Israel Bombs Syrian Camp [Archive]

View Full Version : Israel Bombs Syrian Camp

Grantland

October 6th 03, 04:35 PM

(robert arndt) wrote:

>http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm
>
>Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
>Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
>guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
>the Jewish State?
>This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
>fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
>should take notes as they're next on the list...
>
>Rob

Are you nuts, Rob?

Grantland

robert arndt

October 6th 03, 05:05 PM

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm

Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
the Jewish State?
This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
should take notes as they're next on the list...

Rob

October 7th 03, 12:14 AM

robert arndt

October 7th 03, 06:10 AM

(Grantland) wrote in message >...
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm
> >
> >Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
> >Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
> >guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
> >the Jewish State?
> >This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> >fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> >should take notes as they're next on the list...
> >
> >Rob
>
> Are you nuts, Rob?
>
> Grantland

Not at all. Have you been reading the Jewish papers for the past year?
Israel has repeatedly warned Syria about financing terrorism in Israel
and smuggling weapons and IJ infiltrators into the country. Israel has
also stated publically that they will never allow the Iranian nuclear
program to go forward to the point where a bomb could be constructed.
Both the Iranian reactor and the other underground installations are
targets. The reactor can be hit from the air while covert Israeli
agents will sabotage the other elements of the program. Since we are
nearing that deadline, I'd side with Israel which has kept its
promises threat-wise to any hostile nation that dare present danger to
the Jewish State. And since the US supports Israel, I'd say that could
be interpreted as a greenlight by Sharon.
Sharon has already consulted with President Bush on the Iranian
nuclear program and the threat it is to Israel. The US is keeping up
the diplomatic pressure but militarily is bogged down in Iraq. Israel
is going to have to strike Iran alone. I doubt the US will restrain
them. They can live through UN/World condemnation. They've done it
before.
BTW, why the support for Syria? They are a true enemy of peace and
proven terror state. Israel should have hit Damascus as well...

Rob

Grantland

October 7th 03, 06:50 AM

(robert arndt) wrote:

(Grantland) wrote in message >...
>> (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> >http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm
>> >
>> >Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
>> >Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
>> >guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
>> >the Jewish State?
>> >This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
>> >fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
>> >should take notes as they're next on the list...
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Are you nuts, Rob?
>>
>> Grantland
>
>Not at all. Have you been reading the Jewish papers for the past year?
>Israel has repeatedly warned Syria about financing terrorism in Israel
>and smuggling weapons and IJ infiltrators into the country. Israel has
>also stated publically that they will never allow the Iranian nuclear
>program to go forward to the point where a bomb could be constructed.
>Both the Iranian reactor and the other underground installations are
>targets. The reactor can be hit from the air while covert Israeli
>agents will sabotage the other elements of the program. Since we are
>nearing that deadline, I'd side with Israel which has kept its
>promises threat-wise to any hostile nation that dare present danger to
>the Jewish State. And since the US supports Israel, I'd say that could
>be interpreted as a greenlight by Sharon.
>Sharon has already consulted with President Bush on the Iranian
>nuclear program and the threat it is to Israel. The US is keeping up
>the diplomatic pressure but militarily is bogged down in Iraq. Israel
>is going to have to strike Iran alone. I doubt the US will restrain
>them. They can live through UN/World condemnation. They've done it
>before.
>BTW, why the support for Syria? They are a true enemy of peace and
>proven terror state. Israel should have hit Damascus as well...
>
>Rob

Well I'm speechless. You don't suppose such reckless belligerence
might be characterized as "The neo-con/Zionist agenda of WWIII", do
you? or would that just be "In other words, you just hate Jews and
anyone who tolerates them."

'Different planet. Phew.

Grantland

Art Class

October 7th 03, 07:19 PM

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm
>
> Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
> Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
> guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
> the Jewish State?
> This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> should take notes as they're next on the list...
>
> Rob

Out of curiousity, what type of aircraft and weapons were used in this attack?

