If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message om... http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/new...0603-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/t...hp/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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om... Tom, read some history pal. ^ Oh, sweet irony. Si |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East | Quant | Military Aviation | 164 | October 4th 03 04:33 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |
good book about prisoners of war | Jim Atkins | Military Aviation | 16 | August 1st 03 10:18 AM |