• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123
robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:I have a question, is iraq more or less a haven or breeding ground for terrorists?

I see no reason to believe Al Qaeda and Saddam aren't enemies. Ive seen no evidence what so ever to suggest there is a connection between the two, and it seems highly unlikely saddam would ally himself with Al Qaeda. Amongst the list of Al Qaedas enemies are socialist non-secular arab governments, Much like pre-invasion iraq had established with saddam as dictator. Saddam was ruthless enough that I doubt terrorists would choose iraq as a haven. There are much better nations in in the middle east, I think if terrorists were there, it was probably to oppose saddam.

Now in todays iraq we have no government, and the only authority is a bunch of soldiers who many of which don't want to be there. They are more concerned with protecting themselves then policeing the nation hunting for terrorists. And frankly the place is in way to much chaos to investigate anything. Many iraqi's want saddam back, and many more don't want him back but are willing to kill or die trying to get rid of americas presence. The youth of iraq are the most dangerous. They are pissed off and have impressionable minds. Many of them were orphaned in the invasion, and Al Qaeda vultures are preying on them trying to recruit them as terrorists everyday. I don't think they would have this opportunity before we invaded. I think we have created a haven and a breeding ground for terrorists. Who's going to stop the Al Qaeda from recruting? the soldiers who are to scared to leave their bases because everytime they are ordered out they got bombed and shot at?



Delete Topic

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:oh so they have this absolute proof in a basement and they didn't present it why? How is knowing that he used them proof he has them? They aren't reusable, I doubt they have any idea how much he actually deployed in the kurdish/iran war. Do you think they had spys in the kurdish villages occupied by iranians counting each bomb as it fell off the aircrafts wings?

One fact your also neglecting is all the biological agents that were sold to him have a shelf life which has expired long ago, he had a doctor trying to figure out how to reproduce the material or prolong it's life but from the information gahtered from her she failed.

So, he has mustard gas basicly, and perhaps something a bit more potent. Chemical weapons were stopped being used in ww1 because they aren't very effective, it had nothing to do with morality. Really, you can kill more people with a u-haul truck filled with ball bearings and TNT.

should we go invade switzerland? they manufacture both ball bearings and TNT.



Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Robotface, please dont take that so literally. It was sarcasim, nothing more.
I am noticing a very synical vibe from some people, as if they just like to complaine about what is happening and dont really care about any of the outcomes. As if no matter what happens it will either be too much or not enough and sometimes both at the same time. Well it is just a vibe.


Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:shrug, ive seen the "they have evidence they wont show us in a fileroom" arguement to many times to assume it's sarcasm.

And to answer your question, the war will never be justified at this point by finding WMD. Maybe if they went about it in a manner that wasn't completly FUBAR I would think it was justified, but it's caused more danger for everyone involved then safety the way it was carried out. That being US citizens, US soldiers, Iraqi citizens, the arab world and european citezens.


Delete

Dentrassi
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane

Total posts: 3044
Posted:offtopic briefly.....

Quote:
Robotface, please dont take that so literally. It was sarcasim, nothing more.



which is something you have to think about when communicating to people in completely different parts of the world in text form. sarcasm relies heavily on voice tone, and as soon as the character of a voice is removed, it is difficult to tell whether someone is being sarcastic or serious.
personally, i insert a biggrin wink or [sarcasm....] after a sarcastic comment like that so noone gets confused.

Quote:
I am noticing a very synical vibe from some people, as if they just like to complaine about what is happening and dont really care about any of the outcomes. As if no matter what happens it will either be too much or not enough and sometimes both at the same time. Well it is just a vibe



well the only vibe that i see clear is that most people think you are wrong. but hey! everyone is entitled to their view here. i think everyone here is very focussed on the outcomes, but perhaps just have a different perception of where the current situation will lead those outcomes.

cheers. hug


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Quote:
Ohh a good question, purly hypothetical, tomorrow they find a cash of WMDs, how many WMDs would it take for you (being anyone) to consider the war justified?



I'd say that a cache of even 20 serviceable warheads that look like they were carefully hidden would be sufficient to convince me that Saddam was hiding them.

