Who is the Aggressor

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I didn't.

I notice that you made no mention of the 300,000 Palestinian refugees and the hundreds of destroyed Palestinian villages there were before the start of the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

I wonder how many of those would still exist if they Palestinians and Arabs had chosen a different path than that of violence.

I had already address the "right of return" and equity earlier. I didn't think I needed to rehash it. Since that wasn't one of the questions posed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

The words "VILLAGE" and 'NATION" (sometimes 'country')
are being thrown around undefined Tinmore seems to see them
all as entities determined at the time of crreation. A kind of
immutable map of the world drawn up on the sixth day. Muslims
I have known have told me that ISLAM as an ideology---rejects the
concept of NATIONS----other than the UMMAH which is actually
arabic for 'nation' but conotes the world's collection of MUSLIMS
as a single entity. Not all that weird. I have ancestors from europe---
and have no idea from what "country" most originated----other than
the fact that some had something to do with the austrian hapsburg empire.
I do know a few names of villages Language does not help---they spoke
yiddish. Jews also tended to seem themselves as a single national entity---
at least in the past. -----also true of jews in "arab" countries.

That being the case----any discussion of the pre 1948 middle east
in which an attempt is made to discuss "palestine" as a country
and arabs living in that area as a "NATION" is truly idiotic
according to the age old perspective OF BOTH PARTIES ----ie
jews and muslims. At that time----arabs who lived in palestine
considered themselves of the UMMAH and actually self described
as "arabs" not "palestinians" ----the jews who lived in palestine
did self describe as "palestinans" but that designation is simply
something like X vs Diaspora. That is they were a part of
the jewish "nation"-----not living in "exile" The word for exile
is GALUT in hebrew-------jews are a nation either living in '
Palestine/israel/judea-----or the part of the nation in "galut" << exile.
Muslims are part of the world-wide UMMAH

I am addressing this issue because it is very germane to the
discussion of the DISPUTE between jews and muslims in the
middle east------in fact in the world. Attempts to describe
palestine as an ARAB MUSLIM COUNTRY INVADED BY
EUROPEAN JEWS is a construct so artificial to concepts
amongst both jews and muslims during the entire existence of each---
that ---THE CONSTRUCT ITSELF IS ENTIRELY A CHRISTIAN
EUROPEAN IMPOSITION. Anyone who wants to complain
about COLONIALISM------that construct is a manifestation of
EUROPEAN (foreign) COLONIALISM

All discussions of relationships between jews and muslims
in the middle east------are silly if european constructs which
assume the immutable status of the world map since the
6th day of creation are FOISTED on jews and muslims.
No discussion makes sense unless jews and muslims
are perceived as jews and muslims have perceived
themselves thruout the existence of each. That is two
separate nations which both developed in the Middle
East and have been in conflict since 629 AD.

The model is similar for jews and christians---two
separate nations-----in conflict since CONSTANTINE
and the first reich. That conflict beginning in
europe ----but also involving asia and the americas
with migration. Generally speaking----that conflict is
either ending ---fairly inactive

 

[patrickcaturday]

Let's see if we can bring this thread back on track. I would like to make a couple of points and then I will be happy to read any responses,

First of all, the weapon systems that were in the convoy were supposedly SA 17. This system has absolutely no offensive capability and as such is not a threat to either Israeli Civillians ( sp ) or Israeli Territorial integrity. The purpose of the system is purely defensive in that it was suppose to secure the sovereign airspace of Lebanon by denying over flight capability to anyone who did not have permission. Therefore the only people that it threatened were the pilots of the IAF who breached Lebanese Air Space.

Second please answer this question. Do you think that Israel has the right to defend it's airspace or should it be open to any country that wishes to overfly it ... say Egypt...or Jordan ....or Turkey.... What about Iran ???

 

[jtpr312]

This is really a pretty simple matter. Even a blind person can see it. While I deplore the actions that have taken place in Syria that still is no reason for Israel to take the military action that it has. If Lebanon or Syria responds to the blatant act of war by Israel then I hope that the world, including the U.S., would support that action. I don't like using this sort of language but recent events force my hand, Israel is acting like a rogue nation which has no respect for the normal relationships that are how nations are suppose to treat each other. Nations have sovereignty over their own air space and Israel constantly violates that, it is like they are thumbing their nose at the community of nations.

