Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Dean A. Markley wrote:
Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

How does that act of war improve matters?

By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
retaliation.

Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
War), it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
"resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier. The war
may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

Capturing a
prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
operations against Syria.

Their
only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
accordance with his rank.

Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
support of American colonies

Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
Stalin pretend innocense.

Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
Power).

What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
doesn't.

Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
it was in the context of a WAR?

Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Dean A. Markley wrote:
Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
How does that act of war improve matters?
By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
retaliation.

Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
War),

As Israel says if even one suspected terrorist it killed the civilians murders
do not count.

On or off duty, active or reserve or any military asset like buses are lawful
targets to be specific. Any Israeli city is a lawful target as no Israeli city
is neutral, unarmed and undefended. Read the posts of aspqrz if you want LEARN
the gory details.

it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
"resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier.

Occupation itself is the continuation of the act of war which lead to the
occupation so responding to the zionist animals is completely lawful and
reasonable. And The zionists wanted to be under constant attack when they
continued the occupation not to mention the criminal population transfers.

The war
may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

Israel is perfectly capable and likely to make the war active again but there
is no rational objection to Syria continuing the war ISRAEL started and never
ended.

Capturing a
prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
operations against Syria.

It has already has done that. Violating airspace is an act of war. Apparently
trying to provoke Israel to respond so izziehuggers like you can start lying by
claiming Israel was attacked by Syria as you have done since 1967.

Their
only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
accordance with his rank.

Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

Every one that has been requested.

Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
support of American colonies

Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

Dear late bloomer,

Israel and Syria have been at war since Israel started the 1967 war with Syria.

or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
Stalin pretend innocense.

Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
Power).

What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
doesn't.

And that is likely why Syria does not treat itself as the viction of Israeli
aggression which it has been since 1967.

Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

It is difficult to see where invaders from Europe have any moral position that
can be justified.

Losing patience sounds like such righteous indignation, sort of like the Mafia
losing patience with shopkeepers who refuse to pay protection.

You Zionists are MURDERERS. You Zionists went to Palestine with the openly
expressed intention to MURDER.

Yet you post as though you were other than the scum of the earth.

Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
it was in the context of a WAR?

Syria and Israel have been at war since Israel attacked Syria in 1967. What is
your point? Why do you keep telling me what I agree with? You Zionists can never
be trusted.

Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Not only is that the correct history but I got it from a background piece in
Ha'aretz when the issue of granting the Druze citizenship was a political issue.

--
The US media is indistinguishable from a state controlled media.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3641
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3