Today one warhead went off and sprayed some sarin around. It was detonated by terrorists. It's not known whether it was one of 20 or so very old (decades) warheads previously discovered by a UN inspector, or some warhead that was carelessly overlooked in the destruction process. But clearly not a usable warhead that Saddam could have been able to utilize.

However, the argument that we should never stop looking for the WMD's just because you can't believe that the most thorough search cannot uncover them after an entire YEAR (and Bush has been trying pretty darned hard) is just plain...illogic.

This search is costing me, as a taxpayer, huge amounts of money. Except...no it's not because Bush is running the government into debt!


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:I have a feeling they had no idea what the warhead contained. Using a single warhead in the way it's not designed to be used causing limited distribution of sarin, and not strikeing a major target seems like a poor way to introduce the presence of atleast some chemical weapons in iraq, giving the americans motivation to stay longer opposed to get the hell out.

I don't think any organized insurgent effort would think of using chemical weapons of they had access to them, so either the guys are random yahoo's acting independently, or they thought it was a 400 pound bomb containing cordite and were mistaken. The way they deployed it, a conventional warhead probably would have done more damage.anyways.


Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Dentrassi, you are right sarcasim does get a lot of aid from voice tone, I will try to adjust what I say so that it is clearly understood by all.

Lightning, it isnt costing you much at all really. Maybe a dime more out of your monthly pay check. You could probably find your extra taxes in the cushions of your couch.

Robotface, do you really think anyone who might be willing to strap a bomb to their chest and run into a market place really cares about the yeild or what a warhead contains. All they know and all the hope for is for people to die, get injured or pissed off and strike at the US and others for not protecting them from their own crazed people.


Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:Robotface, do you really think anyone who might be willing to strap a bomb to their chest and run into a market place really cares about the yeild or what a warhead contains. All they know and all the hope for is for people to die, get injured or pissed off and strike at the US and others for not protecting them from their own crazed people.

Well, if you want to be so brain lazy you look at it in that light... I really have nothing to say.


Delete

Dentrassi
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane

Total posts: 3044
Posted:Quote:

Robotface, do you really think anyone who might be willing to strap a bomb to their chest and run into a market place really cares about the yeild or what a warhead contains. All they know and all the hope for is for people to die, get injured or pissed off and strike at the US and others for not protecting them from their own crazed people.



mate, all that statement shows is that you simply do not understand how arabic & muslim culture is different from our own western culture. at face value, sure its horrific - but morality, right, wrong, and 'crazed' are relative measures, not absolutes - and are defined differently by the context and society that the repurcussions of the acts affect. applying a purely western based US viewpoint to the situation is precisely what the bush administration did with the entire iraq & afganistan operations, and why there is resentment to the US forces - even before the prison abuse photos were released.

all i can suggest is to read about the subject, not just getting your info from CNN. its amazing how your perceptions change when you look at things from another angle.

cheers mate,
biggrin


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:So, a perfectly saine person goes out and tries to kill a large number of people? I mean if this is what you think then thats all well and good, but I would question your sanity as well.

It isnt a debate about Muslims or Arabs, in fact it doesn't matter what nationality or religion anyone is, a scenario like I wrote can and has existed for quite a few people groups and religions. The VC did similer, the Japanesse as well.


I view that anyone who is willing to either A strap a bomb on their chest or B blow up a chemical or dirty bomb on or around their own people are crazed/crazy/insaine/stupid/misled/brainwashed... take your pick. A sound minded/saine person just doesnt doe t hings like that.


The Muslim religion isn't one of violence. Perhaps someone else should be doing some studying. It wasn't the western societies who tried to make this into a holy war, this was invoked by the leaders of the terrorist organisations to try to rally people to their cause. Not only does it go against everything the Muslim religion stands for, but it goes against the very nature of people.

If the Western societies had responded the way that the terrorists like to make out that they did, they would be blowing up mosques. Calling in for an air strike when snipers hide in a mosque and start shooting at soldiers and inadvertantly the crowds around them.


In my book topic I reccomended a book called "Peace Kills" It is by P.J. O'Rourke. Read it, it brings some very interesting insight to the Arab world as well as a whole heap of other things. Dont worry, it isnt as right wing as it sounds. It isnt anti arab either it is one journalists thoughts about studying a people group in their own culture. Not gross assumptions, actual first hand experiances and honestly I have yet to read of a negitive experiance he has sufford. I'm not done with the book and it is dedicated to a dead journalist, so I might still come across one or two.