AC

robert arndt

October 7th 03, 07:42 PM

"TJ" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.h
> tm
> >
> > Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
> > Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
> > guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
> > the Jewish State?
> > This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> > fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> > should take notes as they're next on the list...
> >
> > Rob
>
> The Israeli aircraft did not penetrate Syrian airspace. The aircraft
> launched stand-off weapons from Lebanese airspace. It is believed that
> Popeye's were used in this strike.
>
> TJ

Please post source for that claim.

Rob

Kenneth Williams

October 7th 03, 08:09 PM

Tom Cooper

October 7th 03, 09:58 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm
>
> Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
> Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
> guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
> the Jewish State?

First of all, I would like to hear from you where have I said "I believe"
Israel would not attack any target in the region it - for whatever reasons -
considers worth an attack?

> This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> should take notes as they're next on the list...

Once again, Robert, you have proven how little you know and how shortsighted
you are. It is so endlessly naive - nothing short of stupid - to think that
this "impressed" anybody there - especially not in the way you whish it
would - in Damascus, in Amman, in Ryadh, in Hufuf, in Tehran, or in the last
Yemeni hamlet.

This raid, regardless the size, only once again confirmed to the Syrians
that Israel is an aggressor - like it always was in their eyes - and has
once again supported their own regime, which uses the situation with Israel
in order to drag the attention of its own people away from the problems it
causes. In that sence, it was nothing new: one can only once again
congratulate Sharon for helping all the Arab despots remain in power.

And so, you can only expect from them to do even more of whatever they can
to support whoever fights Israel: that includes support for the whole list
of terrorist organizations, which they consider as "freedom fighters". If
you think this has caused anybody - regardless if Syria or Iran - to fear
Israel,

you're dead wrong.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

October 7th 03, 11:47 PM

"Kenneth Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> "TJ" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> >
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.h
> > tm
> > >
> > > Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
> > > Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
> > > guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
> > > the Jewish State?
> > > This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> > > fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> > > should take notes as they're next on the list...
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > The Israeli aircraft did not penetrate Syrian airspace. The aircraft
> > launched stand-off weapons from Lebanese airspace. It is believed that
> > Popeye's were used in this strike.
> >
> > TJ
>
> Are you sure? IAF jets flew over Assad's summer palace in Latakia in
> August. They flew so low they broke out many of the palace windows. So
> why would the Israelis need a stand-off weapon when it is clear their
> AF can go anywhere in the region, anytime?
>
> It doesn't make sense and I have not read any use of the weapon you
> mention in the Jerusalem Post.
>
>
> Kenneth Williams

Just a theory of mine, but has proved to have been wrong. The Israeli's flew
out over the Med and back down through the north of Lebanon. The egress was
also back through Lebanon to the Med.

From news snippets:

"A senior Israeli military official said one person had apparently been
injured in the strike, in which one or two Israeli F-16 fighter jets dropped
two bombs, each at least 1,100 pounds, destroying two buildings at the camp,
called Ein Saheb."

"The council was convened at the request of Syria's Ambassador to the UN,
Fayssal Mekdad, who asked the council to discuss the "violations of Syrian
and Lebanese airspace committed by the Israeli air force"

TJ

Chad Irby

October 8th 03, 12:23 AM

In article >,
"Tom Cooper" > wrote:

> This raid, regardless the size, only once again confirmed to the Syrians
> that Israel is an aggressor - like it always was in their eyes - and has
> once again supported their own regime, which uses the situation with Israel
> in order to drag the attention of its own people away from the problems it
> causes. In that sence, it was nothing new: one can only once again
> congratulate Sharon for helping all the Arab despots remain in power.

On the other hand, whenever Israel blows up some terrorists, the level
of violence tends to go down over the next month or so, until the bad
guys blow up a school bus and blame it on "Israeli aggression."

The *best* anyone has had to say about the attack was that it "used to
be" a terrorist training camp...

