Who do you love: Israel or Syria

Haaratz wrote:Israel Downs Iranian Drone, Strikes Syria; Israeli F-16 Shot Down

One pilot in serious condition ■ Israel attacks Syrian, Iranian targets in fresh strike ■ Rocket sirens sound throughout northern Israel

Yaniv Kubovich, Jack Khoury, Noa Landau and Noa Shpigel | Feb 10, 2018

An Israeli F-16 was downed Saturday morning after Israel intercepted an Iranian drone launched from Syria into Israeli territory. According to the Israeli army, Syrian anti-aircraft missiles targeted the jet after Israel responded to the infiltration of the drone with a strike in Syria.

The two F-16 pilots ejected as the plane went down in northern Israel. The pilots were taken to the hospital in stable condition. One of the pilots is in serious condition. Following the downing of the jet Israel responded with a fresh "large-scale strike" in Syria.

The pro-Assad military alliance, which includes Iran and Hezbollah, warned Israel on Saturday that any new act of what it called "terrorism" will be met with a "severe and serious response." Russia called on sides to exercise restraint, adding that any threat to the safety of Russian servicemen are "unacceptable."

In response, the Israeli military struck targets in Syria. Manelis said the targets included the trailer from which "the Iranians launched the drone," adding that, "This was a surgical action deep in Syria, target destroyed."

Manelis confirmed that sirens were activated but said civilians were not in danger.

"This is a serious Iranian attack on Israeli territory," Manelis said "Iran is dragging the region into a situation in which it doesn't know how it will end. We are prepared for a variety of incidents...whoever is responsible for this incident is the one who will pay the price."

Rocket sirens sounded for a second time following the downing of the jet. Syrian state TV reported explosions in the Damascus area, calling them new "Israeli aggression."

Shortly afterwards, the Israeli military said it has carried out a fresh 'large-scale strike' against 12 Iranian and Syrian targets in Syria. The targets included four Syrian air-defense batteries and four Iranian targets, the military said.

Landings and departures were temporarily halted at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport, located near the central city of Tel Aviv.

An Israeli military spokesman said that Syria and Iran are "playing with fire" and will pay a heavy price. The Prime Minister Office has instructed cabinet ministers not to speak publicly about the events on the northern border.

Opposition sources in Damascus said that an Israeli strike targeted a control tower of a Syrian military airfield near Damascus, and a weapons depot near the Syrian capital.

According to official Israeli sources, since the incidents began Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been holding security consultations and approving the necessary actions in real-time. Members of the Israeli security cabinet have been briefed on the details.

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman will hold a special security assessment meeting shortly with the IDF chief of staff and senior army and security officials.

Syrian television claimed Saturday morning more than one Israeli aircraft was hit by Syria's defense systems.

Due to Syrian anti-aircraft fire, says the army, rocket sirens sounded in multiple areas of northern Israel, first in the northern Israeli town of Beit She’an and later in the surrounding areas and Golan Heights.

Israel is an ally of the US.  But Trump loves Russia, and Russia is fighting for Syria, and Iran is an ally of Russia.  This will be fun to watch.

Neither.

Don't forget the Turks are a member of NATO and have shot down Russians planes and have slaughtered our friends the Kurds.

We need to get the fuck out of that region and let them all go at it. Someday, like the Europeans did, they will chill the fuck out.

How is it fun to watch?

Iran has vowed to wipe out Israel from the map.

So has Hezbollah, Assad and Hamas, all funded by Iran

You have no comprehension have you what its like to face the possibility of extinction as a people, do you and even worse think its a joke.

War is certainly coming and sadly many will die, based off the hate of Iran, Hezbollah and hamas. All because they refuse to live alongside people, because they are Jews.

Maddog wrote:Neither.  

Don't forget the Turks are a member of NATO and have shot down Russians planes and have slaughtered our friends the Kurds.  

We need to get the fuck out of that region and let them all go at it.  Someday, like the Europeans did, they will chill the fuck out.  

So you think we should sit by and watch people pointlessly kill each other when we can do something about it?

They will not chill out whilst the world through the UN, is ruled by authortiatrian parties and that they are more interested in commerce that human rights

Didge wrote:War is certainly coming...

