Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

RichieC

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes, because the idea that the Jews desrve to have a homeland in the region is incredibly repulsive.

I havent seen anyone here say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

1947 borders or gtfo.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it is repulsive. The idea that one group of people can throw another group of people off their land by force

I'll expect to see you in front of the Russian embassy tomorrow then protesting for the return of Viipuri to the Finnish people :rolleyes:

gbee

Yahew wrote: »

None of this is true, there are no such laws in Ireland.

There is on Boards.ie I believe I've been banned previously ~ though maybe expressed a little differently.

I'd have expected Boards.ie to uphold national law.

Thank you.

RichieC

no holocaust denial is not illegal in Ireland, I think it's only holland and germany that it is, without looking it up.

Killer Pigeon

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The best solution (rather than direct attack) for Iran's enemies is too somehow kick start the
2010 green revolution again and/or encourage ethnic separatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protestsIran
Iran is essentially fake state (a Perisan union).

Yes, because partition has always been a great way to resolve conflicts...

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'll expect to see you in front of the Russian embassy tomorrow then protesting for the return of Viipuri to the Finnish people :rolleyes:

This is the type of vitriol you have to deal with from supporters of Israel. Even mention the well documented fact that they threw Palestinians off their land, and you get the scornful rolleyes smiley, along with some predictable red herring.

How about you accept criticism of Israel for once as being valid, instead of deflecting?

Killer Pigeon

I would support an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if and only if there is clear evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You can do the political waltzes until the cows come home, but when nukes are brought into the equation that's where the line should be drawn. If there is an arms race between Israel and Iran it would most likely end up in disaster. Stick now, or face even worse prospects down the road.

Jaafa

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I would support an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if and only if there is clear evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You can do the political waltzes until the cows come home, but when nukes are brought into the equation that's where the line should be drawn. If there is an arms race between Israel and Iran it would most likely end up in disaster. Stick now, or face even worse prospects down the road.

An airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities is now illegal. Once fuel has been loaded into them and they are up and running it becomes illegal under international law, due to the fallout in radiation that would be caused. Any military action against Iranian nuclear facilities will have no support at the UN.

Killer Pigeon

Jaafa wrote: »

An airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities is now illegal. Once fuel has been loaded into them and they are up and running it becomes illegal under international law, due to the fallout in radiation that would be caused. Any military action against Iranian nuclear facilities will have no support at the UN.

Ohh, it's illegal under international law, well I guess the UN would be very very angry and send a strongly worded letter. Ohh!!

Jaafa

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Ohh, it's illegal under international law, well I guess the UN would be very very angry and send a strongly worded letter. Ohh!!

It takes away from the justification at least a little, and makes it that much harder for them afterwards, because retaliation by Iran against the Israel military, cannot be condemned.

Border-Rat

gbee wrote: »

There is on Boards.ie I believe I've been banned previously ~ though maybe expressed a little differently.

I'd have expected Boards.ie to uphold national law.

Thank you.

Let me get this straight; Asking questions about the Holocaust is against the rules of this board?

Is that what you're saying?

SamHarris

nivekd wrote: »

US oil production peaked ca. 1971 as accurately predicted by Marion King Hubbert.

The first "Energy crisis" occurred in 1973 was the result of an oil embargo against the US by Arab Nations (OPEC)

"in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military"

The next energy crisis occurred in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was toppled in the revolution

US response was the Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region

Yes, the only interest US has in Iran is about oil and instead of talking through your ass, maybe go and educate yourself on the history of the region, then I don't have to address your retarded posts about Iran.

You're utterly clueless on this issue.

Never said oil was not an issue, your claim that it is the only issue is only supported by your own inability to grasp any level of complexity. Trust me, the Middle East, Israel and Iran/US relationship involves much more than just oil. To convince anyone with a basic grasp of religion, history and politics of anything else will take much more than the observation that there is oil there, and that it is important. Quiet clearly you are the one with little knowledge in international relations, reading a Guardian opinion piece once or twice a week makes you pretty far from an expert.

That someone would claim that the US has no interest in its national security with regard to an enemy state gaining a nuclear weapon is just stupid.

SamHarris

dlofnep wrote: »

Yawn.

Firstly - I never stated that there was no Jewish presence in Israel. I was making reference to a large portion of Israelis who believe that they are God's chosen people, and that this fictitious character known as God has given them the right to own it.