Of course, when Arafat dies (very soon, apparently), the loonies are
going to blame the Israelis for, well, letting him get old or something.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tom Cooper

October 8th 03, 12:41 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
> > This raid, regardless the size, only once again confirmed to the Syrians
> > that Israel is an aggressor - like it always was in their eyes - and has
> > once again supported their own regime, which uses the situation with
Israel
> > in order to drag the attention of its own people away from the problems
it
> > causes. In that sence, it was nothing new: one can only once again
> > congratulate Sharon for helping all the Arab despots remain in power.
>
> On the other hand, whenever Israel blows up some terrorists, the level
> of violence tends to go down over the next month or so, until the bad
> guys blow up a school bus and blame it on "Israeli aggression."
>

Let me make something clear: the fact that I'm explaining how the Arabs see
such attacks (i.e. what all of those that contact me have said), means
neither that I'm supporting their terrorism, or anybody else's .

And, re Israeli attacks: to be honest, I don't care any more. They can do
whatever they want: nobody will stop them any way.

Perhaps it is really so that their "blowing things" functions. I'd say that
it is definitely so that if functions - for _limited periods of time_: the
problem is only that too many people - on both sides - were stating the same
like Robert or you already several millions of times, ever since 1929. So, I
guess, this "blowing things" doesn't function, and it could be so that
involved parties - as well as people like Robert - should meanwhile learn
from this fact, and try something else.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Chad Irby

October 8th 03, 03:39 AM

In article >,
"Tom Cooper" > wrote:

> Perhaps it is really so that their "blowing things" functions. I'd say that
> it is definitely so that if functions - for _limited periods of time_: the
> problem is only that too many people - on both sides - were stating the same
> like Robert or you already several millions of times, ever since 1929. So, I
> guess, this "blowing things" doesn't function, and it could be so that
> involved parties - as well as people like Robert - should meanwhile learn
> from this fact, and try something else.

The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a "roadmap"
that the bad guys have bragged about not following.

Note, for example, the lack of direct attacks on targets on American
soil in the last year or so. Following the "violence begets" theory,
there should be *dozens* of bombs and such happening here, instead of
the, well, none.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

robert arndt

October 8th 03, 03:48 AM

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/100603-syria.htm
> >
> > Way to go IAF! Undetected, on target, and unscathed. Who (besides Tom
> > Cooper) actually believes Israel doesn't have the will, ability, and
> > guts to attack any target in the region that threatens the security of
> > the Jewish State?
>
> First of all, I would like to hear from you where have I said "I believe"
> Israel would not attack any target in the region it - for whatever reasons -
> considers worth an attack?

You have said repeatedly that the IAF would not fare well against an
Osirak-type attack against the Iranian reactor and that Israel could
face massive retailiation in the form of IRBM attack in that event; in
essence, that Israel would be wise to reconsider such a move or would
not (under external pressure) make that move at all. You further make
exaggerated claims of Iran's abilities as if they mattered to Israel.
They don't. Israel's resolve has not diminished at all. I guess you
don't fully comprehend "never again".
>
> > This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> > fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> > should take notes as they're next on the list...
>
> Once again, Robert, you have proven how little you know and how shortsighted
> you are. It is so endlessly naive - nothing short of stupid - to think that
> this "impressed" anybody there - especially not in the way you whish it
> would - in Damascus, in Amman, in Ryadh, in Hufuf, in Tehran, or in the last
> Yemeni hamlet.

That's why the Arabs are calling an emergency meeting and there is
official condemnation by Syria which promises a response if not a
widening of war in the region. Btw, Syria and Iran had better take
notice since at any time Israel bombs could easily carry a nuclear
warhead instead of just explosives. Both Damascus and Tehran could be
so much ash after such a raid.
>
> This raid, regardless the size, only once again confirmed to the Syrians
> that Israel is an aggressor - like it always was in their eyes - and has
> once again supported their own regime, which uses the situation with Israel
> in order to drag the attention of its own people away from the problems it
> causes. In that sence, it was nothing new: one can only once again
> congratulate Sharon for helping all the Arab despots remain in power.
>
> And so, you can only expect from them to do even more of whatever they can
> to support whoever fights Israel: that includes support for the whole list
> of terrorist organizations, which they consider as "freedom fighters". If
> you think this has caused anybody - regardless if Syria or Iran - to fear
> Israel,
>
> you're dead wrong.
>
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Tom, read some history pal. Israel has fought 5 wars to preserve the
right of every Jew on earth to have a safe and secure homeland. Now
that Israel's hostile aggressor neighbors have failed to "push the
Jews into the sea" in war they now are trying to accomplish the same
politically with the "plight of the poor Palestinians" (aka modern
20th century arabs that migrated there from other arab lands when it
became clear the Jews were returning home). I guess you missed Yasser
& Company in their terrorist splendor that has run for decades; and, I
suppose you only listen to your pal Yasser when he chooses to speak to
the English press. Try listening in Arabic when he tells those who
follow him to "kill the Jew" wherever you find him or "sacrifice your
children" to kill a Jew.