I thought of that immediately, too. I have always said that the middle east will come down to a war between Israel and Iran. Could this be the start?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Neither.  

Don't forget the Turks are a member of NATO and have shot down Russians planes and have slaughtered our friends the Kurds.  

We need to get the fuck out of that region and let them all go at it.  Someday, like the Europeans did, they will chill the fuck out.  

So you think we should sit by and watch people pointlessly kill each other when we can do something about it?

And your answer is, what? To kill them first? Seems equally pointless.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:War is certainly coming...

I thought of that immediately, too.  I have always said that the middle east will come down to a war between Israel and Iran.  Could this be the start?

Its already started when Obama, paid money to Iran and tried to appease them through a failed deal.
They have now gained control of both Iraq and Syria.
Israel will have to defend itself, when its attacked.
Many lives will be lost at the failings and appeasement of Obama.
He was one of the best Presidents domestically, but clueless on foreign policy

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you think we should sit by and watch people pointlessly kill each other when we can do something about it?

And your answer is, what?  To kill them first?  Seems equally pointless.

If necessary yes, its called a premptive strike, in order to save countless more lives.

It worked very well in 1967

How come the Israeli jet came down in Israel? A link would be good.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And your answer is, what?  To kill them first?  Seems equally pointless.

If necessary yes, its called a premptive strike, in order to save countless more lives.

It worked very well in 1967

How do you know it will work this time...with Russia on Iran's side?

Raggamuffin wrote:How come the Israeli jet came down in Israel? A link would be good. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-caused-serious-harm-to-syrias-air-defenses-says-iaf-second-in-command/

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

If necessary yes, its called a premptive strike, in order to save countless more lives.

It worked very well in 1967

How do you know it will work this time...with Russia on Iran's side?

It was Russia, that caused the 1967 war to happen in the first place

Do you not know about Russians serving with the Eygptians and Syrians in this and the 1972 war?

I thought you knew your history?

Raggamuffin wrote:How come the Israeli jet came down in Israel? A link would be good.

Read the article. It happened in northern Israel. Syrian missiles shot into Israel, after the Israeli jet downed the drone.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Neither.  

Don't forget the Turks are a member of NATO and have shot down Russians planes and have slaughtered our friends the Kurds.  

We need to get the fuck out of that region and let them all go at it.  Someday, like the Europeans did, they will chill the fuck out.  

So you think we should sit by and watch people pointlessly kill each other when we can do something about it?

They will not chill out whilst the world through the UN, is ruled by authortiatrian parties and that they are more interested in commerce that human rights

Our involvement is not helping. And I'm not willing to ask friends of my daughter's to lay down their life for people that don't care.

The UN is worthless. It's members are more worried about lining their pockets.

Switzerland has the right idea.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How come the Israeli jet came down in Israel? A link would be good. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-caused-serious-harm-to-syrias-air-defenses-says-iaf-second-in-command/

Thank you. I can't say I blame one side or the other. Of course Israeli planes are going to be shot down if they're intent on firing on Syrian targets.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How come the Israeli jet came down in Israel? A link would be good.

Read the article.  It happened in northern Israel.  Syrian missiles shot into Israel, after the Israeli jet downed the drone.

I did read it. It wasn't clear where the plane was when it was hit. Also, you didn't post a link.

Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez, Israeli journalists, associate fellows of the Truman Institute at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and authors of Foxbats over Dimona: The Soviet Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (2007), are back with another scholarly volume challenging the conventional wisdom regarding the role of the Soviet Union in the Middle East. In their previous volume Foxbats over Dimona, the Israeli scholars provoked considerable controversy by arguing that the Soviet Union orchestrated the 1967 Arab-Israeli War to curtail the emerging Israeli nuclear program. With their latest volume focusing upon the period between the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War, perhaps best characterized by the bloody War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt from 1967 to 1970, the authors again insist that the Soviets pursued a more aggressive military posture in the Middle East than has been acknowledged by historians of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The conventional scholarly opinion suggests that the Soviets exercised a degree of restraint upon their Arab clients such as Egypt, for an expanded conflict in the Middle East would endanger larger Soviet designs such as pursuing a policy of détente with the United States. Instead, Ginor and Remez maintain that a significant Soviet military presence encouraged their Arab allies to take an aggressive stance toward Israel. According to Ginor and Remez, Soviet leaders drew parallels between the June 1967 defeat of Arab armies backed by the USSR with the lack of preparation for the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet state by Nazi Germany. The authors conclude that this comparison by Soviet leaders “reflected an almost instinctive Soviet response to regroup and counterattack, as a linear continuation of the June war rather than a new and distinct chapter” (4). Thus, the War of Attrition was encouraged by active Soviet military involvement, while the much touted expulsion of Soviet military personnel from Egypt by President Anwar Sadat in July 1972 was a great deception engineered by the Soviets who remained in the Arab country and continued to exercise considerable control over military policy. The authors reach this controversial conclusion by rejecting traditional sources and relying upon the accounts of Soviet soldiers who fought in the Egyptian-Israeli conflict.