You stated it was merely on the word of a few goat farmers that Jews deem it their land. You claim it is merely a (false/unreliable) religious doctrine that makes some Jews the land is theirs. I pointed out how childish and facile that analsys is - it has deep roots in history, culture and (of course) relgion. Indeed the first Zionist movement was a nationalist, not religous one.

Again, merely pointing out that your attempt to belittle their claim to any tie to that land as only on the word of some goat herders is entirelly a-historical. Read a book.

dlofnep wrote: »

The only thing scary here is your lack of basic comprehension. Not once did I mention a 'race' being 'unworthy' of living anywhere. I stated that it was repulsive to throw a native people off their land by force, based on the words of a few goat-farmers that is was the Jews god-given right to rule Palestine.

*I* did. And then you stated "Yes it is repulsive." To me directly saying Jews have as much right to their nation i the region as the Palestinians do. Read back over it again. Maybe you should brush up on your own basic comprehension?

dlofnep wrote: »

So in summary - just before you misconstrue (on purpose) my points - I'll summarise my views.

1) It is wrong to remove Palestinians from Palestine by force.
2) It was wrong to create a state at the expense of the native population.
3) Under the pending 2-state solution, it is wrong for Israel to create any settlements in the West Bank region.
4) I am more than happy to see the state of Israel secure, and prosperous - so long as it is based on the 67 lines. Anything beyond that, is not acceptable - not only by me, but by the entire United Nations.

Now if you can muster up the courage to actually engage in a reasoned discussion, I'll be happy to do that.

I said the same thing with regard to 1. You did not mention anything about 3 or 4. With regard to 2, Palestinians are not the indeginous people of the region, they are one of the many people to have made the place their home in the last 10 000 years. It is probably impossible to tell who was "their first", though what is historical fact is there were Jewish kingdoms there thousands of years before the Arab conquests. Palestinians took their name from the region, not vica versa (it comes from the Roman province name Philsitine, which was given to the region to insult Jews who considered them their ancient enemy. The Phislistines were Hellenic and came from Anatolia, completly other direction and very different ethnic and cultural makeup than moderen Palestinians.) That you do not even know these basic facts about the history of the region goes along way to explain your reductionist attitude to the complications there...

Not that it matters to me who is indeginous, it is enough that millions of people consider it there home, that their distant ancestors did not share the same view does not make their feeling ons the subject any less real.

Both have the population and national identity to "qualify" for a state of their own.

Regardless none of this would change Israels right to be extremly worried about an Iranian nuclear weapons program. From any reasonable perspective, given the regions history, culture and polticial makeup an arms race involving nuclear weapons is a disaster. That some people cant see past "oh ho, they are showing them damn Yanks/ Zionists!" is very sad.

I note that people often cite the UN as being opposed to Israeli settlements as (rightly) giving their argument more legitimacy in that regard. However, when the same UN imposes sanctions on Iran, raises questions about its nuclear program it is disregarded as not having any weight. Typical cherry picking from the political fringes.

SamHarris

Border-Rat wrote: »

Let me get this straight; Asking questions about the Holocaust is against the rules of this board?

Is that what you're saying?

Probably more of those "well placed Jews" you were talking about earlier.

If you have legitiamte historical grievances, backed by evidence then start a thread in the history forum. Im sure you will understand if people here think that (god forbid) you are disguising a borderline anti-semetic rant aimed at discrediting a state you dislike as legitimate historical skepticism.

Border-Rat

SamHarris wrote: »

Probably more of those "well placed Jews" you were talking about earlier.

What is? And could you please link to where I discussed "well placed Jews"?

If you have legitiamte historical grievances, backed by evidence then start a thread in the history forum. Im sure you will understand if people here think that (god forbid) you are disguising a borderline anti-semetic rant aimed at discrediting a state you dislike as legitimate historical skepticism.

A person said earlier he was banned for questioning the Holocaust. Some clarification would be nice. I'm still wondering, is questioning the Holocaust against the rules of the board.

SamHarris

Border-Rat wrote: »

What is? And could you please link to where I discussed "well placed Jews"?



A person said earlier he was banned for questioning the Holocaust. Some clarification would be nice. I'm still wondering, is questioning the Holocaust against the rules of the board.

Holy crap I cant find it. Was so sure you said earlier "well placed jews in the White House" very sorry if I read it somewhere else and attributed it to you. Brain fart ¬.¬

I think it has alot to do with context, if the guy was banned because there was a discussion about Israel and he seeked to delegitmise it by claiming "The jews"/ Zionists exaggerated the carnage or allowed it to happen to gain sympathy then I have no doubt he was banned for a creepy, racially charged anti semetic remark. If he had genuine question/ grievances with the holocause and opened a thread to have a reasoned discussion about it in the appropriate forum then I doubt that he was.