I was going to respond to this unitelligent babble, then I saw your little MLKjr sig line. Try reading it it fits your situation perfectly.

 

[patrickcaturday]

This is really a pretty simple matter. Even a blind person can see it. While I deplore the actions that have taken place in Syria that still is no reason for Israel to take the military action that it has. If Lebanon or Syria responds to the blatant act of war by Israel then I hope that the world, including the U.S., would support that action. I don't like using this sort of language but recent events force my hand, Israel is acting like a rogue nation which has no respect for the normal relationships that are how nations are suppose to treat each other. Nations have sovereignty over their own air space and Israel constantly violates that, it is like they are thumbing their nose at the community of nations.

I was going to respond to this unitelligent babble, then I saw your little MLKjr sig line. Try reading it it fits your situation perfectly.

More innanities from a person who is not willing to deal with the merits of my arguments.

Earlier post by me;

Let's see if we can bring this thread back on track. I would like to make a couple of points and then I will be happy to read any responses,

First of all, the weapon systems that were in the convoy were supposedly SA 17. This system has absolutely no offensive capability and as such is not a threat to either Israeli Civillians ( sp ) or Israeli Territorial integrity. The purpose of the system is purely defensive in that it was suppose to secure the sovereign airspace of Lebanon by denying over flight capability to anyone who did not have permission. Therefore the only people that it threatened were the pilots of the IAF who breached Lebanese Air Space.

Second please answer this question. Do you think that Israel has the right to defend it's airspace or should it be open to any country that wishes to overfly it ... say Egypt...or Jordan ....or Turkey.... What about Iran ???

 

[RoccoR]

patrickcaturday, et al,

Yes, let's do.

First of all, the weapon systems that were in the convoy were supposedly SA 17.

(COMMENT)

So, there is no argument. The convoy was an Iranian military logistics line to feed Hezbollah, an organization known to use violence, deadly force, and other hostile activities to achieve the overthrow of Israeli sovereignty.

This system has absolutely no offensive capability and as such is not a threat to either Israeli Civillians ( sp ) or Israeli Territorial integrity. The purpose of the system is purely defensive in that it was suppose to secure the sovereign airspace of Lebanon by denying over flight capability to anyone who did not have permission. Therefore the only people that it threatened were the pilots of the IAF who breached Lebanese Air Space.

(COMMENT)

Who (with even just few functioning gray cells) is going to believe that: "purely defensive in that it was suppose to secure the sovereign airspace."

It is the history of Arab Army Tactics that such weapons systems are used to provide cover for offensive ground operations. This is not some simple shoulder fired weapon.

Using the 9M317M (or the 9M317A variant), this is a mach 3(+) system with a range of 50km(+); able to reach targets over Haifa, Nazareth, and Tibenas in Israel from launch positions 10km inside Lebanon. It may be a considered air defense, but the concept of operations is to provide an umbrella for hostile ground operations.

This is very similar to what the Egyptian Army deployed to provide ADA coverage for the advance of the Third Army in the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Second please answer this question. Do you think that Israel has the right to defend it's airspace or should it be open to any country that wishes to overfly it ... say Egypt...or Jordan ....or Turkey.... What about Iran ???

(COMMENT)

Yes! All countries are allowed to protect their airspace.

Having said that, each country is allowed to protect their airspace from hostile air interdiction by countries known to support terrorism and have a history of deploying ADA in advance of a hostile invasion. Both Lebanon and Syria have such a history of previous invasions.

The deployment of such advanced weapons system might be considered a prelude to war (intelligence indicator), as having demonstrated this as part of an established pattern of hostile intent.

I hope this was helpful.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I didn't.

I notice that you made no mention of the 300,000 Palestinian refugees and the hundreds of destroyed Palestinian villages there were before the start of the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

I wonder how many of those would still exist if they Palestinians and Arabs had chosen a different path than that of violence.

I had already address the "right of return" and equity earlier. I didn't think I needed to rehash it. Since that wasn't one of the questions posed.

Most Respectfully,
R

What different path would you suggest? They were under attack be foreign Zionists.