Ginor and Remez challenge what they term “the tyranny of vested-interest sources” such as newspaper accounts and memoirs upon which traditional scholars rely and misrepresent the Soviet influence within Egypt. For example, they argue that many prominent Western newspapers failed to maintain a consistent press presence in Cairo and thus failed to report upon the Soviet military actions in Egypt. Ginor and Remez also criticize scholars for their dependence upon what the authors identify as the self-serving and misleading memoirs of Henry Kissinger who served as Richard Nixon’s National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. The authors also question whether archival evidence will reveal the extent of Soviet military intervention as many essential American documents remain classified, while the early declassification of Soviet documents following the fall of the USSR has been replaced with renewed secrecy. And the authors further argue that major Soviet decisions were often determined by informal and undocumented meetings. This interrogation of traditional diplomatic history sources leads Ginor and Remez to rely upon Soviet veteran narratives, a primary source ignored by most historians.

Beginning with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which is often referred to as a disillusioning experience similar to that suffered by the United States in Vietnam, Soviet veterans and their families have demanded that their sacrifices be acknowledged by the Russian media and government. These veteran groups also extend to the Soviet military intervention in Egypt, lobbying for recognition of the significant role played by USSR military personnel in the conflict. Ginor and Remez assert that numerous organizations and websites have been established in Russia that document the experience of veterans who served in Egypt. The authors maintain that an extensive investigation of these veteran accounts, corroborated by interviews, offer ample proof that the Soviet military presence in Egypt was far larger than is generally acknowledged.

Ginor and Remez observe that with the return to autocracy in Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, there has been a renewed effort to censor the veteran narratives and enforce non-disclosure documents signed by former military personnel. In more recent years, therefore, Ginor and Remez confess that for their cultural historiography they have been forced to depend more on supposedly fictional accounts such as war novels composed by Soviet veterans, but they defend this approach by insisting that such “fiction” sources have been examined with great rigor to assure authenticity. While the methodology employed by Ginor and Remez is criticized by many established scholars of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the authors conclude that their work “has brought us a step closer to fuller and deeper comprehension of the long-past chapter in our own lives that we have relived vicariously through the eyes of our sources/protagonists” (xxxi).

The historiographical debate between the authors and their critics might appear to some readers as a rather pedantic academic discourse that has little relevance today beyond a small number of scholars. However, the expansionist foreign policy of Putin seeking to restore the status of Russia as one of the great powers after the demise of the Soviet Union makes the legacy of the Soviet Union in the Middle East a most relevant topic. Under Putin, Russia has annexed Crimea, intervened in the Ukraine, and threatened its neighbors, while propping up the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria and moving closer to Iran.

Ginor and Remez conclude The Soviet-Israeli War by writing, “How post-Soviet Russia, especially under Putin, moved to reclaim its standing as a Middle-Eastern power, by backing ‘traditional allies’ such as Syria and the Palestinians, fostering new ones (like Iran), mending fences with erstwhile clients like Egypt and-not least-by maximizing its nuisance value against US hegemony was the focus of our journalistic work for years, and merits yet another book. Suffice it for now to say that the sense of déjà vu is overpowering” (360). While scholars may quibble over whether Ginor and Remez sufficiently document their argument for the expanded role of the Soviet Union in Egyptian affairs, the contemporary ambitions of Putin and Russia in the Middle East are troubling and a cause of concern to which Ginor and Remez correctly draw our attention.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/166888


Many people harp on about the US getting involved when its the Commie Russians that often did

Raggamuffin wrote:I did read it. It wasn't clear where the plane was when it was hit.