Manic Moran

Jaafa wrote: »

An airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities is now illegal. Once fuel has been loaded into them and they are up and running it becomes illegal under international law, due to the fallout in radiation that would be caused. Any military action against Iranian nuclear facilities will have no support at the UN.

Didn't stop them having a crack at that Syrian facility a couple of years ago. Or the Iraqi one a couple of decades ago. Say what you like about the Israelis, they can always be expected to act in what they perceive to be their own best interest and don't much care about what other people think of them. To that end, they are quite predictable and stable.

NTM

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by Killer Pigeon
I would support an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if and only if there is clear evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You can do the political waltzes until the cows come home, but when nukes are brought into the equation that's where the line should be drawn. If there is an arms race between Israel and Iran it would most likely end up in disaster. Stick now, or face even worse prospects down the road.

So Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons and other countries in the region such as Iran are not? Why has Israel got nuclear weapons (which it denies) other than as a deterrent, so Iran could use the same justification. Israel is as much a rogue state as Iran in many ways.

Jaafa wrote: »

An airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities is now illegal. Once fuel has been loaded into them and they are up and running it becomes illegal under international law, due to the fallout in radiation that would be caused. Any military action against Iranian nuclear facilities will have no support at the UN.

When has Israel worried about the law or the UN? It acts as it sees fit and does as it wants unfortunately.

Alopex

Manic Moran wrote: »

Didn't stop them having a crack at that Syrian facility a couple of years ago. Or the Iraqi one a couple of decades ago. Say what you like about the Israelis, they can always be expected to act in what they perceive to be their own best interest and don't much care about what other people think of them. To that end, they are quite predictable and stable.

NTM

Predictable yes but I think stable is an inappropriate term given the context of your post

Jaafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Didn't stop them having a crack at that Syrian facility a couple of years ago. Or the Iraqi one a couple of decades ago. Say what you like about the Israelis, they can always be expected to act in what they perceive to be their own best interest and don't much care about what other people think of them. To that end, they are quite predictable and stable.

NTM

I don't believe the Syrian facility was fully operational.

halkar

Manic Moran wrote: »

Didn't stop them having a crack at that Syrian facility a couple of years ago. Or the Iraqi one a couple of decades ago. Say what you like about the Israelis, they can always be expected to act in what they perceive to be their own best interest and don't much care about what other people think of them. To that end, they are quite predictable and stable.

NTM

Iran is not Syria nor Iraq. I don't think they will stand still and let Israelis bomb their facilities. Iranian rockets will not be like firecrackers coming from Gaza.

BlaasForRafa

halkar wrote: »

Iran is not Syria nor Iraq. I don't think they will stand still and let Israelis bomb their facilities. Iranian rockets will not be like firecrackers coming from Gaza.

Israel has better rockets, this is something that the Ayatollahs will need to remember, plus there will probably be a submarine with cruise missiles somewhere a bit closer to Iran.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

This is the type of vitriol you have to deal with from supporters of Israel. Even mention the well documented fact that they threw Palestinians off their land, and you get the scornful rolleyes smiley, along with some predictable red herring.

How about you accept criticism of Israel for once as being valid, instead of deflecting?

I wouldn't accept any criticisms made by a Sinn Fein/IRA supporter.

The Outside Agency

BlaasForRafa wrote:

Israel has better rockets....

I hope they have enough...

BlaasForRafa wrote:

I wouldn't accept any criticisms made by a Sinn Fein/IRA supporter.

You walked into that one.

The Outside Agency

SamHarris wrote: »

Never said oil was not an issue, your claim that it is the only issue is only supported by your own inability to grasp any level of complexity. Trust me, the Middle East, Israel and Iran/US relationship involves much more than just oil. To convince anyone with a basic grasp of religion, history and politics of anything else will take much more than the observation that there is oil there, and that it is important. Quiet clearly you are the one with little knowledge in international relations, reading a Guardian opinion piece once or twice a week makes you pretty far from an expert.

That someone would claim that the US has no interest in its national security with regard to an enemy state gaining a nuclear weapon is just stupid.

Israel will NEVER attack Iran unless it has the support of the US Which..by the way it DOES NOT HAVE at the moment.

I know you can't understand that but Israel is not a priority of US anymore, energy is.

Jaafa

nivekd wrote: »

I hope they have enough...



You walked into that one.