Delete

Nephtys


Nephtys

resident fridge magnet
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Total posts: 835
Posted:Ummmmm.....
If Iraq had had WMD, wouldn't they have used them against US troops?
Saddam Hussein doesn't seem to have ever been too scrupulous or worried about the consequences of this kind of action in the past (as various people here have pointed out). He was well aware that nothing he could say or do once the decision to invade had been taken could have stopped it, he was desperate & had nothing left to lose: if he had had the means to do the US serious damage surely he would have used them?



everyone's unique except me

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:The US has a nuclear arsinal and other WMDs that are so vast that they scare this poo into the diapers of the guys who created them... doesnt mean that we use them at the onset of every military action we get involved with.

Maybe he wasnt desperate enough, who knows, maybe he burried them and couldnt get to them. That is a very relivent question, just as hard to answer as, if he didnt have any why did he not want the inspectors to view certain places and eventually kick them out?


Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:I figure he didn't use him (assumeing he had them) because he knew the US response would be to withdraw it's ground forces and concentrate on an aerial/artillery strike which he has quite a bit less damage control over, as a power hungry ethically bankrupt [censored] as I think he is, I don't think he wants to see his country bombed into the ground just because he had an opportunity to get a few more casulties on the american side.

but uh.. I don't think he had a whole lot of chemical weapons in the first place, if he did have them we wont find them.


Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Election time is comming up soon... we'll probably find them in the next few months wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Burzaruka, sometimes I'm really not sure what you are trying to say, like in the quote below. Because unless I'm very much mistaken, then the US did just that. They did blow up a mosque etc. etc.

Quote:
If the Western societies had responded the way that the terrorists like to make out that they did, they would be blowing up mosques. Calling in for an air strike when snipers hide in a mosque and start shooting at soldiers and inadvertantly the crowds around them.





If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:I have a video of a c-130 spectre gunboat circling a mosque being ordered to shell it with it's multitiude of heavy weapons, the crew basicly ask "are you sure?" twice, and it's confirmed both times, then they level it and shoot all life forms trying to escape it. I have no idea what intelligence they had, but I know it comes down to cowardice on the part of our leaders and nation. They could have sent men in on foot and vehicle to do a precise job, preserve the mosque and generally avoid inspiring pure hatred from the arab world, but the standing military policy seems to be that US/Colation soldiers lives are several times more valuable then the lives of anyone in the middle east, rather they be militant or not.





Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:A C 130 doesnt have a multitude of weapons, yes the Spectre is a gunboat of sorts, it holds two .50 cal machinguns, thats it. There is more firepower in a single squad than in one of those planes. Just for your clarification C stands for Cargo.

Cowerdace as part of our leaders, snipers and gunman often hide in mosques and no the military does not just blow mosques up at random. The only time they are shot at are when it is absolutly nessicary. Sending in men might have caused US soldiers to go home in body bags, if that is what you want then you have no heart.

Trucks and tanks were parked next to mosques during the war, they were destroyed with minimum damage to the mosque.

You are makeing a mountain out of a molehill.

Yes, from a commanders point of view, his or her men are far more important than any others, could you actually believe that it would be otherwise?


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:Quote:
A C 130 doesnt have a multitude of weapons, yes the Spectre is a gunboat of sorts, it holds two .50 cal machinguns, thats it. There is more firepower in a single squad than in one of those planes. Just for your clarification C stands for Cargo.




umm

do the american military actually pay you to disseminate misinformation on liberal websites?

if they don't you should go and start claiming back pay now... wink

"These heavily armed aircraft incorporate side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor, navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in adverse weather. The sensor suite consists of a television sensor, infrared sensor and radar. These sensors allow the gunship to visually or electronically identify friendly ground forces and targets any place, any time. The C130 employs synthetic apertures strike radar for long-range target detection and identification. The gunship's navigational devices include the inertial navigation systems and global positioning system. The C130 employs the latest technologies and can attack two targets simultaneously. It also has twice the munitions capacity of the AC-130H."

doesn't sound like less firepower than a squad to me...

cargo plane?