This is the first paragraph:

An Israeli F-16 was downed Saturday morning after Israel intercepted an Iranian drone launched from Syria into Israeli territory. According to the Israeli army, Syrian anti-aircraft missiles targeted the jet after Israel responded to the infiltration of the drone with a strike in Syria.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-caused-serious-harm-to-syrias-air-defenses-says-iaf-second-in-command/

Thank you. I can't say I blame one side or the other. Of course Israeli planes are going to be shot down if they're intent on firing on Syrian targets.

Not over their own airspace, but they both cross zones and attack each other.

Of course Israel has targeted targets in Syria many times and actually saved lives targetting chemical facilities

But you wont read about that Rags, its not main media.

Israel before took out Saddams nuke facilities in a daring raid. At the time the world condemned them but secretly, including and more so Iran praised and thanked them. Israel did this again when Syria was attempting to build a Nuke bomb and took out their facility. The world has a lot to thank the Israeli's for.
I mean can you imagine Assad or Saddam with access to Nukes?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thank you. I can't say I blame one side or the other. Of course Israeli planes are going to be shot down if they're intent on firing on Syrian targets.

Not over their own airspace.

Of course Israel has targeted targets in Syria many times and actually saved lives targetting chemical facilities

But you wont read about that Rags, its not main media.

Israel before took out Saddams nuke facilities in a daring raid. At the time the world condemned them but secretly, including and more so Iran praised and thanked them. Israel did this again when Syria was attempting to build a Nuke bomb and took out their facility. The world has a lot to thank the Israeli's for.
I mean can you imagine Assad or Saddam with Nukes?

That's what wasn't clear in the article.

According to the Israeli army, Syrian anti-aircraft missiles targeted the jet after Israel responded to the infiltration of the drone with a strike in Syria.

It says that Israel responded with a strike in Syria, so was the jet in Syrian airspace at the time? If so, did it manage to get back to Israel before it went down?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Not over their own airspace.

Of course Israel has targeted targets in Syria many times and actually saved lives targetting chemical facilities

But you wont read about that Rags, its not main media.

Israel before took out Saddams nuke facilities in a daring raid. At the time the world condemned them but secretly, including and more so Iran praised and thanked them. Israel did this again when Syria was attempting to build a Nuke bomb and took out their facility. The world has a lot to thank the Israeli's for.
I mean can you imagine Assad or Saddam with Nukes?

That's what wasn't clear in the article.

According to the Israeli army, Syrian anti-aircraft missiles targeted the jet after Israel responded to the infiltration of the drone with a strike in Syria.

It says that Israel responded with a strike in Syria, so was the jet in Syrian airspace at the time? If so, did it manage to get back to Israel before it went down?

The key word here is infiltration?

That means it entered Israeli territory air space

I am not denying Israel enters their airspace, but it does so to take out weapons and chemical facilities

Its clear the Israeli Jet was in Israeli air space, hence it was targeted over Israeli airspace. As the Syrians were trying to protect their drone.

Hezbollah, is a partner to assad and Iran wants others to fight a war with Israel

Raggamuffin wrote:I did read it. It wasn't clear where the plane was when it was hit.

There were apparently two actions.  In retaliation for the incident involving the drown, Israel launched an attack on the drone site within Syria:

Haaratz wrote:In response, the Israeli military struck targets in Syria. Manelis said the targets included the trailer from which "the Iranians launched the drone," adding that, "This was a surgical action deep in Syria, target destroyed."

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


That's what wasn't clear in the article.



It says that Israel responded with a strike in Syria, so was the jet in Syrian airspace at the time? If so, did it manage to get back to Israel before it went down?

The key word here is infiltration?

That means it entered Israeli territory air space

I am not denying Israel enters their airspace, but it does so to take out weapons and chemical facilities

Its clear the Israeli Jet was in Israeli air space, hence it was targeted over Israeli airspace. As the Syrians were trying to protect their drone.