Indeed, according to a threat assessment in 2010 by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Iran's inventory of ballistic missiles had grown to be the largest in the Middle East.

nacho libre

nivekd wrote: »

Israel will NEVER attack Iran unless it has the support of the US Which..by the way it DOES NOT HAVE at the moment.

I know you can't understand that but Israel is not a priority of US anymore, energy is.

With the IAEA report due out next week that may change, while the IAEA report doesn't make definitive conclusions, Israeli politicians and their friends in the west will portray the report as irrefutable evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Therefore increasing pressure on Obama to sanction an Israeli strike.

BlaasForRafa

Jaafa wrote: »

Indeed, according to a threat assessment in 2010 by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Iran's inventory of ballistic missiles had grown to be the largest in the Middle East.

Its just as well that Israel is the world leader in anti-missile technology, I don't believe Iran has anything of that nature.

nacho libre

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its just as well that Israel is the world leader in anti-missile technology, I don't believe Iran has anything of that nature.

Yes.
As you suggest, Israel in a conventional war is more of a threat to Iran than the other way around. If Hezbollah and Israel went to war again, Hezbollah's array of rockets would prove ineffective against the Israeli iron dome and arrow 2 and 3 system.

Border-Rat

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its just as well that Israel is the world leader in anti-missile technology,

According to who?

I don't believe Iran has anything of that nature.

They don't really need it.

Killer Pigeon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

So Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons and other countries in the region such as Iran are not? Why has Israel got nuclear weapons (which it denies) other than as a deterrent, so Iran could use the same justification. Israel is as much a rogue state as Iran in many ways.

If Israel didn't have nukes or some other massive military deterrent, then they wouldn't exist today ... simple. They are surrounded by hard-line Muslim states who would gladly like to see them wiped off the face of the map, you really can't blame Israel for a lot of their actions. Personally, I'd rather see Israel exist, why? Well, it's better than the alternative; a backward Sharia law ruled state.

Overheal

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Mr.Micro wrote: »

So Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons and other countries in the region such as Iran are not? Why has Israel got nuclear weapons (which it denies) other than as a deterrent, so Iran could use the same justification. Israel is as much a rogue state as Iran in many ways.

If Israel didn't have nukes or some other massive military deterrent, then they wouldn't exist today ... simple. They are surrounded by hard-line Muslim states who would gladly like to see them wiped off the face of the map, you really can't blame Israel for a lot of their actions. Personally, I'd rather see Israel exist, why? Well, it's better than the alternative; a backward Sharia law ruled state.

I question the validity of that statement. Israel already once went to war with its neighbors - all at the same time- and expanded in doing so. I don't see what's changed that would make the Arab neighbors think they could wipe out Israel. They'd more likely to get their own asses pushed in

Jaafa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its just as well that Israel is the world leader in anti-missile technology, I don't believe Iran has anything of that nature.

Israels rockets are far more accurate, but Iran has lot more of them and their accuracy is sufficient, considering if Iran got desperate they'd probably just target cities. Iran is 164000 sq km, Israel is 20,000. This is where having more rockets proves beneficial.

Yes.
As you suggest, Israel in a conventional war is more of a threat to Iran than the other way around. If Hezbollah and Israel went to war again, Hezbollah's array of rockets would prove ineffective against the Israeli iron dome and arrow 2 and 3 system.

The Iron dome system is not a very viable in another 2006 style war. A single missile costs 40,000 dollars. A katusha rocket costs roughly 600 depending on size. The iron dome is easily overwhelmed, an incident occurred on august 20 2011, where 7 rockets where fired from gaza with 5 being intercepted and 2 getting through and killing a man. 200,000 dollars v 4800 dollars.

Now take into account that Hezbollah fired 4000 rockets during 2006, that's 160 million dollars spent and still 1200 rockets would get through. And I could easily imagine a scenario whereby they would fire the cheap rockets first to be intercepted and then the more powerful ones would follow. And factor in the fact that Hizbollah has far more rockets now than before the war and things get very costly for Israel.

Now who is being ineffective?

Overheal

The question is who in the UN is going to be supportive of Iran or of Palestine for launching thousands of rockets and missiles at Israel?

Jaafa

Overheal wrote: »

The question is who in the UN is going to be supportive of Iran or of Palestine for launching thousands of rockets and missiles at Israel?

Depends what you mean by UN.
Majority of members will support Iran if Israel strikes first.
Europe will be officially neutral will still really supporting Israel.

Russia and china will support Iran and of course the US will change its mind about Israel being a useful ally after it starts another war....lol jk.