Should they all have just left their country leaving flowers and candy on their pillows?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Domestic feuds between land owners is not a "war;" unless you make it such. In the mid-1830's, the States of Ohio and Michigan had a border dispute which was known as the Toledo War. There was even a period of "Occupation" by Michigan of (what was later to become) Ohio Territory. The militia's of both states where activated, there was the Battle of Phillips Corner, there was Presidential intervention, and claims before the Supreme Court. The Toledo War ended with the Frostbitten Convention of 1836. And in 1973, two years after my return from Vietnam, the US Supreme Court finalized the last of the claims; having something to do with the Great Lakes boundary. Today, the two states still celebrate the War with a ferocious rivalry in the annual Ohio State 'v' Michigan football game. (The Ohio State University is my Alma Mater!)

Ohio State vs Michigan: The game has featured some of the most closely contested games of any rivalry in the country. When Michigan and Ohio State play, the winner typically goes on to win a Big 10 championship. Losing consistently in the rivalry -- even amid overall success -- can get a coach fired. Former Buckeyes head coach John Cooper can attest to that fact. Cooper was shown the door after going 2-10-1 against the Wolverines.
SOURCE: Top 25 Greatest College Football Rivalries - Yahoo! Sports

Yes, I didn't.

I notice that you made no mention of the 300,000 Palestinian refugees and the hundreds of destroyed Palestinian villages there were before the start of the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

I wonder how many of those would still exist if they Palestinians and Arabs had chosen a different path than that of violence.

I had already address the "right of return" and equity earlier. I didn't think I needed to rehash it. Since that wasn't one of the questions posed.

What different path would you suggest? They were under attack be foreign Zionists.

Should they all have just left their country leaving flowers and candy on their pillows?

(COMMENT)

Foreign Zionist 'v' Palestinians

There was never any war until 1948. And no matter what is said, everyone pretty much realizes that the 5 Arab Armies had the intention of dismantling the Jewish State. Prior to that, there may have been some disputes, much like the Wyoming Range War, but there was no amphibious landings and mechanized troops coming ashore. There was no Utah Beach. And as you're so fond of pointing out, the Israelis were outnumbered at least by 2-to-1.

There should have never been a war. It should have gone to court, or the Arab Palestinians should have accepted the offer.

There did not have to be a 1948 conflict initiated by the Arab Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Domestic feuds between land owners is not a "war;" unless you make it such. In the mid-1830's, the States of Ohio and Michigan had a border dispute which was known as the Toledo War. There was even a period of "Occupation" by Michigan of (what was later to become) Ohio Territory. The militia's of both states where activated, there was the Battle of Phillips Corner, there was Presidential intervention, and claims before the Supreme Court. The Toledo War ended with the Frostbitten Convention of 1836. And in 1973, two years after my return from Vietnam, the US Supreme Court finalized the last of the claims; having something to do with the Great Lakes boundary. Today, the two states still celebrate the War with a ferocious rivalry in the annual Ohio State 'v' Michigan football game. (The Ohio State University is my Alma Mater!)

Ohio State vs Michigan: The game has featured some of the most closely contested games of any rivalry in the country. When Michigan and Ohio State play, the winner typically goes on to win a Big 10 championship. Losing consistently in the rivalry -- even amid overall success -- can get a coach fired. Former Buckeyes head coach John Cooper can attest to that fact. Cooper was shown the door after going 2-10-1 against the Wolverines.
SOURCE: Top 25 Greatest College Football Rivalries - Yahoo! Sports

Yes, I didn't.


(COMMENT)

I wonder how many of those would still exist if they Palestinians and Arabs had chosen a different path than that of violence.

I had already address the "right of return" and equity earlier. I didn't think I needed to rehash it. Since that wasn't one of the questions posed.

What different path would you suggest? They were under attack be foreign Zionists.

Should they all have just left their country leaving flowers and candy on their pillows?

(COMMENT)

Foreign Zionist 'v' Palestinians

There was never any war until 1948. And no matter what is said, everyone pretty much realizes that the 5 Arab Armies had the intention of dismantling the Jewish State. Prior to that, there may have been some disputes, much like the Wyoming Range War, but there was no amphibious landings and mechanized troops coming ashore. There was no Utah Beach. And as you're so fond of pointing out, the Israelis were outnumbered at least by 2-to-1.