Hezbollah, is a partner to assad and Iran wants others to fight a war with Israel

The drone infiltrated Israel yes, but that doesn't tell us where the jet was when it was shot down. If it was shot down in Syrian airspace, that was in response to Israel attacking Syria. If it was shot in Israel, how did the Syrian anti-aircraft fire manage that? I don't think the Syrians were trying to protect their drone - that had already been disposed of by the Israelis. The jet was shot down after the Israelis responded.

In fact, the article you linked to pretty much says that the jet was shot down because it attacked Syria, which suggests that it was in Syrian airspace at the time.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I did read it. It wasn't clear where the plane was when it was hit.

There were apparently two actions.  In retaliation for the incident involving the drown, Israel launched an attack on the drone site within Syria:

Haaratz wrote:In response, the Israeli military struck targets in Syria. Manelis said the targets included the trailer from which "the Iranians launched the drone," adding that, "This was a surgical action deep in Syria, target destroyed."

Yes, which is why I asked where the jet was when it was shot down.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

The key word here is infiltration?

That means it entered Israeli territory air space

I am not denying Israel enters their airspace, but it does so to take out weapons and chemical facilities

Its clear the Israeli Jet was in Israeli air space, hence it was targeted over Israeli airspace. As the Syrians were trying to protect their drone.

Hezbollah, is a partner to assad and Iran wants others to fight a war with Israel

The drone infiltrated Israel yes, but that doesn't tell us where the jet was when it was shot down. If it was shot down in Syrian airspace, that was in response to Israel attacking Syria. If it was shot in Israel, how did the Syrian anti-aircraft fire manage that? I don't think the Syrians were trying to protect their drone - that had already been disposed of by the Israelis. The jet was shot down after the Israelis responded.

In fact, the article you linked to pretty much says that the jet was shot down because it attacked Syria, which suggests that it was in Syrian airspace at the time.

Well geography can be a major factor in telling this Rags
As what you have to show is whether it was on the border or not
It seems clear the jets were sent up to take out the drone and were targetted
So the Syrians certainly responded when the Israeli Jets were in the air
We know the aircraft was shot down over Israel
That is damning evidence to say, it was targeted over Israeli airspace. Otherwise we would be talking about two captive pilots

Regardless of what happened, the Syrians, even with the help of the Russians can't even control their own country. Israel has little to fear from these hapless idiots who are too busy bombing their own children.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There were apparently two actions.  In retaliation for the incident involving the drown, Israel launched an attack on the drone site within Syria:

Yes, which is why I asked where the jet was when it was shot down.

The entire first action took place over Israel. Then Israel retaliated with the second action.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The drone infiltrated Israel yes, but that doesn't tell us where the jet was when it was shot down. If it was shot down in Syrian airspace, that was in response to Israel attacking Syria. If it was shot in Israel, how did the Syrian anti-aircraft fire manage that? I don't think the Syrians were trying to protect their drone - that had already been disposed of by the Israelis. The jet was shot down after the Israelis responded.

In fact, the article you linked to pretty much says that the jet was shot down because it attacked Syria, which suggests that it was in Syrian airspace at the time.

Well geography can be a major factor in telling this Rags
As what you have to show is whether it was on the border or not
It seems clear the jets were sent up to take out the drone and were targetted
So the Syrians certainly responded when the Israeli Jets were in the air
We know the aircraft was shot down over Israel
That is damning evidence to say, it was targeted over Israeli airspace. Otherwise we would be talking about two captive pilots

I don't think the jet was shot down when it went up to deal with the drone. The drone was taken down by a helicopter near the Jordanian border. Then after that, Israel targeted Syria, and the jet was shot down.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, which is why I asked where the jet was when it was shot down.

The entire first action took place over Israel.  Then Israel retaliated with the second action.

Yes, but if Syria was responding to Israel retaliating with air strikes, I can't really blame them for shooting down an Israeli jet. They would see it as defending Syria.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you think we should sit by and watch people pointlessly kill each other when we can do something about it?

They will not chill out whilst the world through the UN, is ruled by authortiatrian parties and that they are more interested in commerce that human rights

Our involvement is not helping.  And I'm not willing to ask friends of my daughter's to lay down their life for people that don't care.  

