PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Israel Reportedly Bombing Near Damascus (With Video of Attack)


RINGLEADER
05-04-2013, 11:15 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f_j8ID-m1pU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
05-05-2013, 12:22 AM
As it turns out, Israel is more serious about red lines than the Obama administration is.

gochiefs_va
05-05-2013, 05:02 AM
didnt want that building anyway

Hog Farmer
05-05-2013, 05:36 AM
Israeli's are dumb. I was watching "container wars" last night and 3 Israelis outbid everone else and bought a container full of cardboard for $20,000

CUCUMBER
05-05-2013, 05:47 AM
WHY DOES THE MUSLIM WORLD HATE THE WEST? I R CONFUSED.


/typical american

Aries Walker
05-05-2013, 06:14 AM
As it turns out, Israel is more serious about red lines than the Obama administration is.
Yeah, who knew.

patteeu
05-05-2013, 10:04 AM
WHY DOES THE MUSLIM WORLD HATE THE WEST? I R CONFUSED.


/typical american

The muslim world hates the west because our women wear bikinis at the beach and shake their hips when they dance.

Donger
05-05-2013, 11:02 AM
Why are they saying Allahu Akbar?

Donger
05-05-2013, 11:03 AM
WHY DOES THE MUSLIM WORLD HATE THE WEST? I R CONFUSED.


/typical american

A few reasons, but support for Israel is one of them. Why do you ask?

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 11:04 AM
As it turns out, Israel is more serious about red lines than the Obama administration is.

You'll notice how there's zero international outcry about this, as there has been at other times when Israel has gone rogue.

Israel's not going rogue this time around. This strike was almost certainly done with international approval, up to and including the US. DOD and IDF are connected at the hip anyway, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if we were feeding the IDF information about bioweapons labs like we were feeding the French info when they were sorting out Mali.

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 11:09 AM
From a logistical standpoint, it honestly makes more sense for Israel to be involved at the frontlines of this, with us providing logistical support and arms support, and maybe chipping in on the efforts where necessary.

Obama's got nothing but a bunch of shit options as far as direct American involvement is concerned -- including doing nothing.

Enabling and empowering Israel to dismantle bioweapons labs is probably the most direct and sane method the US could pursue.

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 11:11 AM
Color me unimpressed, Assad. 100% of your military efforts are on defeating a ragtag band of diverse rebels who all hate each other.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3447/assad_to_declare_war_on_israel_following_fresh_airstrikes

Assad "to declare war" on Israel following fresh airstrikes
Reports suggest that Syria's embattled dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is shortly set to declare war on Israel after interventions against the regime
by The Commentator
on 5 May 2013 01:37

Following evidence of chemical warfare and an increasinly reticent US position, Israel has in recent days taken widely reported steps to neutralise threats emanating from within civil war-torn Syria.

While strikes from Lebanese airspace this weekend are not thought to have been on chemical weapons caches, the recent Israeli intelligence regarding the use of such weaponry is thought to have spurred on a round of strikes, including the latest just hours ago.

The Syrian state news agency SANA, citing initial reports, said early Sunday that Israeli missiles struck a military research center near the capital Damascus.

Syrian state television has reported that a major strike on an ammunition depot in Qassiyoun mountain shook Damascus, while Hezbollah's Al-Manar station claimed the explosion may have been a downed Israeli jet.

Rumours are surfacing online that following the latest volley of attacks on the Syrian regime, President Bashar al-Assad will soon officially declare war on Israel, with speculators pointing to 5am local time for official confirmation. This information continues to persist despite the technical state of war that currently exists between the two states.

Many however, have been quick to dismiss these reports as strictly rumour, with various commentators claiming that such a move would be sure to end Assad's reign of terror in Syria "within a week".

The news of an Israeli intervention in Syria has caught the Obama administration on the back foot, with the US president refusing to comment at length about the strike. Obama said, "The Israelis, justifiably, have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah."

The US president made no mention of supposed "red lines" being crossed, despite evidence of Syria's used of chemical weapons against rebel forces. Critics have hit out at Barack Obama in recent days for failing to put forward any coherent strategy to bring the violence in Syria to an end. The inaction, according to some, is another example of Obama's "lead from behind" strategy, the same tactic he employed during the intervention in Libya.

UPDATE 03:15am GMT: 5am local time in Syria has passed without comment from military authorities or the Assad regime. Speculation continues about the nature of the attack with some insisting that Israel's weaponry was "nuclear-like", that chemicals can be "smelt" in the air, and that the attack was co-ordinated by Israel with help from Syrian rebel forces.