Rob

Tom Cooper

October 8th 03, 08:00 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> You have said repeatedly that the IAF would not fare well against an
> Osirak-type attack against the Iranian reactor and that Israel could
> face massive retailiation in the form of IRBM attack in that event; in
> essence, that Israel would be wise to reconsider such a move or would
> not (under external pressure) make that move at all. You further make
> exaggerated claims of Iran's abilities as if they mattered to Israel.

It seems we'll have to repeat the exercise: where have I stated this?

> They don't. Israel's resolve has not diminished at all. I guess you
> don't fully comprehend "never again".

How about you citing me: where have I said this?

Shouldn't this really be a splendid opportunity for you: you cite where I
have stated anything as stupid as what you imagine I have, and I'll admit
I'm "wrong"?

Of course, if you can do so.

> > > This raid, although small, definately woke Syria up yesterday to the
> > > fact that state sponsored terrorism won't be ignored by Israel. Iran
> > > should take notes as they're next on the list...
> >
> > Once again, Robert, you have proven how little you know and how
shortsighted
> > you are. It is so endlessly naive - nothing short of stupid - to think
that
> > this "impressed" anybody there - especially not in the way you whish it
> > would - in Damascus, in Amman, in Ryadh, in Hufuf, in Tehran, or in the
last
> > Yemeni hamlet.
>
> That's why the Arabs are calling an emergency meeting and there is
> official condemnation by Syria which promises a response if not a
> widening of war in the region.

Well, when Israel attacks and bombs a target inside a country, that is an
act of a war, so, this is a "surprise" only for such like you. And while I'm
certain that you are sure they now conference new terrorist attacks against
Israel, I still can tell you that none of them is "trembling in fear"
because of that attack.

> Btw, Syria and Iran had better take
> notice since at any time Israel bombs could easily carry a nuclear
> warhead instead of just explosives. Both Damascus and Tehran could be
> so much ash after such a raid.

Why do you explain this to me? Why not posting this on soc.culture.arabic:
it is obvious your message is not reaching those you would like to reach.

Don't forget to use capital letters.

> Tom, read some history pal.
> Israel has fought 5 wars to preserve the
> right of every Jew on earth to have a safe and secure homeland.

This could be right. Frankly, the more wars Israel fought the less secure
this homeland became.

> Now
> that Israel's hostile aggressor neighbors have failed to "push the
> Jews into the sea" in war they now are trying to accomplish the same
> politically with the "plight of the poor Palestinians" (aka modern
> 20th century arabs that migrated there from other arab lands when it
> became clear the Jews were returning home). I guess you missed Yasser
> & Company in their terrorist splendor that has run for decades; and, I
> suppose you only listen to your pal Yasser when he chooses to speak to
> the English press.

Oh, I indeed have a lots of "pals": some live in Israel, others in
surrounding countries. One of them is even indeed named Yaser, but -
frankly - he never spoke to any kind of press. He's 20 and living in
Damascus: I can tell you he was not affraid, but mad about that attack. I
think he still is - not only because of that attack, but also because one of
his predecessors was murdered by the Israelis some 55 years back. Would you
like to ask him personally why is he so mad and is he now affraid of such
like you?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Tom Cooper

October 8th 03, 08:13 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...