The UN is worthless. It's members are more worried about lining their pockets.  

Switzerland has the right idea.  

Are you willing to lay down your life for people a hundred yards from you, if they are oppressed?

Why not a 1000 miles away?

You said to me, that you help the homeless in your community. Why is it you help your brothers and sisters when you perceive them to be geographically, based on a number of miles?

I agree the Un is worthless, but is every human life worthless?

So are you willing to give your life for someone else in your neighbourhood who's life is in peril?

If you are and not others, are you thus not also tribal mate?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Our involvement is not helping.  And I'm not willing to ask friends of my daughter's to lay down their life for people that don't care.  

The UN is worthless. It's members are more worried about lining their pockets.  

Switzerland has the right idea.  

Are you willing to lay down your life for people a hundred yards from you, if they are oppressed?

Why not a 1000 miles away?

You said to me, that you help the homeless in your community. Why is it you help your brothers and sisters when you perceive them to be geographically, based on a number of miles?

I agree the Un is worthless, but is every human life worthless?

So are you willing to give your life for someone else in your neighbourhood who's life is in peril?

If you are and not others, are you thus not also tribal mate?

It would depend if I thought the loss of my life would lead to something of benefit.

Men who died in France in 1944 helped liberate a country. Men who died in Iraq in 2006 died for nothing.

I see no value in dying for nothing.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are you willing to lay down your life for people a hundred yards from you, if they are oppressed?

Why not a 1000 miles away?

You said to me, that you help the homeless in your community. Why is it you help your brothers and sisters when you perceive them to be geographically, based on a number of miles?

I agree the Un is worthless, but is every human life worthless?

So are you willing to give your life for someone else in your neighbourhood who's life is in peril?

If you are and not others, are you thus not also tribal mate?

It would depend if I thought the loss of my life would lead to something of benefit.  

Men who died in France in 1944 helped liberate a country. Men who died in Iraq in 2006 died for nothing.  

I see no value in dying for nothing.  

But how on earth can you predict that?

Men in 2006 also helped maintain the liberation of Iraq. No matter whether you agree or not with the invasion of Iraq. Those people died to maintain its freedom. They never knew it would then become a playground and proxy war between Iran and Saudi. I mean can you imagine saying to an Iraqi family, that survived saddam. That the soldier that saved their life, died for nothing?

Saddam murdered half a million people. He caused the deaths of over a million people in the Iraniam war. You tell me, how they died for nothing liberating Iraq? Just because some religious idiots wish to use that place as a battleground, that now means any heroics they did means nothing?

Seriously?

Does that mean, when any French ressitance that betrayed the British, which many did. Means the sacrifice of allid soldiers on D-Day meant nothing?

Seriously?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It would depend if I thought the loss of my life would lead to something of benefit.  

Men who died in France in 1944 helped liberate a country. Men who died in Iraq in 2006 died for nothing.  

I see no value in dying for nothing.  

But how on earth can you predict that?

Men in 2006 also helped maintain the liberation of Iraq. No matter whether you agree or not with the invasion of Iraq. Those people died to maintain its freedom. They never knew it would then become a playground and proxy war between Iran and Saudi. I mean can you imagine saying to an Iraqi family, that survived saddam. That the soldier that saved their life, died for nothing?

Saddam murdered half a million people. He caused the deaths of over a million people in the Iraniam war. You tell me, how they died for nothing liberating Iraq? Just because some religious idiots wish to use that place as a battleground, that now means any heroics they did means nothing?

Seriously?

Does that mean, when some any French ressitance that betrayed the British, which many did. Means the sacrifice of D-Day meant nothing?

Seriously?

The Middle East is no better off now, then it was before our involvement.  They are sovereign countries with problems with their own citizens, and their neighbors. Our interference hasn't helped one little bit.  

BTW, have you planned your holiday in Libya now that that country has been straightened out?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

But how on earth can you predict that?

Men in 2006 also helped maintain the liberation of Iraq. No matter whether you agree or not with the invasion of Iraq. Those people died to maintain its freedom. They never knew it would then become a playground and proxy war between Iran and Saudi. I mean can you imagine saying to an Iraqi family, that survived saddam. That the soldier that saved their life, died for nothing?