UPDATE: 04:36am GMT: Sources suggest that Qassiyoun mountain was the home to many stationed Assad forces, with some projections claiming over 10,000 could have been stationed in and around the area.

UPDATE: Sunday morning: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to call a cabinet meeting for 3pm today to discuss the ongoing situation

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 11:16 AM
Come to think of it, there might be some shrewdness here at play. I don't know, just follow me here.

The goal of the international community is to dislodge Assad from power. Syria's people seem unable to do much more than draw a stalemate, and in the process suffer the deaths of 60,000+ Syrians, and draw chemical weapon fire from Assad.

So, open two fronts on him. Draw some of Assad's attention and efforts to Israel, where he has absolutely no chance of winning, and initiating some sort of threat against another country could incite international action, or at least direct American action.

At the same time, the international community continues to arm the rebels to grind down Assad's domestic forces.

Getting Assad in direct hot water with Israel can be a quickstrike solution. Arming the rebels is the slowburn solution. Maybe the idea is to get Assad out with both/either.

patteeu
05-05-2013, 12:21 PM
Maybe it's just Israel deciding that it can't allow advanced Iranian weaponry to be transferred to Hezbollah.

Donger
05-05-2013, 12:22 PM
Maybe it's just Israel deciding that it can't allow advanced Iranian weaponry to be transferred to Hezbollah.

LMAO

Way to ruin D's Clancy-esque plot detail.

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 12:25 PM
Maybe it's just Israel deciding that it can't allow advanced Iranian weaponry to be transferred to Hezbollah.

Maybe. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 12:38 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/297807-obama-backs-israeli-strike-in-syria

Obama backs Israeli strike in Syria
By Julian Pecquet
05/05/13 06:30 AM ET

President Obama defended Israel's right to bomb targets inside Syria following reports (north-africa/297775-report-israeli-strike-in-syria-was-aimed-at-missile-transfer) that the U.S. ally carried out a bombing run to prevent missile transfers to Islamist militants.

“I'll let the Israeli government … confirm or deny whatever strikes that they've taken,” Obama told Telemundo in an interview scheduled to run Sunday. “What I have said in the past and … I continue to believe is that the Israelis justifiably ... have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.”

His comments were made before reports of a second Israeli air strike in days on Syria.

According to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-blasts-idUSBRE94400020130505), Syria accused the Jewish state of again striking a military facility just north of the capital, a site that was also targeted three months ago.

The Israeli air force strikes cast a shadow over Obama's three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica following the administration's acknowledgment that Bashar Assad's appears to have used chemical weapons, crossing Obama's “red line.” The president reiterated in the interview that he has not taken any options off the table (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/297755-obama-wont-rule-out-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria) in terms of how to respond, even if sending U.S. troops to Syria isn't currently in the cards.

“With respect to the larger issue of Syria, as I said yesterday … I don't take any options off the table as commander in chief. Circumstances can change. You never know what contingencies you have to deal with,” Obama said, according to a Telemundo transcript. “But … what I do know is that … I cannot see a scenario right now in which American boots on the ground would make any sense. And I cannot see a scenario … in which actually the Syrian people would benefit from American boots on the ground. And that's confirmed by the conversations that I've had with … allies … and people who support the opposition in the region.”

Obama went on to say that his administration would continue to try to get Bashar Assad removed from power. He appeared to downplay the likelihood that his administration would arm vetted Syrian rebel groups, however, something officials have been saying could happen if the intelligence community confirms its assessment that Assad has used chemical weapons.

“What we are going to do,” Obama said, “is continue to provide humanitarian aide, provide [non-]lethal aide, work to ... help the opposition coordinate intelligent … efforts to end the bloodshed and get … Assad out of power so we can move to a peaceful transition.”

patteeu
05-05-2013, 12:43 PM
The president reiterated in the interview that he has not taken any options off the table (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/297755-obama-wont-rule-out-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria) in terms of how to respond, even if sending U.S. troops to Syria isn't currently in the cards.

“With respect to the larger issue of Syria, as I said yesterday … I don't take any options off the table as commander in chief. Circumstances can change.

Why should anyone care what Obama says? It's clearly just all talk anyway.

Direckshun
05-05-2013, 12:47 PM
Why should anyone care what Obama says? It's clearly just all talk anyway.