FreudianSlippers

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16101552



the world is going mad :eek:

have any other news sources confirmed this?

Just what the doctor ordered for our economic woes, World War 3. No one is going to sit back and allow Israel to do this, Russia and Europe will pitch a fit and I don't think America is in the mood to be dragged into another conflict even as a silent partner.

I don't know, the announced pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan is very telling. Perhaps the US realises they are going to need a bigger war and a fresh cause to rally the domestic economy.

Or else I'm just too cynical.

BlaasForRafa

Border-Rat wrote: »

According to who?

The facts.

BlaasForRafa

Jaafa wrote: »

The Iron dome system is not a very viable in another 2006 style war. A single missile costs 40,000 dollars. A katusha rocket costs roughly 600 depending on size. The iron dome is easily overwhelmed, an incident occurred on august 20 2011, where 7 rockets where fired from gaza with 5 being intercepted and 2 getting through and killing a man. 200,000 dollars v 4800 dollars.

Now take into account that Hezbollah fired 4000 rockets during 2006, that's 160 million dollars spent and still 1200 rockets would get through. And I could easily imagine a scenario whereby they would fire the cheap rockets first to be intercepted and then the more powerful ones would follow. And factor in the fact that Hizbollah has far more rockets now than before the war and things get very costly for Israel.

Now who is being ineffective?

Iron Dome is not fully implemented yet and is progressively being deployed. Plus, it is only used to protect populatated areas and considering the lack of accuracy or qassam and grad rockets its not necessary to intercept all of them.

In addition, the IDF stated earlier this year that if hezbollah start attacking Israel that they will devastate southern lebanon, you notice how quiet hezbollah are despite their syrian "allies" prodding them to create trouble so as to take the focus away from the protests inside Syria.

Killer Pigeon

Overheal wrote: »

I question the validity of that statement. Israel's neighbours went to war with Israel - all at the same time - Israel expanded in doing so.

FYP.

Overheal wrote: »

I don't see what's changed that would make the Arab neighbors think they could wipe out Israel. They'd more likely to get their own asses pushed in

Israel's nuclear programme is believed to have begun in and around the Six Day War in 1967. The world (bar some of Israel's dwindling allies) only found out that Israel had a nuclear weapons programme in 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu leaked information about it to press.

If Israel had obtained nuclear weapons before 1967, and it subsequently became known to the rest of the world before that time, I doubt that the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War would have happened at all. The Arabs would have thought twice about taking up arms against Israel.

Of course, as you rightly suggest, Israelis had the ability to defend themselves (just about) during the Six Day war. But their conventional show of force then did not prevent the Yom Kippur war years later.

The only way the stop any further military action was to introduce nuclear weapons into the equation. Ironically, nuclear weapons can, and have, been used to maintain peace.

In the case of Iran, however, I am unsure if this is the case. If they are developing nuclear weapons, it would only bolster an arms race in the Middle East, which would end up in disaster. Also, it would help sustain the present Iranian regime.

Border-Rat

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The facts.

Give us a source. What 'facts' are these? Would these 'facts' be, say, the failure of Israel to shoot down SCUD's in 1991, a system nowhere near as advanced as Irans missiles. Or how about their inability to shoot down home-made projectiles?

Blah, blah, blah. Israel got whooped in 2006 by a mere proxy force of Irans. I somehow doubt they want a piece of the real thing. I love technological blow-hards when it comes to US and Israeli terrorists.

Mr.Micro

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In the case of Iran, however, I am unsure if this is the case. If they are developing nuclear weapons, it would only bolster an arms race in the Middle East, which would end up in disaster. Also, it would help sustain the present Iranian regime.

Does Israel think that it can just attack its neighbours forever more, if they appear to be getting militarily stronger, or develop nuclear weapons? At some stage in the future such a policy will backfire. The Yanks took out Iraq for it, and now with Syria having its internal bloodfest, and several other Arab countries, leaves only Iran as a threat. What is so special about Israel that it can possibly be allowed to wipe out Iran, or whoever if it develops nuclear weapons? How can radiation be contained in the region that could affect millions, if Israel does attack and bites off more than it can chew?


The world may be sick of Iran and its warmongering/posturing/anti human rights and anti Israel stance, just as much as it is sick of what Israel does involving the rest of the world in its war and strife programme, but turn a blind eye to its atrocities and denial of human rights to the Palestinians. Israel needs to get real as does Iran. The former wants the whole region to itself and the latter does not want the other to exist. One bad the other worse.