There should have never been a war. It should have gone to court, or the Arab Palestinians should have accepted the offer.

There did not have to be a 1948 conflict initiated by the Arab Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was never any war until 1948.

Technically that is correct. Under the British occupation (officially called the mandate) the Zionists were allowed, and even assisted, in creating a military. At the same timer the Palestinians were systematically disarmed. Palestinian leaders were imprisoned, exiled, and sometimes killed.

By December of 1947 Israel had a military and began conscripting settlers into service. The Palestinians had virtually nothing. Israel began marching its troops across Palestine driving the civilians out of their homes.

I notice that you made no mention of the 300,000 Palestinian refugees and the hundreds of destroyed Palestinian villages there were before the start of the 1948 war.

Indeed, you cannot say that was a war.

 

[MHunterB]

I'd like to see the documentation of the Brits disarming the Arabs and assisting the Jews ca '46-'47.

 

[Jos]

If Syria really had SA 17s, to give away would they not have used some of them against the attacking israeli 'planes?

 

[RoccoR]

Jos, et al,

Yes...

If Syria really had SA 17s, to give away would they not have used some of them against the attacking israeli 'planes?

(COMMENT)

The presumption is that they were weapons (of an unknown type and quantity) coming from the Iranian government via the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force; traveling via Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'd like to see the documentation of the Brits disarming the Arabs and assisting the Jews ca '46-'47.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7dMhE80dw]Alnakba English P1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is really a pretty simple matter. Even a blind person can see it. While I deplore the actions that have taken place in Syria that still is no reason for Israel to take the military action that it has. If Lebanon or Syria responds to the blatant act of war by Israel then I hope that the world, including the U.S., would support that action. I don't like using this sort of language but recent events force my hand, Israel is acting like a rogue nation which has no respect for the normal relationships that are how nations are suppose to treat each other. Nations have sovereignty over their own air space and Israel constantly violates that, it is like they are thumbing their nose at the community of nations.

Don't you have a Swastika to polish, or something?

 

[MHunterB]

I was seeking contemporary (ca '48) records or news articles, Tinny.

 

[jtpr312]

I was going to respond to this unitelligent babble, then I saw your little MLKjr sig line. Try reading it it fits your situation perfectly.

More innanities from a person who is not willing to deal with the merits of my arguments.

Earlier post by me;

Let's see if we can bring this thread back on track. I would like to make a couple of points and then I will be happy to read any responses,

First of all, the weapon systems that were in the convoy were supposedly SA 17. This system has absolutely no offensive capability and as such is not a threat to either Israeli Civillians ( sp ) or Israeli Territorial integrity. The purpose of the system is purely defensive in that it was suppose to secure the sovereign airspace of Lebanon by denying over flight capability to anyone who did not have permission. Therefore the only people that it threatened were the pilots of the IAF who breached Lebanese Air Space.

Second please answer this question. Do you think that Israel has the right to defend it's airspace or should it be open to any country that wishes to overfly it ... say Egypt...or Jordan ....or Turkey.... What about Iran ???

I'm not going to debate the ills of the Middle East with you or anyone else here. I've been there, I've seen first hand the filth and evil of the arab muslim. You don't negogiate with a rabid dog, you put it down and Israel is a nation surrounded by rabid dogs. NOTHING they do in an attempt to defend themselves, their nation and their families from these rabid dogs, up to an including launching nuclear weapons against them, is too much in my opinion. Nothing short of the complete eradication of islam will ever bring even a small modicum of peace to the Middle East. As long as islam lives and thrives, the civilized world is threatened.

 

[Jos]

So, there is no argument. The convoy was an Iranian military logistics line to feed Hezbollah, an organization known to use violence, deadly force, and other hostile activities to achieve the overthrow of Israeli sovereignty.

A diplomatic source interviewed by the newspaper said that the attack took place 48 hours before it was first reported. He said that initial reports regarding a convoy that was attacked were meant to disguise the true target of the attack

F-16s 'Fired Bunker-Buster, 8 Missiles' - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News