> The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
> advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
> them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
> to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a "roadmap"
> that the bad guys have bragged about not following.

Aha, I see.

But, isn't it then actually very surprising to see they never get those you
call "the real bad guys"?

Could it be there is a mistake somewhere in that "roadmap"?

> Note, for example, the lack of direct attacks on targets on American
> soil in the last year or so. Following the "violence begets" theory,
> there should be *dozens* of bombs and such happening here, instead of
> the, well, none.

Chad, let me be honest to you:
I could now respond that in the eyes of the terrorists the situation is just
fine, because they now have the "infidels" right in front of their guns -
and on their own terrain, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, and elsewhere.

But, you know, what you explain here to me actually makes me laugh and
having only pure sarcasm in my mind when I want to answer.

I have a strong feeling you think you need to explain me "few things", as -
based on Robert's wet dreams - you think I don't know enough or don't
understand the situation there in the Middle East, or that I even kind of
support the terrorism against anybody - including Israel.

Now, I do not say I know "everything", far from this: I'd say I know barely
enough for general orientation. But, it is obvious that you don't have a
slightest clue about what I know nor what is my actual standpoint. So, if
you don't mind a kind suggestion from me: please, don't orientate on
Robert's arrogant attacks, and try to find out what I really think. There
are meanwhile more than enough of my posts on this NG, and also on the RAMN,
I guess it should not be a problem to find out.

At least do yourself a favour and don't make yourself look dumb by
orientating on Robert's arogant bashing.

Thanks in advance.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Chad Irby

October 8th 03, 04:42 PM

In article >,
"Tom Cooper" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
> > advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
> > them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
> > to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a "roadmap"
> > that the bad guys have bragged about not following.
>
> Aha, I see.
>
> But, isn't it then actually very surprising to see they never get those you
> call "the real bad guys"?

They've been killing quite a few of the head guys in Hamas, which pretty
much negates your sentence above. The funny thing about large terror
organizations is that the guys in charge don't like dying all that much,
while being very supportive of their footsoldiers dying for the cause.

Aggressively going after the training camps and organizers of groups
like Hamas *works*, as opposed to trying to negotiate with a bunch of
people who have sworn to kill all of the Jews.

> Could it be there is a mistake somewhere in that "roadmap"?

Yes, the mistake is in thinking that Hamas and other terrorist groups
would ever follow it. They have bragged repeatedly that they will not.

> Now, I do not say I know "everything", far from this: I'd say I know barely
> enough for general orientation. But, it is obvious that you don't have a
> slightest clue about what I know nor what is my actual standpoint.

I can only judge by what you say here, and you're saying things that
indicate that you think the Israelis are wrong in attacking terrorists
in countries that support and train them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tom Cooper

October 8th 03, 05:22 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
> > > advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
> > > them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
> > > to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a
"roadmap"
> > > that the bad guys have bragged about not following.
> >
> > Aha, I see.
> >
> > But, isn't it then actually very surprising to see they never get those
you
> > call "the real bad guys"?
>
> They've been killing quite a few of the head guys in Hamas, which pretty
> much negates your sentence above. The funny thing about large terror
> organizations is that the guys in charge don't like dying all that much,
> while being very supportive of their footsoldiers dying for the cause.

The funny thing here is that they're killing Hamas leaders since three
years. Somehow, Hamas is not running out of leaders so they have to continue
killing them.

Given how the situation developed so far I guess they could continue killing
Hamas or other leaders for the next 50 years and the method will not
function...

> Aggressively going after the training camps and organizers of groups
> like Hamas *works*, as opposed to trying to negotiate with a bunch of
> people who have sworn to kill all of the Jews.

See above.

> > Could it be there is a mistake somewhere in that "roadmap"?
>
> Yes, the mistake is in thinking that Hamas and other terrorist groups
> would ever follow it. They have bragged repeatedly that they will not.

So, the only conclusion here is that they will both continue blasting each
other until the hell freezes.

OK. Then let them do that. Just, why are you interpreting my conclusions and
explanations about what "the other" side in this case thinks about the
matter as a kind of a "support" for this side?