Saddam murdered half a million people. He caused the deaths of over a million people in the Iraniam war. You tell me, how they died for nothing liberating Iraq? Just because some religious idiots wish to use that place as a battleground, that now means any heroics they did means nothing?

Seriously?

Does that mean, when some any French ressitance that betrayed the British, which many did. Means the sacrifice of D-Day meant nothing?

Seriously?

The Middle East is no better off now, then it was before our involvement.  They are sovereign countries with their own citizens, and their own neighbors. Our interference hasn't helped one little bit.  

BTW, have you planned your holiday in Libya now that that country has been straightened out?

Europe was at wars for over a thousand years.

Its taken that long for people to figure out how wrong and pointless it is to waste lives

Lets use your poor argument on everything else

Slavery was no better centuries before our involvement, yet it reached an end point where it ended in the west

That makes you a pessimist

Its time you saw past this bullshit of imaginary geography

The minute you argue not to help people suffering human rights and yet claim to stand for human rights. Says everything that is wrong with this world

Our interfernce, has stopped Nazism, slavery, Communism etc

Tell me how that interference was not worth it?

You think our involvement helps. I think it fuels the growth of radical Islam which is worse that the dictators we overthrow.

These people don't want us in their countries. They look at us as colonial powers sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.

If a Brit can't grasp this concept, no one can.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well geography can be a major factor in telling this Rags
As what you have to show is whether it was on the border or not
It seems clear the jets were sent up to take out the drone and were targetted
So the Syrians certainly responded when the Israeli Jets were in the air
We know the aircraft was shot down over Israel
That is damning evidence to say, it was targeted over Israeli airspace. Otherwise we would be talking about two captive pilots

I don't think the jet was shot down when it went up to deal with the drone. The drone was taken down by a helicopter near the Jordanian border. Then after that, Israel targeted Syria, and the jet was shot down.

Based on what evidence?

Maddog wrote:You think our involvement helps. I think it fuels the growth of radical Islam which is worse that the dictators we overthrow.  

These people don't want us in their countries. They look at us as colonial powers sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.  

If a Brit can't grasp this concept, no one can.  

So you want to appease people violent

Just like 1938 with the Munich agreement.

You dont want to say, " no, that is wrong"

"These people?"

I thought you, like me, did not look at all Muslims like this?

How then is it their country?

I mean your argument is to give a toddler having a a tantrum his own way

You Yanks are always so late in grasping a problem and even then never evene understand how to handle it.

So you do not want to take on the issue their is a belief so bad that makes people who have no other connection but one religion. Hope to ignore it.

How did that work out for Europe in the 1930's?

I can't see how interfering will help. Israel defended itself against a drone by attacking Syria, and Syria defended itself by firing at jets which were attacking Syria. Why would anyone interfere with that?

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't see how interfering will help. Israel defended itself against a drone by attacking Syria, and Syria defended itself by firing at jets which were attacking Syria. Why would anyone interfere with that?

How is attaciking an Israeli jet over Israel, thus Syria defending itself?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:You think our involvement helps. I think it fuels the growth of radical Islam which is worse that the dictators we overthrow.  

These people don't want us in their countries. They look at us as colonial powers sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.  

If a Brit can't grasp this concept, no one can.  

So you want to appease people violent

Just like 1938 with the Munich agreement.

You dont want to say, " no, that is wrong"

"These people?"

I thought you, like me, did not look at all Muslims like this?

How then is it their country?

I mean your argument is to give a toddler having a a tantrum his own way

You Yanks are always so late in grasping a problem and even then never evene understand how to handle it.

So you do not want to take on the issue their is a belief so bad that makes people who have no other connection but one religion. Hope to ignore it.

How did that work out for Europe in the 1930's?

Europe stopped when they looked around in 1945 and decided they had enough.

The Middle East will do the same one day. It won't be as a result of outside interference.

One more time. They hate us being there and our involvement is not helping matters.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't see how interfering will help. Israel defended itself against a drone by attacking Syria, and Syria defended itself by firing at jets which were attacking Syria. Why would anyone interfere with that?

How is attaciking an Israeli jet over Israel, thus Syria defending itself?