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:As I said, trolling...

wink

Josh


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Well... unlike some I am man enough to admit when I am wrong, so yes I was wrong about the armorment of the bird. Big deal, in the long run does it really matter what I say? You are taking one example and treating it as if it were the tactic used at the onset of every engagment. Josh may think I am trolling, but I say you are making a mountain out of an ant hill and that is a far worse thing to do.



Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:that's not what is happening at all here.



you said:



"If the Western societies had responded the way that the terrorists like to make out that they did, they would be blowing up mosques. Calling in for an air strike when snipers hide in a mosque and start shooting at soldiers and inadvertantly the crowds around them."



robotface gave an example of exactly that and you try and defend it with the 'fact' that 'it was a cargo plane silly! if they really did that, oh well, it must have been absolutely necessary if they just shot everyone'.



nowhere are we blowing this out of proportion and saying we think this happens every day or that the whole campaign is being fought on these terms.



robotface tried to highlight an incident you said does not happen.



you are trying to hide a mountain under a handerchief and that isn't gonna work.


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Dentrassi
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane

Total posts: 3044
Posted:regarding your response to my last post here....

i wasnt nesecarily meaning did you know anything about the muslim religion - more the context of the entire culture. its more complicated than just looking at the religious side.

the crusades were carried out in the name of christ, despite his teachings to the contrary. were they insane? in the context of the culture at the time, it was a rational thing to do. by our 21 century western moral standards, its horrific.

Quote:
It wasn't the western societies who tried to make this into a holy war



precisely. but the act of sending troops to a region with strong anti US sentiment, and a large number of people who would quite happily die to kill US troops because
-the US supports israel, who arent on the best terms with the arabic nations
-the US overthrew afghanistans conservative muslim taliban.
-starbuck is a US coffee chain [ok, maybe not...]
-and a mulittude of other reasons that some muslims & arabs despise the US.
-many in the region have a strong muslim faith, and some of the fanatics believe martyrdom = express ride to heaven.

surely it pretty obvious that its going to get turned into a holy war!

Quote:
Not only does it go against everything the Muslim religion stands for



i seem to remember a quote. something like - a religion is dictated by its current leaders rather than past martyrs.

hmmm that was leading onto a final point, but i seem to have lost track. oh well, back to work.

cheers.
cool


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Yes Coleman, I was proven wrong, but that is one instance, let us all try to keep things in context. I shall rephrase what I said;

It is not like the US goes out of its way to blow up every Mosque they find, it isnt like the US tries to harm what little is left of Iraqi culture, the idea of turning this into a holy war is foolish absurdaty because the only people crying out for a holy war are the ones getting spanked and they are doing as a desperate attempt to rally the arab world. It is interesting that it isn't quite getting the effect that they wanted.

I would also like to see this video, if you could post a link to where you found it or perhaps email it to me I would appreiciate it.

Quote:
-the US supports israel, who arent on the best terms with the arabic nations



The funny thing about your statment and the opinoin of Iraqis is,

"the first president of Israel, Chaim Wizmann, who in 1919 met with Emir Faisal, furture king of Iraq and son the the sharif of Mecca, and concluded an agreement that "all necessary measures hall be taken to ecourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a lagre scale." "

Iraq originally wanted and supported the jews. Isnt it crazy how times have changed. I wonder what Iraqis would think of that now days?

The point of this being, Isreal WAS supported by many arabic nations, they "made them rich" when it was founded. I wonder what happend to cause Egypt, Iraq, Iran Syria, Saudi Arabia and some smaller countries attack it in later years?

Oh another thing, Isreal was backed by the Brittish more than the US, up untill they were attacked. Then the US became their major supporter, supplying them with arms and military training, now Israel is has one of the worlds best air forces and the best pilots in the world.


Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:uh that was a leader of iraq in 1919 who wanted to support israel, Maybe you should read up on why iraq doesn't have a monarchy anymore.

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Yes that was my point Robotface, to show that at one point in time arab nations supported israel. Did you not read where I ponderd what changed?