Jaafa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Iron Dome is not fully implemented yet and is progressively being deployed. Plus, it is only used to protect populatated areas and considering the lack of accuracy or qassam and grad rockets its not necessary to intercept all of them.

In addition, the IDF stated earlier this year that if hezbollah start attacking Israel that they will devastate southern lebanon, you notice how quiet hezbollah are despite their syrian "allies" prodding them to create trouble so as to take the focus away from the protests inside Syria.

The point still stands, cities are big places, even the most inaccurate missiles in Hezbollah's arsenal most will hit a city size area. Again they'll fire these cheap ones first, iron dome will intercept, the more accurate ones will then hit. And even if it is fully implemented and manages to intercept most missiles, the issue of cost comes up again.

By Israels own estimates they believe Hezbollah could fire as many as 25000 rockets in the war. 25000 x 40000 dollars = 1 billion dollars. They entire cost of the last war was 1.6 billion. And now they would have to spend 1 billion on just this system? When the majority of Israeli casualties came from ground combat?

Israel already devastated south Lebanon in 2006, Hezbollah payed for repairs to civilian buildings, and its support went up across the nation. It is not afraid of another war. Its not supporting Syrian because it knows whats going in Syria is wrong.

Believe me Israel is not looking forward to another war in Lebanon.

Overheal

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

FYP.

Well yes, in the 6 day war they were not the aggressor, but Im just saying they were involved

davoxx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces.

ah pre-emptive, it's a great excuse ... for certain countries ...

Border-Rat

Yes, apparently there is one law for the Israeli/UK/USA Axis, and another for the rest of humanity. :rolleyes:

wes

Border-Rat wrote: »

Yes, apparently there is one law for the Israeli/UK/USA Axis, and another for the rest of humanity. :rolleyes:

Seems to me that facts don't apply when it comes to Israel..........

Its amazing that some people will state the lie that it was the Arab states who attacked first in the 6 day war, and expect to have any kind of credibility is beyond me.

hangon

wes wrote: »

Seems to me that facts don't apply when it comes to Israel..........
Its amazing that some people will state the lie that it was the Arab states who attacked first in the 6 day war, and expect to have any kind of credibility is beyond me.

Naughty wes, You know Syria Jordan and Egypt were about to invade Israel
(Sadat admitted it)
that does not excuse Israels 'State terrorism' ever since they 'won' though.

wes

hangon wrote: »

Naughty wes, You know Syria Jordan and Egypt were about to invade Israel
(Sadat admitted it)

They were? Really?

What about this:

Rethinking Israel’s David-and-Goliath past

Sorry, but basic facts are being ignored. Israel's version of events are hardly the only version, and the fact remains they attacked first.....

Also, another article here:

Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’

Here are some choice quotes:

Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Sorry, but the facts don't back up the assertion that Israel was engaged in a pre-emptive war at all, but rather engage in a war of there own choosing. What we see with the 6 day war is a lie that has been repeated again and again, until people just accept it at face value.

Also, both side at the time (and to this day), have been talking all kind of crap, but as they say the devil is in the details, when a closer look is taken, the Israeli narrative being peddled doesn't stand up very well.

hangon

Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser continued to refuse to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[102] In 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since 1957, and announced a partial blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea.

In May 1967 a number of Arab states began to mobilize their forces.

[103] Israel saw these actions as a casus belli. On 5 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. In a Six-Day War, Israeli military superiority was clearly demonstrated against their more numerous Arab foes. Israel succeeded in capturing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.[104] Jerusalem's boundaries were enlarged, incorporating East Jerusalem, and the 1949 Green Line became the administrative boundary between Israel and the occupied territories.
In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Following the war, Israel faced much internal resistance from the Arab Palestinians. Most important among the various Arab groups was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), established in 1964, which initially committed itself to "armed struggle as the only way to liberate the homeland".[105][106] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks[107][108] against Israel and Jewish targets around the world,[109] including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.
On 6 October 1973, as Jews were observing Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel. The war ended on 26 October with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering significant losses.[110] An internal inquiry exonerated the government of responsibility for failures before and during the war, but public anger forced Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign.[111]


not to Me but to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

davoxx

hangon wrote: »

On 5 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. In a Six-Day War, Israeli military superiority was clearly demonstrated against their more numerous Arab foes.

hangon wrote: »

On 6 October 1973, as Jews were observing Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel.

so what you are saying is that they also pre-emptively attacked for 1973 as well in 1967? what crystal ball do they use?