What would be your recommended course of action.

Tell Israel to stand down. Handle this one ourselves.

Donger
05-05-2013, 01:21 PM
As it turns out, Israel is more serious about red lines than the Obama administration is.

Haven't you heard? Obama actually wasn't supposed to say "red line" back in August. It was a mistake. Which leads to this question: if it was a mistake to use the idea of a red line with Syria, why is it not with Iran?

patteeu
05-05-2013, 01:32 PM
What would be your recommended course of action.

Tell Israel to stand down. Handle this one ourselves.

I'd start with making sure that when I say something, I'm prepared to back those words up with action.

patteeu
05-05-2013, 01:33 PM
Haven't you heard? Obama actually wasn't supposed to say "red line" back in August. It was a mistake. Which leads to this question: if it was a mistake to use the idea of a red line with Syria, why is it not with Iran?

Yeah, the guy is a keystone cop.

Donger
05-05-2013, 01:33 PM
I'd start with making sure that when I say something, I'm prepared to back those words up with action.

It's okay. I'm sure that the Iranians won't view this in a positive light.

LiveSteam
05-05-2013, 01:36 PM
Obamagate coming to a TV near you.

HonestChieffan
05-05-2013, 02:01 PM
What would be your recommended course of action.

Tell Israel to stand down. Handle this one ourselves.

Seems Israel has it in hand. Obama can't figure out Benghazi and give an answer to those issues, why the fuck would Bibi want Obama's help on this? Course of action is let the adults go to work and go give some more speeches and shit.

RINGLEADER
05-05-2013, 08:37 PM
Come to think of it, there might be some shrewdness here at play. I don't know, just follow me here.

The goal of the international community is to dislodge Assad from power. Syria's people seem unable to do much more than draw a stalemate, and in the process suffer the deaths of 60,000+ Syrians, and draw chemical weapon fire from Assad.

So, open two fronts on him. Draw some of Assad's attention and efforts to Israel, where he has absolutely no chance of winning, and initiating some sort of threat against another country could incite international action, or at least direct American action.

At the same time, the international community continues to arm the rebels to grind down Assad's domestic forces.

Getting Assad in direct hot water with Israel can be a quickstrike solution. Arming the rebels is the slowburn solution. Maybe the idea is to get Assad out with both/either.

I don't think it's any more complicated than the Israelis making sure that Iran, through its proxy Hezbollah, doesn't have the capability of firing real weapons at the Jewish state when it eventually attacks Iran. The small rockets aren't really a concern, but missiles with real guidance systems can't be pointed at them when Iran is taken out.

Of course, it doesn't hurt when you know a side effect of such an action will be to sow doubt and dissent. Just ask Rob Stark.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-05-2013, 09:18 PM
Bush Official: Syria Chemical Weapons Attack Could Be “Israeli False Flag Operation”

Posted on May 3, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
Hawks Desperate to Drum Up an Excuse for War

It is likely that Al Qaeda rebels – and not the Syrian government – carried out the chemical weapons attack which the hawks in Washington are trying to use as a reason to invade.

Haaretz reported on March 24th, “Jihadists, not Assad, apparently behind reported chemical attack in Syria“.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/jihadists-not-assad-apparently-behind-reported-chemical-attack-in-syria.premium-1.511680

The Syria Tribune(http://www.syria-tribune.com/e/index.php/by-syria-tribune/58-chem-weapons-in-syria) released a video in December allegedly showing Syrian rebels killing rabbits with chemical weapons, and threatening to use them against supporters of the Syrian government. (It is impossible at this point to say whether this is genuine or propaganda).

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson – the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell under President George W. Bush – said yesterday that the Syrian chemical weapons could be a “Israeli false flag operation”.

Wilkerson said that he had been told by his sources in the intelligence community that evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons was “really flaky” and that President Barack Obama should think twice before intervening.

“This could have been an Israeli false flag operation,” he said. “You’ve got basically a geo-strategically, geo-political — if you will — inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.”

Indeed, Neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria – and throughout the Middle East and North Africa – 20 years ago.

And carrying out acts of violence and blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change – i.e. false flag terror – was discussed over 50 years ago by British and American leaders.

And the “rebels” in Syria that the U.S. has been arming and otherwise supporting are Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorist,

But that doesn’t matter … war is sold just like toothpaste, and once there is a sufficient excuse for war – real or made up – we can march forward.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/bush-official-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-israeli-false-flag-operation.html