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:Quote:
The point of this being, Isreal WAS supported by many arabic nations, they "made them rich" when it was founded. I wonder what happend to cause Egypt, Iraq, Iran Syria, Saudi Arabia and some smaller countries attack it in later years?



erm, what the six day war you mean?

the war that is causing all these problems now you mean?

the one in which the arab nations were attacked by israel, not the other way around?

yeah the one where israel attacked egypt, syria and jordan...

right yeah, that would be the same war in which israel took the disputed territories (sinai and the gaza strip were captured from egypt, east jerusalem and the west bank from jordan and golan heights from syria), right?

i think i know the one you're on about, the one that was followed by israel signing the camp david agreement with egypt which is why israel withdrew from sinai?

the second part of that agreement by the way, which dealt with autonomy for the palestinians on gaza strip and the west bank, has never been observed from the israeli side.


that should help you to stop wondering.


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Isreal did not fire the first shots, however it did do a massive preemptive strike. It was either that or face economic suffication and eventual total annialation, another holocaust.

The Peace Encyclopedia: The Six Day War

Quote:
Was Israel the agressor in 1967? Did Israel attack peacefull Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq on June 5, 1967 and wrestle the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the "West Bank" from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria?

THE 1967 WAR
In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957. On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.

The U.S. feared a major Arab-Israeli and superpower confrontation and asked Israel to delay military action pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal. In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action.

The U.S., however, gained little support in the international community for its idea of a maritime force that would compel Egypt to open the waterway and it abandoned its diplomatic efforts in this regard. On May 30, President Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact, followed on June 4 by a defense pact between Cairo and Baghdad. Also that week, Arab states began mobilizing their troops. Against this backdrop, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders intensified their anti-Israel rhetoric and repeatedly called for a war of total destruction against Israel.

Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.

Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10.

- Anti-Defamation League


Israel did indeed simultaneously attack Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq on June 5, 1967. It had little choice. For weeks leading up to that day, Israel's Arab enemies upped the temperature by amassing troops on the borders of the tiny Jewish state, while threatening murder and mayhem. Consider the following:
May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

June 10: Israel and its enemies accepted UN Security Council cease-fire demands. The war ended, leaving Israel in control of the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip. (The Sinai was returned to Egypt between 1978 and 1982, as part of an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.)


"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel ... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."
- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine

Israel's critics maintain that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops, too, were preparing for battle along the Golan Heights, 3000 feet above the Galilee, from which they had shelled Israel's farms and villages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:
"As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister, who proclaimed openly: "Our forces are now entirely ready...to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explodethe Zionist presence in the Arab homeland....The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map." On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Damascus regime's commitment to military final solutions for Israel has been described by Ahmed S. Khalidi and Hussein Agha as stemming from "...an apparently strong conviction that the struggle with Israel is no mere political or territorial dispute, but rather a clash of destinies affecting the fate and future of the Middle East." Moreover, Syria's approach to Israel, say Khalidi and Agha, remains "bound up with the view that force, whether active or passive, is the final arbiter of the conflict with Israel and the ultimate guarantor of any settlement in the area."

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as the Arabs [and anti-Zionists] continue to maintain? It hardly seems possible. The jurisprudential correctness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self-defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law. The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact. Israel could not have been expected to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in October 1973, when Egypt and Syria were preparing to launch yet another war of aggression against the Jewish State, her country almost paid for it with collective disappearance. And although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life. The Yom Kippur War produced 2326 deaths of Israeli soldiers, nearly ten thousand injuries and hundreds of prisoners. These costs to Israel were the direct results of A'man's (Military Intelligence Branch) failure to predict the Arab attack, a failure known in Israel's intelligence community as the Mechdal, a Hebrew term meaning "omission", "nonperformance" or "neglect".

- Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University


"The war is inevitable... The war is coming, though not immediately...The efforts and the agreements which are now taking place are not building peace; they are agreements leading to war."
- Amin al-Huweidi, the former Egyptian Minister of War and head of the General Intelligence


"In recent weeks, the Middle East has passed through a crisis whose shadows darkened the entire world. The crisis has many consequences, but only one cause. Israel's right to peace, security, sovereignty...indeed its very right to exist, has been forcibly denied and aggressively attacked."
- Abba Eban, in his statement to the UN following the Six Day War


In the months leading up to the 1967 Six Day War the airwaves in the Middle East and throughout the western world were crowded with threats that Israel was going to be driven into the sea, that Israel and all its citizens were going to be wiped off the face of the earth. The threats were accompanied by actions -- Egyptian President Nasser ordered the UN peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai Peninsula and replaced them with his own troops, the Gulf of Aqaba was blockaded to stop the majority of Israel's shipping, Syrian troops gathered on the western edge of the Golan Heights while border incidents and terrorist attacks against Israel increased. While many individuals and groups did speak up to draw attention to the real threat Israel faced, one group was conspicuously silent -- the Christian church.
- Dave Blewett, The National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI)


The only prerequisite to a solution of the Middle Eastern question in its entirety (including the situation of the refugees) remains the acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist. We have recently witnessed the spectacle of many nations of the world in effect denying only to Israel the prerogative of self-protection against terrorist harassment and openly avowed politicide. The war in the Middle East was the direct result of the illegal Egyptian blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and the announced intention of Arab leaders, with accompanying military measures, to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Yet Israel is now taking steps towards permanent peace and reconciliation, while all that most Arab leaders offer is a promise of revenge. Considerably after the cease-fire was effected the Iraqui chief of state spoke for Arabs everywhere in proclaiming that "the existence of Israel is in itself an aggression." No real hope is in sight for a negotiated settlement, either with the Arabs or through the almost completely futile United Nations organization. If the Israelis do not insist upon taking necessary steps on their own to ensure their rights as an independent people, they run the risk of death. We must avoid the wholly unsupported assumption that if Israel will only behave as others ask or demand, her detractors will become rational and want to be friends. The only thing that would appear capable of propitiating Arabs, communists and Christians who find the Israelis guilty of "aggression" would be for the latter to lie down and be slaughtered.
- by A. Roy and Alice Eckardt in "AGAIN, SILENCE IN THE CHURCHES", The Christian Century, August 2, 1967


"The American Council in Jerusalem came just before the [Six Day] war to evacuate all the Americans in the area..."
- Walid, a Palestinian Arab defector, indicating that the brewing war was common knowledge.
quoted from "Answering Islam"


"As my right honourable friend said yesterday, and I am paraphrasing his words, it is hard to imagine getting closer to catastrophe than in the way we seem to have been drifting in the last day or two. I, as have other Members of the House, have had some connection with this situation for a good many years - in fact, since I first went down to the United Nations at the end of the war when the state of Palestine was established by United Nations actions."

"So long as Israel's neighbours, or some of them, refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state, then we move from one crisis to another."

"Israel, of course, also has the basic obligation which I am sure she accepts, to live without provocation and threat to her neighbours and in accord with the UN decisions which gave her birth."

"I am perhaps repeating the obvious, but the danger point, is the situation in Sharm el Sheikh. The troops of the United Arab Republic now control this port in the Gulf of Aqaba. In 1957 we spent days and nights arguing about this particular aspect of the settlement which it was hoped would have been reached at least in accord with the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the ground they had conquered. They made it quite clear at the time that they visualized a package deal by which, in return for withdrawing from vital strategic points, and especially from Sharm el Sheikh, they would be protected against action from those areas, and particularly this point, which would prejudice and destroy their own national interest. They undoubtedly feel they have a commitment to that effect."

"We need not go into the legal situation. Perhaps it should be sent to the international Court of Justice for Judgement, but before the International Court of Justice could render a judgement many things would have to be done to avoid trouble, because the Gulf of Aqaba now is of vital importance to the existence of the State of Israel . From 90-92 percent of its oil goes past the Strait of Tiran and into the gulf to the port of Elath. That certainly is one very dangerous point."

"The second dangerous point is the Gaza Strip which has now been taken over by the Palestine Liberation Army, a part of the force of the United Arab Republic. This army is composed of men devoted-and fanatically and sincerely devoted -to what they believe to be the liberation of their homeland. They are there now in the Gaza strip with 300,000 Palestinian refugees. If there could a more explosive situation than that, I do not know what it could be."

"The third point is the Syrian border, which has been the scene of terrorist incidents and activities in recent weeks and which perhaps has been the occasion for the development of the recent crisis, which can explode at any minute."