I don't think it's at all clear where the jet was fired at. In any case, the jet was there to attack Syria, it wasn't there as a tourist.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is attaciking an Israeli jet over Israel, thus Syria defending itself?

I don't think it's at all clear where the jet was fired at. In any case, the jet was there to attack Syria, it wasn't there as a tourist.

The jet came down over Israel

The jet was there to defend Israel and was attacked for defending Israel

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's at all clear where the jet was fired at. In any case, the jet was there to attack Syria, it wasn't there as a tourist.

The jet came down over Israel

The jet was there to defend Israel and was attacked for defending Israel

But the jet might have been hit in Syria.

One of Israel’s F-16 fighter jets crashed in northern Israel on its way back from the mission after coming under heavy Syrian antiaircraft fire, believed to be the first Israeli plane to be lost under enemy fire in decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/world/middleeast/israel-iran-syria.html

This suggests that it was hit in Syria but managed to make it as far as Northern Israel. The jet wasn't defending Israel, it was attacking Syria.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you want to appease people violent

Just like 1938 with the Munich agreement.

You dont want to say, " no, that is wrong"

"These people?"

I thought you, like me, did not look at all Muslims like this?

How then is it their country?

I mean your argument is to give a toddler having a a tantrum his own way

You Yanks are always so late in grasping a problem and even then never evene understand how to handle it.

So you do not want to take on the issue their is a belief so bad that makes people who have no other connection but one religion. Hope to ignore it.

How did that work out for Europe in the 1930's?

Europe stopped when they looked around in 1945 and decided they had enough.

The Middle East will do the same one day.  It won't be as a result of outside interference.  

One more time.  They hate us being there and our involvement is not helping matters.  

1) Sorry but that is just bollocks mate. The hate continued after 1945 or did you not even know that?
16 million Germans were ethically cleansed. Hundreds of thousands of jews, released from concentration camps were denied their own homes to come back to. Stalin ethnicaly cleaned Ukranians, Poles etc up until 1952. Sorry mate, but I could go on the list is endless how the racism that happened in WW2 continued way after

2) The only reason that the middle east has not done the same is they are like the losers of WW1 and not WW2. Germany and Japan were utterly defeated in the later. Have you seen them rise up since?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


The jet came down over Israel

The jet was there to defend Israel and was attacked for defending Israel

But the jet might have been hit in Syria.

One of Israel’s F-16 fighter jets crashed in northern Israel on its way back from the mission after coming under heavy Syrian antiaircraft fire, believed to be the first Israeli plane to be lost under enemy fire in decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/world/middleeast/israel-iran-syria.html

This suggests that it was hit in Syria but managed to make it as far as Northern Israel. The jet wasn't defending Israel, it was attacking Syria.

Might?

Evidence that it was?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But the jet might have been hit in Syria.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/world/middleeast/israel-iran-syria.html

This suggests that it was hit in Syria but managed to make it as far as Northern Israel. The jet wasn't defending Israel, it was attacking Syria.

Might?

Evidence that it was?

Where is your evidence that it wasn't? Where does Syria have anti-aircraft guns in Israel?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Might?

Evidence that it was?

Where is your evidence that it wasn't? Where does Syria have anti-aircraft guns in Israel?

Is the onus on me here?

The aircraft came down in Israel did it not?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Where is your evidence that it wasn't? Where does Syria have anti-aircraft guns in Israel?

Is the onus on me here?

The aircraft came down in Israel did it not?

That doesn't mean that it came under anti-aircraft fire in Israel though does it? Jets can still fly for a while after being hit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Is the onus on me here?

The aircraft came down in Israel did it not?

That doesn't mean that it came under anti-aircraft fire in Israel though does it? Jets can still fly for a while after being hit.

It cam down in israeli territory

There is no wonder woman or superman here

How far can you think they can fly when hit Rags?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That doesn't mean that it came under anti-aircraft fire in Israel though does it? Jets can still fly for a while after being hit.

It cam down in israeli territory

There is no wonder woman or superman here

How far can you think they can fly when hit Rags?

Where do you propose the Syrian air defences shot at the jet then? Do you think they have facilities in Israel or what?