> > Now, I do not say I know "everything", far from this: I'd say I know
barely
> > enough for general orientation. But, it is obvious that you don't have a
> > slightest clue about what I know nor what is my actual standpoint.
>
> I can only judge by what you say here, and you're saying things that
> indicate that you think the Israelis are wrong in attacking terrorists
> in countries that support and train them.

No Chad,
that is your assumption, not something I said.

If you take a look above, I clearly stated that such attacks do not cause
fear - as explained by Robert - but only more hatred. That they don't have
anything like "effects" Robert was talking about on Iran on anybody else
either, and that consequently their effects are not what such like Robert
(and obviously you) expect would be.

So, I was not talking about anybody there being "right" or "wrong". Anything
of this kind is your own interpretation of the same quality like that of
Robert with which this whole thread was started.

Are you really so ignorant and shortsighted too?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Simon Robbins

October 8th 03, 09:27 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Tom, read some history pal.

^
Oh, sweet irony.

Si

Chad Irby

October 8th 03, 10:03 PM

"Tom Cooper" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
> >
> > They've been killing quite a few of the head guys in Hamas, which pretty
> > much negates your sentence above. The funny thing about large terror
> > organizations is that the guys in charge don't like dying all that much,
> > while being very supportive of their footsoldiers dying for the cause.
>
> The funny thing here is that they're killing Hamas leaders since three
> years. Somehow, Hamas is not running out of leaders so they have to continue
> killing them.

Actually, they laid off of the leaders while chasing that roadmap. It's
only in the last year or so that they've hit them again at all, and only
in the last few weeks that the Israelis got aggressive about it.
Overall, there are many less dead Israelis than in the years they were
chasing the "talk instead of fight" periods.

> Given how the situation developed so far I guess they could continue killing
> Hamas or other leaders for the next 50 years and the method will not
> function...

Bad guess. WIth that theory, we should have seen a massive increase in
attacks by Al-Qaeda over the last year or so (not against US targets,
and less against everyone else). and we would not have seen the lulls
that happened after the deaths of previous terrorists.

> > Aggressively going after the training camps and organizers of groups
> > like Hamas *works*, as opposed to trying to negotiate with a bunch of
> > people who have sworn to kill all of the Jews.
>
> See above.

I saw it. It's still wrong.

> So, the only conclusion here is that they will both continue blasting
> each other until the hell freezes.

Or until the Israelis take out enough of the Hamas leaders to slow down
their attacks, and scare the surrounding Arab governments a bit showing
that they can pretty much take out anyone they want. Note the recent
release of the map of Hamas targets in Syria (which Israel could hit at
pretty much any time).

> OK. Then let them do that. Just, why are you interpreting my
> conclusions and explanations about what "the other" side in this case
> thinks about the matter as a kind of a "support" for this side?

Because it reflects that point of view of the people who are supporting
the Hamas side in this. "Stop the Israelis from attacking and watch the
bombers catch up."

> > I can only judge by what you say here, and you're saying things that
> > indicate that you think the Israelis are wrong in attacking terrorists
> > in countries that support and train them.
>
> No Chad, that is your assumption, not something I said.

See your paragraph "Given how the situation..." above.

> If you take a look above, I clearly stated that such attacks do not cause
> fear - as explained by Robert - but only more hatred.

Except that they *do* inspire fear... among the actual targets of the
attacks. Kill or frighten the leaders and money men, and the attacks
slow or stop. This is how it has worked in the past, and there's no
reason to think it will change.

Someone bombs a bus, as part of a series of attacks. Israel kills some
Hamas leaders or blows up a bomb lab. Attacks stop for a month or more
while Hamas figures out who they can get to run things. Someone talks
the Israelis into talking instead of killing terrorist leaders.
Terrorist bombs a cafe.

What is needed is to keep up killing bad guys while talking to the
leadership, and make sure the leadership knows that they're next on the
list. The really interesting bit is going to be how the Palestinians
will start killing each other for the post-Arafat power grab...