"The fourth danger point is the possibility of excessive reaction or retaliation by land, water, or air against provocation or terrorist incidents."


- Canadian Prime Minister L.B. Pearson in the House of Commons, May 24/67


"...something should be done about the right of Israeli ships, which was exercised by all other ships until a day or so ago, to navigate the Suez Canal. There have been decisions by the Security Council of the UN affirming that right, but in practice, the affirmation has not meant very much to Israel."
- Canadian Prime Minister L.B. Pearson in the House of Commons, June 8/67


In 1967, Palestinian raiders from Syria increasingly put the lives of Jewish immigrants in danger. Encouraged by the U.S.S.R., Egypt, and its charismatic leader Gamal Nasser, was thought to have "expansionist" tendencies, and a desire to invade Israel. As 100,000 Egyptian troops massed on the Sinai, Israel took the only action available to prevent certain defeat...on June 5, 1967, they attacked. A brilliantly planned air attack destroyed almost the entire Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. By gaining air superiority, the Israelis were then able to maneuver their tank corps with impunity, not fearing Egyptian air attacks. A series of armored cavalry and tank task forces then advanced rapidly and surrounded or cut-off Egyptian defenders. Six days later, it turned into a rout, and the Israelis gained both territory and the respect of other military forces in the region.
- by Clark Staten, Emergency Response & Research Institute, Chicago, I





So you tell me, is it fair that Isreal still suffers this persicution? Clearly their entire country was threatend and their entire country feard for their lives, they simple took the opprotunity, the only one they had, and struck at their enimies and won against all odds.

I'm not sure what this all means to you Coleman, but to me it appears that there was little choice for Isreal, either bring war to their enimies or let their enimies bring war to them. The choice made saved countless lives, most would have been civilians... the ironic thing is that it is the civilians that are paying now. Atleast they are not all being wiped out.


Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:More evidence as to what happend with the 6 day war and how Isreal's was provoked into attacking.

Jewish Virtual Library: The Six Day War


Delete

bluecat


bluecat

geek, level 1
Location: everywhere

Total posts: 5300
Posted:just wanted to say:
offtopic(look at original thread title...)
wink

actually it has been very interesting reading this start to finish, and well worth the continuing digression.

personally i'm most intrigued by the lack of conclusion to all threads of arguement running through this topic.

it seems to go something like this:

arguement
counterarguement
arguement
pickuponsmalldetailstartnewarguement
return to top.

with no conclusion or at least terms of disagreement drawn for any of the sub-arguements.

just an observation cool

keep going tho, its riveting reading(esp the stuff on 6 days war, has made me go and look up some more info on that one. interestingly a few people say the arab militarisation was a result of israeli foreign policy for the preceding few years and i dont imagine this helped

Quote:
The Soviet Union, wanting to involve Egypt as a deterrent to an Israeli initiative against Syria, misinformed Nasser on May 13 that the Israelis were planning to attack Syria on May 17 and that they had already concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades on the Syrian border for this purpose. In response Nasser put his armed forces in a state of maximum alert, sent combat troops into Sinai, notified UN Secretary General U Thant of his decision "to terminate the existence of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) on United Arab Republic (UAR) soil and in the Gaza Strip," and announced the closure of the Strait of Tiran.


source: US library of congress

anyway.

happy debating biggrin
R


Holistic Spinner (I hope)

Delete

Burzaruka


enthusiast


Total posts: 233
Posted:Hrm, I can see your point, we all jump around a bit, but that is the fun of it. Conversations, be they debates or sweet nothings in a loved ones ear, rarely stay on one singuler topic and if you havnt been paying attention since the begining it is quite easy to get lost.

I agree it has been a lot of fun. I have learned a lot, though not enough to warrent a change of opinion, but I have learned a lot none the less. biggrin hehe


Delete

Page: 123

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [iraq terrorist] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > LONDON TERRORIST ATTACK- PLEASE CHECK IN IF YOU LIVE/ WORK IN LONDON [311 replies]
2. Forums > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven? [62 replies]
3. Forums > US to take Iraq out of OPEC? [2 replies]
4. Forums > Another death in Iraq [19 replies]
5. Forums > If you're happy and you know it... [7 replies]

     Show more..