


Incidents happen and they can escalate. Israel will protect itself.

 

[Bleipriester]

At really low scale, there's no reason to attack and no support of such a supposition in what he says, since Israel isn't worried about very low scale attacks as it will continue to respond to them when the wars aren't happening.

But if this leads to a full scale war (this part is supposition) which is what some Shia want to see happen (that part is fact) then it's going to move in that other direction.

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

Yeah, right.

As long as Israel protects itself from the aforementioned and if they do, then it's hatred against who they protect themselves from? Keep in mind that they have no problem with trajectories and reverse tracking via sat, radar and a few other methods.

What Mehdi says to Mohammad is overheard by Moishe.


Incidents happen and they can escalate. Israel will protect itself.

That isn´t protection. That´s pure aggression. Israel was not threatened. Probably, a Mossad weapon transport for terrorists was "thanked" by the terrorists giving Israel a pretext to weaken the SAA. Inexpressibly...

 

[Ropey]

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

Yeah, right.

As long as Israel protects itself from the aforementioned and if they do, then it's hatred against who they protect themselves from? Keep in mind that they have no problem with trajectories and reverse tracking via sat, radar and a few other methods.

What Mehdi says to Mohammad is overheard by Moishe.


Incidents happen and they can escalate. Israel will protect itself.

That isn´t protection. That´s pure aggression. Israel was not threatened. Probably, a Mossad weapon transport for terrorists was "thanked" by the terrorists giving Israel a pretext to weaken the SAA. Inexpressibly...

Yes, you're clear where your probably's are.

Not really. He´s assuming Israel would use nuclear weapons in case of being attacked in very low scale.

At really low scale, there's no reason to attack and no support of such a supposition in what he says, since Israel isn't worried about very low scale attacks as it will continue to respond to them when the wars aren't happening.

But if this leads to a full scale war (this part is supposition) which is what some Shia want to see happen (that part is fact) then it's going to move in that other direction.

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

Who shot first?

 

[Bleipriester]

Yeah, right.

As long as Israel protects itself from the aforementioned and if they do, then it's hatred against who they protect themselves from? Keep in mind that they have no problem with trajectories and reverse tracking via sat, radar and a few other methods.

What Mehdi says to Mohammad is overheard by Moishe.


Incidents happen and they can escalate. Israel will protect itself.

That isn´t protection. That´s pure aggression. Israel was not threatened. Probably, a Mossad weapon transport for terrorists was "thanked" by the terrorists giving Israel a pretext to weaken the SAA. Inexpressibly...

Yes, you're clear where your probably's are.

At really low scale, there's no reason to attack and no support of such a supposition in what he says, since Israel isn't worried about very low scale attacks as it will continue to respond to them when the wars aren't happening.

But if this leads to a full scale war (this part is supposition) which is what some Shia want to see happen (that part is fact) then it's going to move in that other direction.

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

Who shot first?

Official statements sometimes tend to differ from the truth.

 

[Ropey]

That isn´t protection. That´s pure aggression. Israel was not threatened. Probably, a Mossad weapon transport for terrorists was "thanked" by the terrorists giving Israel a pretext to weaken the SAA. Inexpressibly...

Yes, you're clear where your probably's are.

Look at the recent happenings this thread is about. Though Israel isn´t sure, who shot at the Israeli vehicle, Israeli jets, tanks and mortars fired into Syria, killing people. How to justify that?

As long as Israel acts like that, hatred will dominate the people´s feeling towards the country,

Who shot first?

Official statements sometimes tend to differ from the truth.

So, then your complaint is that the Israeli brought a gun to a knife fight?

The Israeli's do not believe in symmetrical warfare.

And if the Shia are involved, then they will fight to the last Arab Palestinian.