> So, I was not talking about anybody there being "right" or "wrong".
> Anything of this kind is your own interpretation of the same quality
> like that of Robert with which this whole thread was started.

By arguing that a strategy will not work, you are arguing that it is
wrong. That is what the word "wrong" *means*. By claiming that a
strategy that *does* work is wrong, you're taking the side of the bad
guys.

> Are you really so ignorant and shortsighted too?

Nope, I'm actually comparing real past results with possible future
trends, instead of just hoping that things will magically change.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tom Cooper

October 8th 03, 11:16 PM

According to this splendid logic of yours (and I guess Robert will break in
tears agreeing with you the whole day and night if needed), Chad, there
should be no terrorist attacks against Israel already since the Beiruth
strike, in 1969, or even earlier strikes against Jordan. At the time the
Israel was also "showing it" to all the Arabs and all the terrorists that
they "can't escape". (The "long arm of") Israel has also "shown it" to the
terrorists in 1976, and then in 1982, and without respite ever since.

Hm, "strangely", somehow the tempo of terrorist attacks on Israel in the
last 30 years is actually increasing: while the attacks were sporadic -
measured on what is going on in the last three years - through the 1970s and
1980s, and even the first Intifada lasted "only" two years, you now have a
permanent engagement with Hizbollah and Hamas practically ever since 1982,
and the newest Intifada is already three years long.

Man, you guys must feel "confirmed by the history" beyond any doubts now...
no wonder Robert instructs me to "read history books"....

Oh, interesting were also your "1st Class" explanation about my "critique",
and then that comparission between the al-Qaida and the Palestinian
terrorists.

I must say I'm almost lacking words of response to these "powerful"
arguments: I find it amazing that it is a confirmation that I'm a
terrorist-supporter if I conclude something else but you, because this is
"critique", and critique is a crime and means support for terrorists?

I guess, as next I'll be declared for a Nazi...

That's is not funny any more: it is silly. :D

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

Chad Irby

October 9th 03, 12:52 AM

In article >,
"Tom Cooper" > wrote:

> According to this splendid logic of yours (and I guess Robert will break in
> tears agreeing with you the whole day and night if needed), Chad, there
> should be no terrorist attacks against Israel already since the Beiruth
> strike, in 1969, or even earlier strikes against Jordan. At the time the
> Israel was also "showing it" to all the Arabs and all the terrorists that
> they "can't escape". (The "long arm of") Israel has also "shown it" to the
> terrorists in 1976, and then in 1982, and without respite ever since.

....and taken huge breaks in between, when people like yourself convinced
tham that negotiation with people who prefer genocide is a Good Idea.

> Hm, "strangely", somehow the tempo of terrorist attacks on Israel in the
> last 30 years is actually increasing:

"Strangely," in the times when they stopped following up aggressively
and started negotiating with people who want to murder all of them.

What part of this do you not understand?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tom Cooper

October 9th 03, 01:03 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
> > According to this splendid logic of yours (and I guess Robert will break
in
> > tears agreeing with you the whole day and night if needed), Chad, there
> > should be no terrorist attacks against Israel already since the Beiruth
> > strike, in 1969, or even earlier strikes against Jordan. At the time the
> > Israel was also "showing it" to all the Arabs and all the terrorists
that
> > they "can't escape". (The "long arm of") Israel has also "shown it" to
the
> > terrorists in 1976, and then in 1982, and without respite ever since.
>
> ...and taken huge breaks in between, when people like yourself convinced
> tham that negotiation with people who prefer genocide is a Good Idea.

Oh, so: now it was me who is convincing Arabs that they should terrorize
Israel?

Buhuahahahaha!!!!

> > Hm, "strangely", somehow the tempo of terrorist attacks on Israel in the
> > last 30 years is actually increasing:
>
> "Strangely," in the times when they stopped following up aggressively
> and started negotiating with people who want to murder all of them.
>
> What part of this do you not understand?

Have they ever stopped attacking Israel? There was no peace even in the few
years after that agreement in 1992...

I have just explained you this in the previous post: perhaps a re-read
wouldn't hurt.... :D

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585